The Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas has ascertained the following rate ceilings by use of the formulas and methods described in 303.003, 303.009, and 304.003, Tex. Fin. Code.

The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.003 and Sec. 303.009 for the period of 02/25/02 - 03/03/02 is 18% for Consumer ¹ /Agricultural/Commercial ² /credit thru $250,000.

The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.003 and Sec. 303.009 for the period of 02/25/02 - 03/03/02 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.

The judgment ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 304.003 for the period of 03/01/02 - 03/31/02 is 10% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The judgment ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 304.003 for the period of 03/01/02 - 03/31/02 is 10% for Commercial over $250,000.

¹ Credit for personal, family or household use.

² Credit for business, commercial, investment or other similar purpose.

TRD-200201011

Leslie L. Pettijohn

Commissioner

Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Filed: February 20, 2002

East Texas Council of Governments

Solicitation for Individuals Interested in Serving as Independent Reviewers

Public Notice

This is a solicitation for individuals interested in serving as independent reviewers of proposals to be submitted to the East Texas Workforce Development Board for (1) Workforce Centers operations and (2) employment and training services offered through the Workforce Investment Act, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program, the Welfare -to-Work Program and the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program.

This review process requires that the panel of independent reviewers be on site at a location in the East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) region for a period of three to four days depending upon the number of proposals or the complexity of the procurement. ETCOG, administrative entity for the East Texas Workforce Development Area, will be responsible for engaging the services of the independent reviewers

The review of proposals is scheduled to occur on April 15, 16, and 17, 2002 . The ratings of the reviewers will be considered by the Workforce Centers Committee of the East Texas Workforce Development Board as they develop a recommendation for subcontract awards. Reviewers will be paid $450 per day, plus expenses. Reviewers will be paid $50 for reading the Request for Proposals (RFP) prior to arriving on-site. Also, depending on the number of proposals received, reviewers may be asked to read proposals prior to coming to East Texas for the formal review. Reviewers will be paid $100 per Proposal for reading each Proposal prior to arriving on-site.

Individuals interested in serving as Independent Reviewers should submit a resume, along with a cover letter indicating their availability on the proposed dates. Selection of the reviewers shall be based upon professional experience with and knowledge of employment and training programs and the ability to commit the time required to complete the review process. (Knowledge of Workforce Center operations is preferred.)

Submissions must be in writing and are due at 5:00 p.m. Central Time on March 13, 2002. Facsimile and e-mail submissions are acceptable. All correspondence should be sent to the attention of:

Gary Allen, Section Chief - Planning and Board Support East Texas Council of Governments 3800 Stone Road Kilgore, Texas 75662 Phone (903) 984-8641 Fax (903) 983-1440 E-mail gary.allen@twc.state.tx.us

Anyone having questions regarding this process should contact Wendell Holcombe, Director of Workforce Development Programs, or Gary Allen at the address listed above.

TRD-200201010

Glynn Knight

Executive Director

East Texas Council of Governments

Filed: February 19, 2002

Commission on State Emergency Communications

Distribution Percentages for Wireless Service Fee Revenue

Pursuant to 1 TAC §252.6 (concerning wireless service fee proportional distribution) and based upon feedback from wireless revenue recipients, the following will be incorporated into the proposed distribution schedule.

Attached is a proposed revised schedule of distribution percentages for the 9-1-1 Wireless Service Fee. This is a revision from the schedule of distribution percentages published in the September 28, 2001, issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 7623). Once adopted, these percentages will be used for distributions made through November 9, 2002. The population amounts were derived from the 2000 US Census information published by the Department of Rural Sociology at Texas A&M University.

The revisions were necessitated by the withdrawal of the City of Corpus Christi from the Coastal Bend Council of Governments regional 9-1-1 program. If the revised distribution chart is approved by the Commission, the City of Corpus Christi will receive a separate distribution. The only changes to the schedule are a reduction in Coastal Bend's percentage and the addition of the City of Corpus Christi as a recipient of wireless service fees. All other percentages remain the same.

If a jurisdiction wishes to change the schedule, it must show the change to itself and the change to another jurisdiction, the net affect of the two changes being zero on the total schedule. Changes must be coordinated between jurisdictions before requesting them from the Commission on State Emergency Communications (CSEC).

All changes to and comments on the schedule must be received by the CSEC by Monday, March 4, 2002. Once all changes have been incorporated in the schedule, it will be presented to the Commission for adoption at its next public meeting on March 8, 2002. Comments and changes can be sent to Brian P. Millington by email (brian.millington@csec.state.tx.us) or by fax (512) 305-6937, or to the following address: 333 Guadalupe Street, Suite 2-212 Austin, Texas 78701-3942.

Commission on State Emergency Communications

Filed: February 19, 2002

Texas Department of Health

Licensing Actions for Radioactive Materials

Texas Department of Health

Filed: February 20, 2002

Notice of Agreed Order on Healthsouth Diagnostic Center of Texas, L.P., dba Healthsouth Diagnostic Center

On January 28, 2002, the director of the Bureau of Radiation Control (bureau), Texas Department of Health, approved the settlement agreement between the bureau and Healthsouth Diagnostic Center of Texas, L.P., doing business as Healthsouth Diagnostic Center of Arlington (registrant-M00366) of Arlington. A total administrative penalty in the amount of $2,000 was assessed the registrant for violations of 25 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 289.

A copy of all relevant material is available for public inspection Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (except holidays). Contact Chrissie Toungate, Custodian of Records, Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3189, by calling (512) 834-6688, or by visiting the Exchange Building, 8407 Wall Street, Austin, Texas.

TRD-200201021

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: February 20, 2002

Notice of Intent to Revoke Certificates of Registration

Pursuant to 25 Texas Administrative Code §289.205, the Bureau of Radiation Control (bureau), Texas Department of Health (department), filed complaints against the following registrants: Doctors Hospital 1997 LP, Houston, R00585; Christine Walker, M.D., Forney, R02621; San Gabriel Clinic, Georgetown, R12402; First Care Medical Center, Carrollton, R16848; Sugar Land Orthopaedic Specialist, Sugar Land, R24072; San Antonio MFCA Limited Partnership, San Antonio, R24243; Ugarte Family Medical Clinic, Kingsville, R25120; Valley Clinic, San Antonio, R25576; Beamin Lasers-Todd W. Rogers, Phoenix, Arizona, Z01402; Latino American Dental, Houston, R21498; Mark D. Barnett, D.D.S., Addison, R20449; Bob J. Martin, D.D.S., Houston, R18798; Maynard B. Cook, D.D.S., Fort Worth, R16063; 1st Chiropractic Group, Conroe, R24537; Family Healthcare Chiropractic Center, PC, Cleburne, R20461; National X-Ray Services, Maple Plain, Minnesota, R24693; Multi Vendor Solutions, Inc., Grand Prairie, R24936; Addicks-Alief Foot Center, Houston, R14275; Major Drive Veterinary Clinic, Beaumont, R12482.

The complaints allege that these registrants have failed to pay required annual fees. The department intends to revoke the certificates of registration; order the registrants to cease and desist use of radiation machine(s); order the registrants to divest themselves of such equipment; and order the registrants to present evidence satisfactory to the bureau that they have complied with the orders and the provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 401. If the fee is paid within 30 days of the date of each complaint, the department will not issue an order.

This notice affords the opportunity to the registrants for a hearing to show cause why the certificates of registration should not be revoked. A written request for a hearing must be received by the bureau within 30 days from the date of service of the complaint to be valid. Such written request must be filed with Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control (Director, Radiation Control Program), 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3189. Should no request for a public hearing be timely filed or if the fee is not paid, the certificates of registration will be revoked at the end of the 30-day period of notice.

A copy of all relevant material is available for public inspection at the Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, Exchange Building, 8407 Wall Street, Austin, Texas, telephone (512) 834-6688, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (except holidays).

TRD-200201020

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: February 20, 2002

Notice of Intent to Revoke Radioactive Material Licenses

Pursuant to 25 Texas Administrative Code §289.205, the Bureau of Radiation Control (bureau), Texas Department of Health (department), filed complaints against the following licensees: GAF Materials Corporation, Dallas, L03811; Trinity Testing Laboratories, Inc., Laredo, L04190; Monitoring Services, Friendswood, L04501; Environmental Measurements Corporation, Fort Worth, L04583; Superior Testing Services, Pasadena, L05145; Cyvon Imaging, Inc., Dallas, L05320.

The complaints allege that these licensees have failed to pay required annual fees. The department intends to revoke the radioactive material licenses; order the licensees to cease and desist use of such radioactive materials; order the licensees to divest themselves of the radioactive material; and order the licensees to present evidence satisfactory to the bureau that they have complied with the orders and the provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 401. If the fee is paid within 30 days of the date of each complaint, the department will not issue an order.

This notice affords the opportunity to the licensees for a hearing to show cause why the radioactive material licenses should not be revoked. A written request for a hearing must be received by the bureau within 30 days from the date of service of the complaint to be valid. Such written request must be filed with Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control (Director, Radiation Control Program), 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3189. Should no request for a public hearing be timely filed or if the fee is not paid, the radioactive material licenses will be revoked at the end of the 30-day period of notice.

TRD-200201019

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: February 20, 2002

Notice of Preliminary Report for Assessment of Administrative Penalties and Notice of Violation on Barry Brooks, D.D.S.

Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Radiation Control (bureau), Texas Department of Health (department), issued a notice of violation and proposal to assess an administrative penalty to Barry Brooks, D.D.S. (registrant-R06642, revoked) of Jacksonville. A total penalty of $20,000 is proposed to be assessed to the registrant for the alleged violations of 25 Texas Administrative Code, §§289.205 and 289.232, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §401.063.

TRD-200201022

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: February 20, 2002

Notice of Request for Proposals for Shots Across Texas/The Boots Are Back II.

Purpose

The Texas Department of Health (department), Immunization Division announces the expected availability of federal funds for fiscal year 2002 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Section 317 Childhood Immunization Grant. This Request For Proposal (RFP) is to maintain, establish, and develop grassroots local immunization coalitions to promote and ensure accelerating interventions to the timely and appropriate immunization of children two years old and younger.

Availability of Funds

Funds provided by this RFP will be utilized in accordance with the CDC Grant-Immunization Cooperative Agreement. Up to four projects will be awarded at an amount not to exceed $25,000, based on a 12-month budget term. Funds awarded for less than a 12-month term will be prorated.

Description

Based on the compelling need to ensure that Texas children two years old and younger are fully immunized, communities should develop local projects that meet local needs and ensure the sustainability and maintenance of the momentum beyond availability of funds. The objectives are (1) to promote parental and community awareness on the importance of appropriate and timely immunizations while also encouraging vigilance of the medical community to ensure all children are up to date; and (2) to increase parental awareness and enrollment into the statewide immunization registry, ImmTrac. Doing so will improve the overall health status of both individual communities and the Texas community at large. Cooperation and collaboration in the utilization of community resources are absolutely necessary.

Eligibility

Eligible applicants are non-profit agencies and organizations. Individuals and Local Health Departments are not eligible to apply. Eligible applicants for this fund are coalitions and/or collaborations comprised of private, non-for-profit, public, and governmental entities dedicated to working cooperatively and collaboratively to increase the immunization rates of Texas children. At least one Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) organization must be a member of the coalition. A coalition is not required to be or become a legally incorporated organization in order to receive funding. As an alternative, a lead agency, which is incorporated, can be designated to accept funds on behalf of the coalition members. If the organization managing the funds is a not-for-profit, the organization must attach a copy of the organization's Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) tax-exempt status letter from the Internal Revenue Service, along with a list of the organization's Board of Directors, their addresses and occupations. Projects must be submitted by coalitions working on the local or regional level of the state. A coalition is an association of two or more agencies or organizations (although this does not imply a contractual relationship) committed to working together in a cooperative and collaborative effort towards agreed-upon objectives. Private partnerships (such as community based organizations working with local/regional health departments), and coalitions with strong minority - group involvement and or strong target audience representation, will be given preference in the competitive process. Project proposals should be culturally competent and linguistically specific. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure a well-balanced and regionally diversified spectrum of local immunization efforts.

Limitations

Funding for the selected proposals will depend upon available federal appropriations. The department reserves the right to cancel the RFP if it is deemed in the best interest of the department.

Authority

This project is authorized under 317 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b), as amended. Regulations governing the implementation of this legislation are covered under 42 CFR Part 51b, Subparts A and B and Health and Safety Code, Chapters 81 and 161.

Funding Criteria

The department will make awards based upon an equitable distribution of funds throughout the state and competitive scores of the applications. The following criteria will be used to evaluate the applications: geographic funding allocations, compliance with application instructions, evidence of cooperative and collaborative efforts, (private/ public groups), evidence of community support (letters, matching funds, in-kind support, etc), statement of the coalitions purpose and goals, clear description of proposed activities to be funded, reasonableness of budget, evidence that the coalition is not building a new and separate system, but is enhancing the capacity of the existing healthcare network and sustainability of the coalition. Funds may not be used for: purchase of vaccine, indirect costs, out of state travel, purchase of equipment, loans to individuals, and fund raising events, including the cost of food, beverages, and entertainment.

Deadlines

All proposals to be considered for funding through this RFP must be submitted to Vivian Harris, Outreach Coordinator, Texas Department of Health, Immunization Division, Room T-310; 1100 West 49th Street, Austin Texas 78756. Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Saving Time on March 29, 2002. Proposals received after this deadline, or via fax transmission, or E-mail will not be accepted.

Evaluation and Selection

An evaluation selection panel composed of community representatives and internal representatives designated by the department will rank and score the proposals. The evaluation will be based upon the criteria outlined in the RFP.

Obtaining RFP information

Shots Across Texas/The Boots are Back II RFP packets may be requested from Mrs. Vivian Harris, Outreach Coordinator, at the Texas Department of Health, Immunization Division, Room T-310, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin Texas 78756. Packets may also be requested by telephone by calling (512) 458-7284 or 1- 800-252-9152 or through our website: http://www.immunizetexas.com.

The RFP will not be available for distribution before March 1, 2002.

TRD-200201027

Susan Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: February 20, 2002

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Notice of Public Hearing - Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Eagle Glen Apartments) Series 2002

Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Issuer") at the Kingwood Branch Library, 4102 Rustic Woods Drive, Kingwood, Texas 77345 at 6 p.m. on March 18, 2002 with respect to an issue of tax-exempt multifamily residential rental project revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $13,500,000 and taxable bonds, if necessary, in an amount to be determined, to be issued in one or more series (the "Bonds"), by the Issuer. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to 276HOU Eagle Glen, Ltd., a limited partnership, or a related person or affiliate thereof (the "Borrower") to finance a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a multifamily housing project (the "Project") described as follows: a 276-unit multifamily residential rental development to be constructed on approximately 15.7 acres of land located at 19821 Kenswick Drive in the unincorporated area of Humble, Harris County, Texas 77338. The project will be initially owned and operated by the Borrower.

All interested parties are invited to attend such public hearing to express their views with respect to the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. Questions or requests for additional information may be directed to Robert Onion at the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, 507 Sabine, Austin, Texas 78701; (512) 475-3872 and/or ronion@tdhca.state.tx.us.

Persons who intend to appear at the hearing and express their views are invited to contact Robert Onion in writing in advance of the hearing. Any interested persons unable to attend the hearing may submit their views in writing to Robert Onion prior to the date scheduled for the hearing.

Individuals who require auxiliary aids in order to attend this meeting should contact Gina Esteves, ADA Responsible Employee, at (512) 475-3943 or Relay Texas at 1 (800) 735-2989 at least two days before the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

TRD-200201024

Ruth Cedillo

Acting Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: February 20, 2002

Texas Department of Human Services

Open Solicitation for Armstrong County

Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and 40 TAC §19.2324, the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the date of this public notice, for Armstrong County, County #006 . Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates in Armstrong County exceed the threshold (90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous period of June 2001 through November 2001 . The county occupancy rates for each month of that period were: 92.1%, 90.8%, 91.4%, 92.9%, 95.0%, 92.7% . Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds, which are currently licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified in this public notice must demonstrate a history of quality of care, as specified in §19.2322(d) of this title (relating to Allocation, Reallocation, and Decertification Requirements). Potential contractors must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC §19.2324) to DHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section, Long Term Care- Regulatory, Mail Code E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by DHS before the close of business April 1, 2002, the published ending date of the open solicitation period. DHS allocates certified beds equally among qualified NFOs until the occupancy rate is reduced to less than 90%. When there are insufficient available beds after the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less than 90%, DHS will place a public notice in the Texas Register announcing an additional open solicitation period for potential contractors wishing to construct a nursing facility or an addition to an existing nursing facility.

TRD-200201013

Paul Leche

General Counsel, Legal Services

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: February 20, 2002

Open Solicitation for Carson County

Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and 40 TAC §19.2324, the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the date of this public notice, for Carson County, County #033 . Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates in Carson County exceed the threshold (90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous period of June 2000 through December 2000 . The county occupancy rates for each month of that period were: 93.9%, 98.6%, 98.2%, 98.6%, 100.0%, 100.0% . Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds, which are currently licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified in this public notice must demonstrate a history of quality of care, as specified in §19.2322(d) of this title (relating to Allocation, Reallocation, and Decertification Requirements). Potential contractors must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC §19.2324) to DHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section, Long Term Care- Regulatory, Mail Code E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by DHS before the close of business April 1, 2002, the published ending date of the open solicitation period. DHS allocates certified beds equally among qualified NFOs until the occupancy rate is reduced to less than 90%. When there are insufficient available beds after the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less than 90%, DHS will place a public notice in the Texas Register announcing an additional open solicitation period for potential contractors wishing to construct a nursing facility or an addition to an existing nursing facility.

TRD-200201014

Paul Leche

General Counsel, Legal Services

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: February 20, 2002

Open Solicitation for Crane County

Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and 40 TAC §19.2324, the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the date of this public notice, for Crane County, County #052 . Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates in Crane County exceed the threshold (90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous period of April 2001 through September 2001 . The county occupancy rates for each month of that period were: 95.2%, 96.1%, 95.3%, 92.3%, 93.9%, 95.2% . Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds, which are currently licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified in this public notice must demonstrate a history of quality of care, as specified in §19.2322(d) of this title (relating to Allocation, Reallocation, and Decertification Requirements). Potential contractors must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC §19.2324) to DHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section, Long Term Care- Regulatory, Mail Code E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by DHS before the close of business April 1, 2002, the published ending date of the open solicitation period. DHS allocates certified beds equally among qualified NFOs until the occupancy rate is reduced to less than 90%. When there are insufficient available beds after the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less than 90%, DHS will place a public notice in the Texas Register announcing an additional open solicitation period for potential contractors wishing to construct a nursing facility or an addition to an existing nursing facility.

TRD-200201015

Paul Leche

General Counsel, Legal Services

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: February 20, 2002

Open Solicitation for Newton County

Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and 40 TAC §19.2324, the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the date of this public notice, for Newton County, County #176 . Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates in Newton County exceed the threshold (90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous period of June 2001 through November 2001 . The county occupancy rates for each month of that period were: 90.4%, 94.2%, 98.8%, 98.9%, 99.2%, 96.0% . Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds, which are currently licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified in this public notice must demonstrate a history of quality of care, as specified in §19.2322(d) of this title (relating to Allocation, Reallocation, and Decertification Requirements). Potential contractors must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC §19.2324) to DHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section, Long Term Care- Regulatory, Mail Code E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by DHS before the close of business April 1, 2002, the published ending date of the open solicitation period. DHS allocates certified beds equally among qualified NFOs until the occupancy rate is reduced to less than 90%. When there are insufficient available beds after the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less than 90%, DHS will place a public notice in the Texas Register announcing an additional open solicitation period for potential contractors wishing to construct a nursing facility or an addition to an existing nursing facility.

TRD-200201016

Paul Leche

General Counsel, Legal Services

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: February 20, 2002

Open Solicitation for Schleicher County

Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and 40 TAC §19.2324, the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the date of this public notice, for Schleicher County, County #207 . Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates in Schleicher County exceed the threshold (90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous period of January 2001 through June 2001 . The county occupancy rates for each month of that period were: 90.5%, 92.8%, 93.8%, 93.6%, 94.0%, 96.2% . Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds, which are currently licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified in this public notice must demonstrate a history of quality of care, as specified in §19.2322(d) of this title (relating to Allocation, Reallocation, and Decertification Requirements). Potential contractors must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC §19.2324) to DHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section, Long Term Care- Regulatory, Mail Code E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by DHS before the close of business April 1, 2002, the published ending date of the open solicitation period. DHS allocates certified beds equally among qualified NFOs until the occupancy rate is reduced to less than 90%. When there are insufficient available beds after the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less than 90%, DHS will place a public notice in the Texas Register announcing an additional open solicitation period for potential contractors wishing to construct a nursing facility or an addition to an existing nursing facility.

TRD-200201017

Paul Leche

General Counsel, Legal Services

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: February 20, 2002

Open Solicitation for Sherman County

Pursuant to Title 2, Chapters 22 and 32, of the Human Resources Code and 40 TAC §19.2324, the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) is announcing an open solicitation period of 30 days, effective the date of this public notice, for Sherman County, County #211 . Medicaid contracted nursing facility occupancy rates in Sherman County exceed the threshold (90% occupancy) in each of six months in the continuous period of June 2001 through November 2001 . The county occupancy rates for each month of that period were: 93.6%, 96.3%, 95.9%, 96.4%, 98.6%, 99.4% . Potential contractors seeking to contract for existing beds, which are currently licensed as nursing home beds or hospital beds in the counties identified in this public notice must demonstrate a history of quality of care, as specified in §19.2322(d) of this title (relating to Allocation, Reallocation, and Decertification Requirements). Potential contractors must submit a written reply (as described in 40 TAC §19.2324) to DHS, to Joe D. Armstrong, Facility Enrollment Section, Long Term Care- Regulatory, Mail Code E-342, Post Office Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030. The written reply must be received by DHS before the close of business April 1, 2002, the published ending date of the open solicitation period. DHS allocates certified beds equally among qualified NFOs until the occupancy rate is reduced to less than 90%. When there are insufficient available beds after the primary selection to reduce occupancy rates to less than 90%, DHS will place a public notice in the Texas Register announcing an additional open solicitation period for potential contractors wishing to construct a nursing facility or an addition to an existing nursing facility.

TRD-200201018

Paul Leche

General Counsel, Legal Services

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: February 20, 2002

Texas Department of Insurance

Notice

The Commissioner of Insurance, or his designee, will consider approval of a rate filing request submitted by The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut proposing to use rates for private passenger automobile insurance that are outside the upper or lower limits of the flexibility band promulgated by the Commissioner of Insurance, pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art 5.101 §3(g). The Company is requesting the following flex percentage of +45 for Liability and Physical Damage coverages, by territory, under all classes. The overall rate change is +11.5%.

Copies of the filing may be obtained by contacting Judy Deaver, at the Texas Department of Insurance, Automobile/Homeowners Division, P.O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas 78714-9104, telephone (512) 322-3478.

This filing is subject to Department approval without a hearing unless a properly filed objection, pursuant to art. 5.101 §3(h), is made with the Chief Actuary for P&C, Mr. Phil Presley, at the Texas Department of Insurance, MC 105-5F, P.O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas 78701 by March 15, 2002.

TRD-200200990

Lynda H. Nesenholtz

General Counsel and Chief Clerk

Texas Department of Insurance

Filed: February 15, 2002

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Air Quality Standard Permit for Temporary Rock Crushers

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) is issuing an air quality standard permit for rock crushers (RCs). The new air quality standard permit became effective February 14, 2002, and authorizes certain RCs installed on or after February 14, 2002. This standard permit is applicable to temporarily-sited RCs that process nonmetallic minerals or a combination of nonmetallic minerals and have a feed hopper throughput that is equal to or less than 250 tons per hour (tph). Copies of the standard permit for temporary RCs may be obtained from the TNRCC website at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/airperm/nsr_permits/athrize.htm#603stdpmt or by contacting the TNRCC - Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration, Air Permits Division at (512) 239-1240.

OVERVIEW OF AIR QUALITY STANDARD PERMIT

Based on the results of a protectiveness review, the commission is issuing a standard permit for RCs under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.05195 and 30 Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) Chapter 116, Subchapter F, Standard Permits. The commission currently authorizes RCs under the conditions of 30 TAC Chapter 106, Permits by Rule (PBR), or under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification. The development of this standard permit is consistent with the desire of the commission to simplify its regulatory structure and provide a standard permit as an alternative authorization to authorization by the existing PBR. The general public often expresses concern with RC registration applications. These objections often include traffic safety, noise, appearance, and property values. These concerns are beyond the commission's jurisdiction to address. The general public also expresses concerns over nuisance dust, ambient air quality, and potential negative health impacts and these issues are the focus of the RC protectiveness review and the proposed conditions of the standard permit.

The commission is including requirements to minimize dust emissions, property line distance limitations, opacity and visible emission limitations based on computer dispersion modeling, impacts analysis, and plant observations performed to verify the protectiveness of the standard permit. The commission has concluded research which shows that the standard permit for RCs is protective of the public health and welfare and that facilities which operate under the conditions specified will comply with TNRCC regulations.

The standard permit is designed to authorize RCs that are portable and, based on business needs, move to various sites. However, it is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism for all possible unit configurations or for unusual operating scenarios. Those facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for an air quality permit under 30 TAC §116.111, General Application or a PBR under 30 TAC §106.142.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIOD

In accordance with 30 TAC §116.603, the TNRCC published notice of the proposed standard permit in the November 30, 2001 issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 9978) and newspapers of the largest general circulation in the following metropolitan areas: Amarillo; Austin; Corpus Christi; Dallas; El Paso; Houston; Lower Rio Grande Valley; Lubbock; Permian Basin; San Antonio; and Tyler. The date for publication in Amarillo; Austin; Corpus Christi; Dallas; El Paso; Houston; Lubbock; Permian Basin; San Antonio; and Tyler was November 30, 2001 and the date for publication in the Lower Rio Grande Valley was December 4, 2001. The comment period closed on January 3, 2002.

COMMENTS REQUESTED

In addition to general comments concerning the standard permit for temporary RCs with a throughput of less than 250 tph, the commission solicited, in particular, comments regarding the concept of a standard permit for permanent RCs.

PUBLIC MEETINGS

Public meetings on the proposal were held on the following dates at the stated times and locations: January 3, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., TNRCC, Building C, Room 131E, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas; January 3, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., City of Arlington Council Chambers Municipal Building, 101 West Abram Street, Arlington, Texas; January 3, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., City of Houston Pollution Control Auditorium, 7411 Park Place Boulevard, Houston, Texas. Oral comments were provided by the following: Representative Al Edwards; Representative Ron Wilson; a representative for Representative Bill Callegari; Texas Pipe and Supply (TPS); Trinity Materials/Transit Mix (TM); Big City Crushed Concrete (BCCC); Recycled Materials (RM); representatives of the Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs (SCCC); representatives of the Sunnyside Civic Club (SCC); representatives of Residents for a Better Community (RBC); a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); and three private citizens not affiliated with any of the previously mentioned organizations.

Written comments were submitted by the following: Representative Bill Callegari; Associated General Contractors of Texas (AGC); Bland/Shroeder/Archer, LP (BSA); CSA Materials, Inc. (CSA); Jenkins and Gilchrist on behalf of TXI (TXI); Recycled Materials (RM); S.H. Tolliver Company (SHTC); Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association (TACA); Westward Environmental, Inc. (WE); Frederick-Law (FL); representatives of the SCCC; and four private citizens not affiliated with any of the previously mentioned organizations.

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS

General Comments

The commission received both positive and negative comments on the concept of a Tier III or permanent RC standard permit. Comments on the Tier III concept were solicited in order to assist in the possible development of a Tier III standard permit. The commission will continue to consider the option of a Tier III standard permit. As part of determining whether to develop a Tier III standard permit, the commission will seek additional stakeholder input. Until the commission approves a Tier III type of standard permit for RCs, the RC PBR authorized in 30 TAC §106.142 will remain in effect.

The commission also received comments which mentioned a Southern Crushed facility. Responses to timely filed comments about that facility were provided in the Executive Director's Responses to Public Comments at the beginning of January 2002. Therefore, comments about Southern Crushed will not be addressed in this response to comments on the proposed RC standard permit.

Representative Bill Callegari, Representative Al Edwards, Representative Ron Wilson, TPS, and several private citizens commented that it is important to give public notice to residents of the surrounding area when a RC is located at a specific site.

The development of a standard permit includes a comprehensive evaluation of emission controls and operating conditions for a large group of very similar facilities. Because of the similarity of emissions and operating scenarios of RCs, the commission can develop a set of emission controls and operating conditions that will apply to all individual facilities and meet the intent of the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). The emission controls, operating conditions, and worst-case impacts are subject to a technology requirements review that will determine whether or not the conditions of the permit are sufficient to protect public health and welfare. For example the RC standard permit review shows that Tier I would have a maximum particulate matter (PM) emission rate of 0.048 tons per year (tpy) and that Tier II would have a maximum PM emission rate of 0.672 tpy. In this standard permit the commission has also placed limits on the hours of operation, time allowed on site, amount of ancillary equipment, and types of emission controls that may exceed those in a regular permit.

THSC, §382.05195(b) requires that the commission publish newspaper notice of a proposed standard permit. Notice of this proposed standard permit was published in 11 newspapers and the Texas Register . Additionally, THSC, §382.05195(c) requires the commission to publish notice of, and provide a public meeting to take additional public comment on, a proposed standard permit. Three public meetings were held in Houston, Arlington, and Austin to take comments on this standard permit. A protectiveness review was performed and the commission solicited public comment on the conditions for authorization during the review of a standard permit. This standard permit has undergone a detailed protectiveness review and public comments have been considered and responses will be published in the Texas Register . Only after the public participation period is concluded and any comments have been considered may the commission approve the standard permit.

Representative Al Edwards, SCCC, RBC, TPS, and private citizens commented that there needs to be more monitoring of rock and concrete crushing sites.

The commission does not typically conduct case-by-case monitoring at all specific sites. Modeling is the accepted alternative per guidance and policy of both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and TNRCC and can simulate multiple worst-case atmospheric conditions that would not be possible with monitoring. Additionally, the models rely on emission factors that are highly conservative (worst-case) and is based on actual monitoring data developed by the EPA. In this instance, worst-case modeling indicated that these temporary facilities would meet all applicable TNRCC rules. Specifically, these operations were compared to the one-hour and three-hour 30 TAC Chapter 111 PM standard and the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 24-hour and annual standard for particulate matter with a particle size of less than ten microns (PM ₁₀ ). Additionally, modeling provides a mechanism for predicting any off-property impacts prior to an actual facility being constructed at a given location. Monitoring is typically a post construction tool to assist the agency in determining continued compliance with commission regulations.

A private citizen commented that the air quality in Houston is not good and requested a moratorium on any further permits for RCs.

The Houston/Galveston area has been designated nonattainment for the air pollutant ozone. This ozone nonattainment area is classified as Severe-17 under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) Amendments of 1990 and therefore is required to attain the one-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) by November 15, 2007. The state has developed a state implementation plan which details strategies and mechanisms by which it will reduce air pollution.

This standard permit will authorize sources that emit PM ₁₀ . These sources do not emit ozone. The standard permit was evaluated against the NAAQS for PM ₁₀ on 24-hour and annual bases. These PM standards were developed to ensure protection of public health and welfare. The standard permit did not significantly impact either of these federal requirements; therefore, the commission does not anticipate that the use of this standard permit is likely to adversely impact the air quality in the Houston area or anywhere in the State of Texas.

Representative Bill Callegari, Representative Al Edwards, Representative Ron Wilson, NAACP, and RBC commented that no specific neighborhood should be targeted because of its economic or racial composition as a viable location for RCs and that RCs should not be concentrated in one general area. In addition, Representative Al Edwards, Representative Ron Wilson, NAACP, SCCC, and numerous private citizens commented that there were too many concrete crushers in the Sunnyside area.

The commission does not have statutory authority for restricting the placement of facilities based on land-use issues. However, the commission can ensure that these facilities do not contribute to adverse health impacts due to air pollution and believes that the controls, limits, and restrictions in this standard permit achieve that goal. Additionally, the new THSC, §382.065 prohibits the location of this type of facility within 440 yards of a building used as a single or multifamily residence, school, or place of worship. The TNRCC has no guidance addressing how environmental equity is to be considered in the permitting process. Air quality permits evaluated by the agency are reviewed without any particular knowledge of, or reference to, the socioeconomic or racial status of the surrounding community. Although there are no TNRCC rules addressing environmental equity issues such as the location of permitted facilities in areas with minority and low-income populations, disparate exposures of pollutants to minority and low- income populations, or the disparate economic, environmental, and health effects on minority and low-income populations, the TNRCC has made a strong policy commitment to address environmental equity by creating an environmental equity program within the Office of Public Assistance. This program works to help citizens and neighborhood groups participate in the regulatory process, to ensure that agency programs that substantially affect human health or the environment operate without discrimination, and to make sure that citizens' concerns are considered thoroughly and handled in a way that is fair to all. The Office of Public Assistance can be reached at 1-800-687-4040 for further information.

A private citizen suggested enclosing the RC and associated equipment in a building and Representative Al Edwards stated that such an enclosure should be seriously considered.

After detailed analysis including refined air dispersion modeling, the commission believes that the controls, such as spray bars, screen enclosures, and conveyor covers, and best management practices, such as watering roads and stockpiles, in this standard permit ensure that emissions meet the property line standards and NAAQS for PM and are thus protective of public health and welfare. Additional controls such as a complete enclosure are not required to reduce emissions below the previously stated standards. Additionally, these types of requirements are technically impractical and economically unreasonable given the temporary nature of the types of facilities that are authorized by this standard permit.

RCCC and several private citizens commented that the dust from RCs will cause adverse health effects.

The standard permit underwent a detailed protectiveness review and the permit provisions were developed to prevent any adverse health effects associated with the air emissions from temporary RCs. Assuming the RCs authorized by this standard permit operate according to the provisions of the permit, the commission would not expect adverse health effects to result from exposure to authorized emissions.

SCCC, SCC, and private citizens commented that they are opposed to the RC standard permit.

The commission acknowledges the opposition to the proposed standard permit but believes the standard permit is protective and is a practical method to authorize operations of this nature.

SCCC, TPS, and private citizens commented that the concentration of concrete crushers in the neighborhood lowered property values. A private citizen also stated that the diminished quality of life, due to air pollution, lowered the City of Houston's bond rating.

The commission has no statutory authority for consideration of the effect of this standard permit on property values or other land use issues. Similarly, the commission has no statutory authority to consider a city's bond rating in the process of approving a standard permit or approving individual authorizations. Moreover, THSC, §382.065, as passed by the 77th Legislature as a part of House Bill 2912, prohibits the location or operation of a concrete crushing facility within 440 yards of a building used as a single or multifamily residence, school, or place of worship.

BCCC stated that the concrete crushing industry has developed differently in Dallas because of the more stringent land-use regulations and suggested that regional or local entities should have the authority to approve concrete crusher sites.

Land-use planning and zoning are handled by local jurisdictions such as cities. TNRCC has no authority to consider land-use planning in the development of the standard permit. Nor does TNRCC's authorization of a facility supercede local authority to restrict or limit land use.

Facility is defined as a discrete or identifiable structure, device, item, equipment, or enclosure that constitutes or contains a stationary source, including appurtenances other than emission control equipment (THSC, §382.003(6), 30 TAC §116.10(4)). 30 TAC §116.110 states that new facilities or facilities being modified are subject to the requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 116. RCs, even though portable, are considered to be stationary sources because they are fixed (do not move) while operating. A RC, regardless of size, is a facility and is therefore subject to 30 TAC Chapter 116 or 106 authorization requirements. Other types of construction equipment that are considered mobile sources do not fit this definition and are not subject 30 TAC Chapter 116 permitting requirements.

CSA commented that the location, production, emissions, and equipment requirements of the proposed standard permit for RCs are not practical, necessary, or economically feasible for most RCs operating in rural areas. RCs in rural areas are often located miles from the nearest receptor and requirements based on crowded urban areas will adversely affect RCs operating in rural areas of the state and some RCs may be forced to shut down. BSA and CSA commented that if aggregate cannot be crushed on site then the aggregate must be hauled to the site with resultant increases in air pollution from trucks and wear on roads and highways.

The standard permit is designed to allow for authorization of RCs that are portable and, based on business needs, move to various sites. However, it is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism for all possible unit configurations or operating scenarios. Those facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for an air quality permit under 30 TAC §116.111 or a PBR under 30 TAC §106.142. The property line limit of the standard permit is used in lieu of off-property receptor limitations as required by a case-by- case permit review to ensure that the operating facility is in compliance with all TNRCC rules and regulations.

AGC, CSA, TACA, WE, and TXI objected to or expressed concern about eliminating the PBR for rock crushing (30 TAC §106.142).

Based upon these comments, the commission amended the proposed standard permit to allow use of the PBR for RCs (30 TAC §106.142).

TXI and RM requested an extension of the comment period. TXI was also concerned about the lack of stakeholder involvement and AGC requested a formal stakeholder meeting.

The commission provided several opportunities for public comment. The proposed RC standard permit was made available on the commission's public website and was published in the Texas Register on November 30, 2001. Comments were accepted during the formal comment period and at three public hearings. The three public hearings were conducted in various areas of the state (Houston, Austin, and Arlington) on January 3, 2002. Therefore, the commission is not extending the comment period nor holding a formal stakeholder meeting.

FL requested an explanation of the 40% reduction in modeled impacts to account for meander of the plume. FL stated that because the five-year meteorological data are already one-hour averages of wind speed and direction aggregated from much more short-term readings, plume meander would have been accounted for in the model data.

The meteorological data for input into the industrial source complex (ISC) model is based on National Weather Service (NWS) observations. These observations take place once per hour and are not one-hour averages. The NWS records wind speeds to the nearest knot and wind direction to the nearest ten degrees of angle.

The ISC model accounts for variations in the wind speed and direction during a modeled hour by use of dispersion coefficients. These coefficients are partially based on a set of field studies. The dispersion coefficients resulting from the field studies were based on averaging times much less than one hour, as short as three minutes. The ISC model has incorporated these dispersion coefficient values for one-hour periods by use of the assumption that each three-minute period is the same as the next. This assumption would lead to gross overestimation of predicted concentrations.

The TNRCC has recognized the disparity in dispersion coefficients for some time, and has decided to mitigate overly conservative model results. To do so, a conversion from three-minute averages to one-hour averages was performed. The use of this conversion from one averaging time to another results in the 40% reduction of one-hour predictions.

The TNRCC modeling staff are applying this factor only to low-level intermittent fugitive sources (sources with little or no vertical momentum or buoyancy) at this time.

FL commented that the 1996 protectiveness review of the RC PBR found that it was not protective of the public without a 1/4-mile buffer from the property lines.

The 1996 protectiveness review determined that a distance of 1/4 mile from the facility rather than the required distance of 1/2 mile as listed in the current 30 TAC §106.142 would be acceptable to meet 30 TAC §111.155 standards. Though the 1996 protectiveness review scenario had a smaller hourly maximum production/process rate, this scenario represented more equipment (screens) and load-out points on the crusher, larger stockpiles, larger plant footprint, and no emission controls on the crusher screens or conveyers other than water. In addition, the staff did not use any mitigating factors for the 1996 review to account for the overly conservative assumptions used in the modeling demonstration. These differences account for the 1996 scenario predicted concentrations being higher with a corresponding greater distance to demonstrate compliance than for the 2001 scenario. The requirement of additional emission controls in the standard permit is the largest factor in the reduction of the buffer size from the 1996 review. Additionally this standard permit allows no visible emissions to leave the property.

FL commented that the protectiveness review should have included haul-road and blasting particulate emissions in the modeling. FL also noted that these are large sources of contaminants that are subject to the 30 TAC Chapter 111 property line standard.

All sources of contaminants directly associated with rock crushing facilities were evaluated for this protectiveness review, though they were not necessarily evaluated through dispersion modeling. Emissions from haul roads and blasting are intermittent and not easily quantified on a short-term basis, therefore, it would not be appropriate to model the estimated emissions on a continuous basis.

Emissions from haul roads and in-plant work areas are minimized by implementation of best management practices in the standard permit. If roads are maintained according to the provisions of the standard permit, emissions from these sources will be minimized. Additionally, no visible emissions are allowed to leave the site under this standard permit.

Blasting and associated equipment are not facilities which require a permit or other authorization. However, emissions from blasting are subject to 30 TAC Chapter 111. Due to the short-term duration of blasting emissions, the commission does not expect 30 TAC Chapter 111 standards to be exceeded.

BCCC commented that the commission based the protectiveness review on rock crushing plants and that concrete crushing is significantly different than rock crushing because in concrete crushing there less of the material processed was wasted.

The commission developed this standard permit to address a broad range of conditions and operating scenarios. Consequently, the commission established requirements based on those conditions that were most likely to result in emissions that would exceed property line standards in 30 TAC Chapter 111 or NAAQS.

Comments on General Requirements

TACA agreed with the definition of a "site" as a means to deter RCs from circumventing operating time restrictions.

The commission acknowledges the comment and believes that the term will help assure compliance.

TACA and TXI objected to the requirement to locate all concrete crushers and associated sources at least 440 yards from any school, church, or residence because it adversely affects the ability for portable facilities to be sited for recycling projects.

THSC, §382.065, as passed by the 77th Legislature as a part of House Bill 2912, prohibits the location or operation of a concrete crushing facility within 440 yards of a building used as a single or multifamily residence, school, or place of worship. The statute provides no exceptions for recycling projects.

AGC and WE objected to the requirement that no visible emissions leave the property from roads associated with the RC operation because emissions from roads are subject to the nuisance requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules. WE commented that visible emissions should not be limited to 30 seconds.

Performance demonstrations from sources of emissions such as roads and plant work areas are needed to ensure compliance with the conditions of the standard permit and the prevention of nuisance conditions. Visible emission limitations and opacity requirements ensure that both the operators and TNRCC field investigators can clearly understand how to demonstrate compliance with the rules and regulations of the commission. Further, tools do not exist to accurately calculate emissions from roads. Rather, it has been agency practice to ensure that emissions from sources that cannot be accurately calculated are controlled or eliminated using best management practices. Lack of visible emissions is evidence of the effectiveness of those practices. Based on engineering judgement and wide experience with these types of facilities, the commission believes that the 30-second period should allow for normal equipment operation, while ensuring proper abatement performance. Finally, minimization of emissions also serves to minimize the potential for adverse health, welfare, and nuisance effects. This is consistent with NSR permitting requirements, was included in the Concrete Batch Plant Standard Permit and meets the threshold of best available control technology which is required for a standard permit.

TACA supported the requirement for permanently mounted spray bars at all shaker screens and transfer points. However, TACA expressed concern that this might make all portable facilities wet rock crushing operations and suggests substituting the term "misting mechanism" for "spray bar."

The commission intends water to be used to minimize visible emissions and not to alter the actual operations of RCs. The term "spray bar" has been commonly used by the TNRCC and is understood by the commission and the regulated community to be a dust suppression mechanism associated with RCs.

AGC expressed the belief that permanently mounted spray bars at the shaker screens and material transfer points are unnecessary because material will be controlled at the inlet and outlet of the crusher.

Spray bars are an accepted method of minimizing emissions from these types of sources. Although under certain conditions spray bars at these points may not be necessary, the standard permit is intended to cover a broad range of facility configurations and operating conditions. In order to ensure compliance with all TNRCC regulations and to protect public health and welfare the commission believes that it is important to maintain the requirement to have spray bars at all screens and material transfer points.

AGC and WE commented that the stockpile height requirement was too restrictive. Representative Al Edwards and TPS commented that the stockpile heights were too high for areas adjacent to residential housing, schools, and churches.

No changes have been made to the standard permit in response to these comments. The protectiveness review indicates that the conditions of this standard permit, including stockpile height, are protective and will help ensure compliance with state and federal regulations. The commission has no statutory authority to reduce or increase the stockpile heights based on any consideration other than to protect public health and welfare and ensure compliance with applicable regulations. However, local governmental entities may impose more restrictive limits based on land-use considerations such as aesthetics.

AGC and WE objected to the requirement for a runtime meter.

The temporary nature of the operation of a RC is integral to authorization of a facility by this standard permit and it is imperative that an accurate accounting of the time spent in operation be kept according to paragraph (1)(K)(i). A runtime meter provides a method by which the owner/operator may ensure an accurate record is being maintained of the time a RC is in operation.

WE commented that the written records required by the standard permit should not be required to follow the crusher from site to site as the limitations of the proposed standard permit are site-specific.

Consistent with the requirements in 30 TAC §116.115(F)(ii) and 30 TAC §116.115(F)(v), records are required to be kept with the RC at any site it occupies and maintained for a rolling 24-month period. The commission may need access to records in order to determine compliance with the emission limitations (production, etc.) after a crusher has left a specific site. Also, the standard permit limits the time that a crusher may be at a specific site within a one-year time frame; therefore, records must follow the crusher in order for the commission to determine if the crusher was previously located at a site and how long it was there.

TXI objected to the exclusion of crushing quartz and sandstone even in a completely wet process such as a sand and gravel operation.

The commission has revised the standard permit based on this comment. Based on additional protectiveness review of inhalable silica from quartz and sandstone under the conditions of the standard permit, both materials will be authorized under this standard permit. This analysis of these materials indicates that there will not be any adverse health effects from respirable silica associated with the crushing of these materials.

AGC, TXI, TACA, and WE objected to the requirement that RCs operating under this standard permit shall not locate or operate on the same site as another RC. TXI and AGC asked for the scientific basis for this requirement.

The purpose of this standard permit is to authorize a single RC and modeling was based on that scenario. Further, the crushers are designed to be temporary sources for use at construction sites, subdivision developments, and road and highway projects, where multiple crushing operations do not occur simultaneously. The prohibition against locating at a site with another crusher is needed to show compliance with all TNRCC regulations and to ensure protection of public health and welfare.

Comments on Tier I Rock Crushers

TXI and WE objected to the requirement that a Tier I RC not be located at a quarry or a mine. TXI and TACA requested that the TNRCC provide the basis for this requirement.

This tier of the standard permit is intended for temporary locations (e.g., construction sites) and for those locations where there is little possibility of multiple operations occurring at the same time. Facilities that do not meet the requirements of Tier I of this standard permit may be authorized under Tier II, under a PBR (30 TAC §106.142) or by obtaining a regular air quality permit under 30 TAC Chapter 116.

AGC and TACA commented that due to production limitations and time restrictions Tier I has limited applicability for industry.

The standard permit is designed to allow for authorization of RCs that are portable and, based on business needs, move to various sites and operate at any one site for a short period of time. However, it is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism for all possible unit configurations or operating scenarios. Those facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for an air quality permit under 30 TAC §116.111 or a PBR under 30 TAC §106.142.

AGC, SHTC, TACA, and WE commented that Tier I limitations should be based on emissions rather than throughput.

Particulate emissions from a RC are closely related to throughput. It is the commission's intention to use throughput as a surrogate for actual emissions in order to provide industry with an effective method of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the standard permit.

AGC and TACA commented that the 125 tph limit should be based on crusher capacity rather than process throughput at the feed hopper because a significant portion of the material from the feed hopper is screened out before it reaches the crusher. TXI suggested that the 125 tph limit be based on material production rather than feed hopper throughput. RM suggested that the hourly rate be an average over several production days.

The 125 tph limit is based on total facility capacity rather than material production or crusher capacity because this includes quantification of emissions from all sources. This would include emissions from all hoppers, screens, crushers, and conveyors. The commission selected the total facility capacity scenario rather than those listed previously because total facility capacity and all associated sources represents the worst-case scenario, i.e., all material fed into the system is crushed. The authorized hourly production rate of 125 tph is necessary in order to ensure compliance with 30 TAC Chapter 111 one- and three-hour standards.

AGC commented that associated facilities should not be limited to placement at least 200 feet from the nearest property line and gave the example of a road. Representative Edwards and Representative Callegari commented that the distance limitation was too short.

Property line distance limitations are used instead of off-property receptor distance limitations to protect public health and welfare, and to ensure that the operating facility is in compliance with all TNRCC regulations, particularly the property line standards in 30 TAC Chapter 111. The protectiveness review indicated that the 200-foot distance limitation from the property line ensures that RCs meet TNRCC regulations and protect public health and welfare. Roads are not facilities under THSC and are not subject to the distance requirement. However, they are sources of emissions and are controlled by best management practices such as watering and are prohibited from emitting visible emissions that cross the property line.

AGC and TACA commented that the requirement to fully enclose screen sides and conveyors is not practical because it will make the conveyors more difficult to move. AGC and TXI also stated that fully enclosed screen sides and conveyors were not necessary due to the minimal emissions from these facilities and asked what the scientific basis for this requirement was. AGC and WE stated that the commission should not dictate the type of equipment used to control emissions. TM requested that the commission clarify the meaning of enclosed conveyor and said that different conveyor manufacturers had indicated that in other states they put a half-moon cover over the top of the conveyor.

In order to minimize property line distance requirements, while being protective of public health and ensuring that the facility is in compliance with TNRCC regulations, the commission modeled emissions from facilities with enclosed screens and conveyors. The commission has clarified the requirement for enclosed conveyors to mean a cover that fits over the top of the conveyor. Also, because there was an identical requirement in the Tier II requirements, the commission removed this requirement from Tier I and Tier II and added it to the General Requirements of the standard permit.

AGC objected to the requirement that Tier I RCs be restricted to one primary crusher, two conveyors, and two screens because the type of job and nature of the required product might require more equipment.

In order to minimize property line distance requirements, while being protective of public health and ensuring that the facility is in compliance with TNRCC regulations, the commission modeled emissions on a prescribed amount of equipment based on what was expected at the majority of temporary RC sites. If Tier I requirements cannot be met, the facility has the option of meeting Tier II or obtaining a permit under 30 TAC §116.111 or a PBR under 30 TAC §106.142.

AGC, TXI, TACA, and WE objected to the requirement that RCs authorized by this standard permit not locate or operate on a site with an asphalt or concrete batch plant. WE and TACA commented that the restriction against collocation with a concrete or asphalt plant prevents recycling of aggregate materials at these plants. AGC and TXI requested the scientific basis for this determination.

The purpose of this standard permit is to authorize a single RC and the protectiveness review was based on that scenario. Tier I of the standard permit is intended for those types of locations (e.g., construction sites) that are not permanent aggregate handling operations and for those locations where there is little possibility of multiple operations occurring at the same time. The commission intended for no cumulative effects to occur at Tier I locations. Tier II may be used at these types of sites where all the requirements of Tier II are met.

AGC commented that limiting the time on site for RCs located in urban/suburban areas is reasonable but makes little sense in sparsely populated areas and that many highway projects require more time and would make the standard permit unusable for those situations. WE commented that project delays and change orders could cause the RC to run out of time before finishing a job. AGC and WE added that 24 hours was not a sufficient amount of time to disassemble equipment and move out.

The commission intends for the standard permit to cover a broad range of facility configurations and operating conditions for temporary RCs. It is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism for all possible unit configurations or operating scenarios. Those facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for an air quality permit under 30 TAC §116.111 or a PBR under 30 TAC §106.142. Further, the commission anticipates that, for the types of facilities intended to be authorized by this standard permit (which is highly portable), 24 hours is an adequate amount of time disassemble the equipment and move offsite.

AGC and WE commented that the 365-day period before relocating to the site is too long.

The commission developed the standard permit for temporarily-sited RCs. It is designed to allow for authorization of RCs that are portable and, based on business needs, move to various sites. Tier I of the standard permit is intended for those types of projects (e.g., construction sites, subdivision developments, roads and highways) that do not require permanent aggregate handling operations and for those locations where there is little possibility of the necessity for rock crushing to occur at the site again. However, in the unlikely event that additional crushing operations are needed at a site that has already been occupied, the 365-day minimum time frame still allows for a crusher to return that site.

AGC stated that the time on site and operation time restrictions did not take into account factors beyond the owner's/operator's control such as machinery downtime, weather, phased projects, and engineer change orders.

During the development of the standard permit, the factors listed in the previous paragraph were taken into consideration. As a result, the site time was increased from 20 days to 45 days for Tier I, and from 60 days to 180 days for Tier II.

Comments on Tier II Rock Crushers

AGC and TACA commented that due to production limitations and time restrictions Tier II has limited applicability for industry.

AGC and TACA commented that the 250 tph limit should be based crusher capacity rather than process throughput at the feed hopper because a significant portion of the material from the feed hopper is screened out before it reaches the crusher. TXI and WE suggested that the 250 tph limit be based on material production rather than feed hopper throughput. AGC, TACA, and SHTC suggested that restrictions should be based on emissions rather than throughput. SHTC requested the basis for the 250 tph restriction. RM suggested that the hourly rate be an average over several production days.

The 250 tph limit is based on total facility capacity rather than material production or crusher capacity because this includes quantification of emissions from all sources. This would include emissions from all hoppers, screens, crushers, and conveyors. The commission selected the total facility capacity scenario rather than those listed in the previous paragraph because total facility capacity and all associated sources represents the worst-case scenario, i.e., all material fed into the system is crushed. The authorized hourly production rate of 250 tph is necessary in order to ensure compliance with 30 TAC Chapter 111 one- and three-hour standards.

AGC commented that the distance limitation of 300 feet from the nearest property line is reasonable in urban/suburban areas but makes little sense in sparsely populated areas and that many highway projects will not be able to meet the 300-foot limit and the standard permit will be unusable for those situations. TXI, BCCC, and WE commented that the 300-foot limitation will preclude the use of temporary RCs at many sites and suggested restricting the distance to 300 feet to an off property receptor rather than 300 feet to the property line. TACA added that the 300-foot setback distance is not based on any scientific modeling data and questioned the basis for this restriction. Representative Callegari and FL commented that the 300-foot distance is too short.

Property line distance limitations are used instead of off-property receptor distance limitations to protect public health and welfare, and to ensure that the operating facility is in compliance with all TNRCC regulations, particularly the property line standards in 30 TAC Chapter 111. The protectiveness review indicated that the 300-foot distance limitation from the property line ensures that RCs meet TNRCC regulations and protect public health and welfare. Roads are not facilities under THSC and are not subject to the distance requirement. However, they are sources of emissions and are controlled by best management practices such as watering and are prohibited from emitting visible emissions that cross the property line.

The commission intends for the standard permit to cover a broad range of facility configurations and operating conditions for temporary RCs. However, the standard permit is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism for all possible unit configurations or operating scenarios.

The state property line standards for PM are the controlling standards for the distance limitations. To demonstrate compliance, the modeling team tabulated the total number of modeled exceedances of the one-hour and three-hour standards over a five-year period that occurred over each tier's receptor grid. The compliance prediction was based on an evaluation of the total hours of modeled exceedances divided by the total hours in the applicable review period (43,824 hours for the one-hour standard and 14,608 hours for the three-hour standard) and the conservative nature of assumptions made in the review. For each source configuration, the maximum distance to obtain 99.9% predicted compliance was used as the basis for the distance limitation for each tier. Given the conservative nature of the modeling and limited hours of operation, the team expects a predicted compliance of 99.9% to be 100% compliance in practice. In addition, the NAAQS for PM ₁₀ should not be exceeded based on the results of the one-hour and three-hour analyses, limited hours of operation, and lower emission rates for each tier.

AGC, TXI, TACA, and WE objected to the requirement that a RC be located at least 550 feet from a concrete or asphalt batch plant. TACA and TXI stated that due to operations restriction on batch plants and local ordinances that may prohibit nighttime operation of a RC, the standard permit provision that allows operation of a RC that cannot meet the 550-foot requirement when the concrete or asphalt plant is not operating is impractical. AGC, SHTC, and WE added that RCs are often used to produce aggregate for asphalt plants and are often located less than 550 feet from the asphalt plant and that having the crusher separated from the asphalt plant will increase emissions from unpaved roads and result in increased traffic and haul truck emissions due to the need to bring aggregate from off site.

The 550-foot distance requirement is necessary to offset the cumulative emissions of multiple facilities operating simultaneously and to ensure compliance with the TNRCC regulations and protect public health. Additionally, this standard permit was developed to address a broad range of operating conditions and does not take into account local ordinances that might preclude its use in certain situations.

AGC, BCCC, and TACA commented that the requirement to fully enclose screen sides and conveyors is not practical because it will make the conveyors more difficult to move. AGC and TXI also stated that fully enclosed screen sides and conveyors are not necessary due to the minimal emissions from these facilities and asked what the scientific basis for this requirement is. AGC and WE stated that the commission should not dictate the type of equipment used to control emissions. TM requested that the commission clarify the meaning of enclosed conveyor and said that different conveyor manufacturers had indicated that in other states they put a half-moon cover over the top of the conveyor.

In order to protect public health and welfare and ensure compliance with TNRCC regulations and NAAQS, this standard permit underwent a detailed protectiveness review that took into account emission reductions from the use of enclosed screens and conveyors. The commission has clarified the requirement for enclosed conveyors to mean a cover that fits over the top of the conveyor. Also, because there was an identical requirement in the Tier I requirements, the commission removed this requirement from Tier I and Tier II and added it to the General Requirements of the standard permit.

AGC objected to the requirement that Tier II RCs be restricted to one primary crusher, one secondary crusher, and two screens because type of job and nature of the required product might require more equipment.

In order to provide owners/operators with as short a property line distance requirement as possible while being protective of public health and ensuring that the facility is in compliance with TNRCC regulations, the commission modeled emissions based on a prescribed amount of equipment based on what was expected at the majority of temporary RC sites. If Tier II requirements cannot be met, the facility has the option of obtaining a permit under 30 TAC §116.111 or a PBR under 30 TAC §106.142.

AGC commented that the time onsite limitations are reasonable for RCs located in urban/suburban areas but that many highway projects require more time and the time limit will make the standard permit unusable for those situations. They added that 24 hours is not a sufficient amount of time to disassemble equipment and move out. BCCC stated that although the time limitations would not have been exceeded in any of their previous projects, they are concerned that the time limits might preclude long term projects. SHTC requested justification for the onsite time limitations. WE commented that the time restrictions limits their ability to bid certain projects.

AGC, SHTC, and WE commented that the 365-day period before relocating to the site is too long.

The commission developed the standard permit for temporarily-sited RCs. It is designed to authorize RCs that are portable and, based on business needs, move to various sites. Tier II of the standard permit expands the types of sites that a crusher may occupy (specifically, Tier II adds quarries and mines). However, Tier II, like Tier I, is intended for those types of projects (e.g., construction sites, subdivision developments, roads and highways) that do not require permanent aggregate handling operations and for those locations where there is little possibility of the necessity for rock crushing to occur at the site again. However, in the unlikely event that additional crushing operations are needed at a site that has already been occupied, the 365-day minimum time frame still allows for a crusher to return that site.

AGC, BCCC, and WE requested that the TNRCC (regional office) respond to a notification of intent to locate a Tier II RC within 30 days.

Subchapter F of Chapter 116 requires the agency to respond to all standard permit applications within 45 days or as soon as practical. The commission intends to continue with this practice.

TRD-200201004

Stephanie Bergeron

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 19, 2002

Invitation to Comment - Draft January 2002 Update to the Water Quality Management Plan for the State of Texas

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) announces the availability of the draft "January 2002 Update to the Water Quality Management Plan for the State of Texas" (draft January 2002 WQMP update).

The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is developed and promulgated in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Chapter 208. The draft January 2002 WQMP update includes projected effluent limits of indicated domestic dischargers useful for water quality management planning in future permit actions. Once the commission certifies a WQMP update, the update is submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. For some Texas pollutant discharge elimination system (TPDES) permits, the EPA's approval of a corresponding WQMP update is a necessary precondition to TPDES permit issuance by the commission. The draft January 2002 WQMP update also contains service area populations for listed wastewater treatment facilities, and designated management agency information.

A copy of the draft January 2002 WQMP update may be found on the commission's web page located at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/wqmp . A copy of the draft may also be viewed at the TNRCC Library located at Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Building A, 12100 Park 35 Circle, North Interstate 35, Austin, Texas.

Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Suzanne Vargas, TNRCC, Water Quality Division, MC 150, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Comments may also be faxed to (512) 239-4420, but must be followed up with the submission and receipt of the written comments within three working days of when they were faxed. Written comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 1, 2002. For further information or questions, please contact Ms. Vargas at (512) 239-4619 or by e-mail at svargas@tnrcc.state.tx.us .

TRD-200201012

Stephanie Bergeron

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 20, 2002

Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Default Orders of Administrative Enforcement Actions

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Default Orders (DOs). The TNRCC staff proposes a DO when the staff has sent an Executive Director's Preliminary Report and Petition (EDPRP) to an entity outlining the alleged violations; the proposed penalty; and the proposed technical requirements necessary to bring the entity back into compliance, and the entity fails to request a hearing on the matter within 20 days of its receipt of the EDPRP. Similar to the procedure followed with respect to Agreed Orders entered into by the executive director of the TNRCC pursuant to Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075, this notice of the proposed order and the opportunity to comment is published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is April 1, 2002 . The TNRCC will consider any written comments received and the TNRCC may withdraw or withhold approval of a DO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate that a proposed DO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the TNRCC's jurisdiction, or the TNRCC's orders and permits issued pursuant to the TNRCC's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed DO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each of the proposed DOs is available for public inspection at both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable Regional Office listed as follows. Comments about the DO should be sent to the attorney designated for the DO at the TNRCC's Central Office at P.O. Box 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on April 1, 2002 . Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The TNRCC attorneys are available to discuss the DOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, comments on the DOs should be submitted to the TNRCC in writing .

(1) COMPANY: Janet Amidon; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0297-WTR-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 465-19-0219; LOCATION: ten miles east of Marble Falls on Farm and Market 1431, Burnet County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water system; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(f), by failing to maintain operating records and reports; 30 TAC §290.46(j), by failing to document customer service inspections; 30 TAC §290.46(r), by failing to maintain minimum pressure throughout the distribution system; 30 TAC §290.117(c), by failing to complete initial tap sampling for lead and copper analysis; 30 TAC §290.117(g), by failing to conduct public education; 30 TAC §290.117(f), by failing to conduct water quality parameter monitoring; 30 TAC §290.117(h)(3), by failing to submit corrosion control study; PENALTY: $0; license revocation; STAFF ATTORNEY: Shannon Strong, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6201; REGIONAL OFFICE: Austin Regional Office, 1921 Cedar Bend Dr., Suite. 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

(2) COMPANY: Jose G. Quintanilla dba San Perlita Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000- 0821-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 26904; LOCATION: northeast corner of 9th and FM 2209 and Campbell Street, San Perlita, Willacy County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A), and (b)(2), and TWC, §26.3475, by failing to have a release detection method capable of detecting a release from any portion of the underground storage tank system and by failing to perform tightness testing on pressurized, suction and/or gravity piping; 30 TAC §334.93(a), and (b), by failing to demonstrate financial responsibility for taking corrective action and compensating third parties for bodily and property damage caused by accidental releases; 30 TAC §334.7(d)(3), and §334.10(b)(1)(A), by failing to amend, change or update the registration information; PENALTY: $4,500; STAFF ATTORNEY: Gitanjali Yadav, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-2029; REGIONAL OFFICE: Harlingen Regional Office, 1804 West Jefferson Ave., Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247, (956) 425-6010.

(3) COMPANY: Tajuddin Jiwani dba Quick & Easy No. 2; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0624- PWS-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 2410044; LOCATION: 4014 Highway 59, Wharton Loop North, Wharton, Wharton County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.43(e) and §290.41(c)(3)(O), by failing to enclose the pressure maintenance facilities and the well unit with an intruder resistant fence with lockable gates or a locked ventilated house; 30 TAC §290.44(a)(1), by failing to provide pipes and related products that conform to American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation (ANSI/NSF) Standard 61 and are certified by an organization accredited by ANSI; 30 TAC §290.110(d)(3) and §290.110(c)(5)(B), by failing to test the disinfectant residual at representative locations in the distribution system at least once every seven days and by failing to possess a diethyl-p-phenylendiamine method chlorine test kit to determine if the free chlorine residual was adequate; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F), by failing to secure a sanity control easement for the well; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(N), by failing to provide a flow meter on the well pump discharge line; PENALTY: $1,313; STAFF ATTORNEY: Darren Ream, Litigation Division, MC R-4, (817) 588-5878; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Ave., Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

TRD-200200999

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 19, 2002

Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Settlement Agreements of Administrative Enforcement Actions

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) pursuant to Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075. Section 7.075 requires that before the commission may approve the AOs, the commission shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed AOs. Section 7.075 requires that notice of the opportunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is April 1, 2002 . Section 7.075 also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments received and that the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that the consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the TNRCC's orders and permits issued pursuant to the TNRCC's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed AO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each of the proposed AOs is available for public inspection at both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable Regional Office listed as follows. Comments about the AOs should be sent to the attorney designated for the AO at the TNRCC's Central Office at P.O. Box 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on April 1, 2002 . Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The TNRCC attorneys are available to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, §7.075 provides that comments on the AOs should be submitted to the TNRCC in writing .

(1) COMPANY: B.C.R. Inc., dba Chevron Country Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000- 0400-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 29962; LOCATION: 525 Ranch Road 1431, Kingsland, Llano County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: gasoline station; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A) and TWC, §26.3475, by failing to provide a method of release detection capable of detecting a release from any portion of the underground storage tank (UST) system; 30 TAC §334.48(c), by failing to conduct inventory control procedures in accordance with a code or standard of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory; 30 TAC §37.801, by failing to demonstrate financial responsibility for taking corrective action and for compensating third parties for bodily injuries and property damage that result from accidental releases; 30 TAC §334.49(a), and TWC, §26.3475, by failing to provide corrosion protection for its UST systems; 30 TAC §334.7(d)(1)(G), by failing to amend its registration to reflect the addition of spill and overflow prevention equipment and line leak detectors; PENALTY: $15,000; STAFF ATTORNEY: Rebecca Petty, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-3693; REGIONAL OFFICE: Austin Regional Office, 1921 Cedar Bend Dr., Suite. 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

(2) COMPANY: Mayfield McCraw dba McCraw Materials; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1343- AIR-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: FB-0067-E; LOCATION: Route 1, Box 192, Riverview Road, on northwest side of County Road 2135, four miles northeast, Telephone, Fannin County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: sand and gravel production plant; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a), and Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.085(b), and §382.0518(a), by constructing and operating a sand and gravel operation without obtaining a required permit; TWC, §26.121, by failing to prevent an unauthorized discharge of used oil from a water pump onto the river bank and into the Red River; PENALTY: $6,500; STAFF ATTORNEY: Troy Nelson, Litigation Division, MC R-5, (903) 535-5100; REGIONAL OFFICE: Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Office, 2301 Gravel Drive, Forth Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(3) COMPANY: Proton PRC, Inc. dba Crossroads Mercantile and Twinstop #2; DOCKET NUMBERS: 1999-0846-PST-E and 1999-1372-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBERS: 29501 and 51106; LOCATION: highway 59, Henderson County, Texas and highway 31, Henderson County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: retail for the sale of motor fuels an lubricants; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC 334.7(d)(3), by failing to provide an amended registration for changes in ownership within 30 days from the date of the occurrence; 30 TAC §334.49(a), and TWC, §26.3475, by failing to have corrosion protection; 30 TAC §334.51(b)(2)(B), and TWC, §26.3475, by failing to equip the fill tubes of the tanks with an attached spill container or catchment basin, or enclose them in a liquid-tight manway, riser or sump; 30 TAC §334.72, by failing to report to the commission a suspected release within 24 hours of its discovery; 30 TAC §334.74, by failing to conduct release investigation and confirmation steps within 30 days of discovery; 30 TAC §334.127(a)(1), by failing to register with the commission; 30 TAC §334.129(a), by failing as owner to report and investigate a suspected or confirmed release of a petroleum product; 30 TAC §327.3(b), and TWC, §26.039(b), by failing to notify the commission within 24 hours of discovery of a reportable spill event of a petroleum product; 30 TAC §327.5(a), and TWC, §26.121, by failing to immediately abate and contain a spill of an estimated 900 gallons of gasoline and diesel; 30 TAC §334.127(d), by failing to provide notification of changes in ownership and the operational status within 30 days from the date of the occurrence; PENALTY: $17,650; STAFF ATTORNEY: Elisa Roberts, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6939; REGIONAL OFFICE: Tyler Regional Office, 2916 Teague Drive, Tyler, Texas 75701-3756, (903) 535-5100.

(4) COMPANY: Sunesara Investment, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0358-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0063601; LOCATION: 2900 Market Street, Baytown, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §115.245(2), and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to successfully perform annual pressure decay testing; 30 TAC §37.875(a), by failing to maintain evidence of all financial mechanisms used to demonstrate financial responsibility; 30 TAC §334.50(d)(4)(A)(i), and TWC, §26.3475(c)(1), by failing to conduct inventory volume measurements as required in conjunction with automatic tank gauging; 30 TAC §334.48(c), by failing to conduct effective manual or automatic inventory control procedures for all UST systems; 30 TAC §334.22(a), by failing to pay outstanding UST fees; PENALTY: $8,750; STAFF ATTORNEY: Troy Nelson, Litigation Division, MC R-5, (903) 525-0380; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Ave., Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(5) COMPANY: Tandem Energy Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1263-AIR-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: HG-0230-U; LOCATION: 2.4 miles from downtown Tomball off Farm-to-Market Road (FM) Road 249, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas compressor station; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §101.10, and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to submit an emissions inventory questionnaire; PENALTY: $3,125; STAFF ATTORNEY: Elisa Roberts, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6939; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Ave., Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(6) COMPANY: Young Brothers, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-1533-AIR-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 24539; LOCATION: 2001 Marlin Highway 6, Waco, McClennan County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: asphaltic concrete manufacturing; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.115(b)(F)(i), and THSC, §382.085(b), and TNRCC Air Quality Permit Number 24539, Special Condition Number 10, by failing to maintain sufficient asphalt mix temperature data to adequately demonstrate compliance with the permit limitation; 30 TAC §116.115(c), THSC, §382.085(b), and TNRCC Air Quality Permit Number 24539, Special Condition Number 10, by failing to maintain asphalt mix temperature at or below the maximum permit limit; 30 TAC §116.115(c), THSC, §382.085(b), 40 CFR §§60.8(a) and (b), and TNRCC Air Quality Permit Number 24539, Special Condition Number 30A, by failing to submit testing notifications and conduct emissions testing within the required time limitations; PENALTY: $8,000; STAFF ATTORNEY: Darren Ream, Litigation Division, MC R-4, (817) 588-5878; REGIONAL OFFICE: Waco Regional Office, 6801 Sanger Ave., Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751- 0335.

TRD-200201000

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 19, 2002

Notice of Public Hearing

In accordance with the requirements of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony concerning the proposed amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 213, Edwards Aquifer.

This rulemaking proposes to provide for a 30-day comment period to comply with requirements under House Bill (HB) 2912 and a 90-day executive director review period for contributing zone plans under Subchapter B. Currently, approval is automatic on the 16th day if program staff does not issue a letter approving or denying the application within 15 days. The statute does not require the commission to eliminate the 16-day automatic approval. However, program staff believes that the 16-day automatic approval, following the 30-day comment period, would not allow adequate time for further review by program staff or additional work that may be required by the applicant's consultants to address comments received. This proposed change will make the review time for the contributing zone plans under Subchapter B consistent with the review time for the Edwards Aquifer protection plans under Subchapter A. Also, this rulemaking proposes to change the language in §213.23(e)(2) and add it to proposed §213.23(e). The denial language is currently included to provide the executive director a way to deny, within 15 days, an application submitted for the contributing zone. However, if the automatic approval language is deleted the denial language is no longer needed, because the proposed changes would not allow construction in the contributing zone to begin until the agency issues an approval letter.

The commission will hold public hearings on this proposal in San Antonio on March 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers located in the Municipal Plaza Building, 103 Main Plaza as well as in Austin on April 3, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building F, Room 2210. The hearings will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not occur during the hearings; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearings and answer questions before and after the hearings.

Comments may be submitted to Angela Slupe, MC 205, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 2001-086-213-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., April 15, 2002. This proposal is available on the commission's web site at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rules/propadopt.html . For further information, please contact Kathy Ramirez, Regulation Development Section, at (512) 239-6757.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact the Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

TRD-200200933

Stephanie Bergeron

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 14, 2002

Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 111

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) will conduct a public hearing to receive comments concerning revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 111 under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017 and Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001.

The proposed amendment to Chapter 111, concerning Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, Subchapter B, Outdoor Burning, §111.209, Exception for Disposal Fires, provides an additional exception to the prohibition of outdoor burning for the burning of animal remains by a veterinarian if the burning is conducted on property owned by the veterinarian; the property is in a county with a population of less than 10,000; and the veterinarian does not charge for the burning.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on March 28, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. at the TNRCC Complex in Building F, Room 2210, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Joyce Spencer, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or by fax to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 2001-088-111-AI. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., April 1, 2002. For further information, please contact Jill Burditt, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-0560.

TRD-200200942

Stephanie Bergeron

Division Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 15, 2002

Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 285

In accordance with the requirements of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the proposed amendment to §285.5, Submittal Requirements for Planning Materials; and new §285.8, Multiple On-Site Sewage Facility (OSSF) Systems on One Large Tract of Land of 30 TAC Chapter 285, On-Site Sewage Facilities.

The proposed revisions to Chapter 285 implement House Bill 2912, §20.03, 77th Legislature, 2001, to provide the commission the authority to permit multiple treatment and disposal systems located on one tract of land as an OSSF, provided that: the tract of land is at least 100 acres in size; all the systems on the tract of land produce no more than a combined total of 5,000 gallons per day on an annual average basis; the systems are only used on a seasonal or intermittent basis; and the systems are used only for disposal of sewage produced on the tract of land.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held on March 26, 2002, in Austin at 10:00 a.m. in Building C, Room 131E at the TNRCC central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussions will not occur during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Patricia Durón, MC 205, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087; or by fax at (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 2001-096-285-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., April 1, 2002. For further information, please contact Joseph Thomas, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-4580.

TRD-200200954

Stephanie Bergeron

Division Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 15, 2002

Notice of Water Quality Applications

The following notices were issued during the period of February 12, 2002 through February 14, 2002.

The following require the applicants to publish notice in the newspaper. The public comment period, requests for public meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing may be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, Mail Code 105, P O Box 13087, Austin Texas 78711-3087, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE.

CITY OF FAIRFIELD has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10168-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 4000 feet north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 84 and Farm-to-Market Road 488, approximately 5000 feet northeast of the intersection of U.S. Highways 75 and 84 in Freestone County, Texas.

CITY OF GARLAND which operates the Newman Electric Plant, a steam electric station, has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 03519, which authorizes the discharge of cooling tower blowdown from Units 1 and 2, low volume wastewater, and storm water on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 001; and cooling tower blowdown from Units 3,4, and 5 and low volume wastewater on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 002. The facility is located on the north side of State Highway 66, approximately 2000 feet east of the intersection of State Highway 66 and State Highway 78 in the City of Garland, Dallas County, Texas.

HANSON AGGREGATES CENTRAL, INC has applied for a renewal of an existing wastewater permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0000345 and an existing Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 01406. The draft permit authorizes the discharge of wash water and storm water on a flow variable basis via Outfall 001, and stormwater on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfalls 002, 003, and 004. The applicant operates a limestone crushing and washing plant. The plant site is located on Farm-to-Market Road 2952, one-half mile east of Lake Bridgeport and three miles west of the city of Bridgeport, Wise County, Texas.

CITY OF SEAGOVILLE has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10370-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 1,700,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 0.65 mile northeast of the intersection of Malloy Bridge Road and U.S. Highway 175 and approximately 0.5 mile north of U.S. Highway 175 in Dallas County, Texas.

SPLENDORA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 11143-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 70,000 gallons per day. This application was submitted to the TNRCC on October 10, 2001. The facility is located east of State Highway Spur 512, approximately 0.4 mile northeast of the intersection of State Highway Spur 512 and Farm-to-Market Road 2090 in Montgomery County, Texas.

TRD-200201001

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: February 19, 2002

North Texas Tollway Authority
RFP Qualified Constructor of a Fiber Optic Network

Notice of Intent

Notice of Invitation. The North Texas Tollway Authority (the NTTA), a regional tollway authority and a political subdivision of the State of Texas, intends to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to enter into an agreement or agreements with a qualified constructor of a Fiber Optic Network.

To be considered, potential proposers must submit a Letter of Request, requesting a copy of the Request for Proposal (RFP), which letter must also contain the name of the proposer, a contact person, and an address to which the RFP may be sent. The NTTA will send only one copy of the RFP to each proposer.

Deadline. A Letter of Request notifying the NTTA of a request for an RFP will be accepted by fax at (214) 528-4826, or by mail or hand delivery to: North Texas Tollway Authority, 5900 W. Plano Parkway, P.O. Box 260729, Plano, Texas 75026, Attn: Rick Herrington

Letters of Proposal will be received until 4:00 p.m. on March 29, 2002.

Agency Contact. Any requests for additional information regarding this notice of invitation should be sent, in writing, to Mr. Rick Herrington, Director of Information Technology, at the above address or fax number.

TRD-200200997

Katherine D. Nees

Deputy Executive Director

North Texas Tollway Authority

Filed: February 19, 2002

Public Utility Commission of Texas
Correction of Error

The Public Utility Commission of Texas proposed amendments to 16 TAC §26.130, concerning Selection of Telecommunications Utilities. The rule appeared in the February 15, 2002, Texas Register (27 TexReg 1062).

Due to an error by the Texas Register , subsection (l)(1)(B) on page 1066 was printed with brackets and underlined text. The text should have contained strike-through marks to indicate that it is proposed for deletion. It should read as follows.

"[~~(B) a brief description of the facts of the complaint;~~ ]"

TRD-200201005

Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement

On February 12, 2002, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Viteris, Incorporated, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under Section 252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104, 110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2002) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 25449. The joint application and the underlying interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.

The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within 35 days after it is submitted by the parties.

The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number 25449. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public hearing, shall be filed by March 14, 2002, and shall include:

1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those interests;

2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:

a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the agreement; or

b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or

c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and

3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.

After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval, denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.

Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 25449.

TRD-200200991

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: February 15, 2002

Public Notice of Intent to File Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) of a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215.

Docket Title and Number. Verizon Southwest's Application for Approval of LRIC Study for Business Traffic Study Service (BTSS) Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215 on or about February 25, 2002, Docket Number 25464.

Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing Docket Number 25464. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no later than 45 days after the date of sufficiency and should be filed at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200200994

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: February 15, 2002

Public Notice of Workshop and Request for Comments in Rulemaking to Address the Redefinition of "Access Line"

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) will hold a workshop on April 11, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, located on the 7th floor of the William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701 to discuss whether changes in technology, facilities, or competitive or market conditions justify a modification in the categories of access lines or whether there is a need to modify the definition of "access line." Project Number 25450, Rulemaking to Address the Redefinition of Access Lines and Other Outstanding Access Line Implementation Issues , has been established to review Texas Local Government Code §283.002 under the authority of §283.003.

The commission requests interested persons file comments by March 25, 2002 to the following questions:

1. Have there been any changes in technology or facilities that would justify a modification to the categories of access lines as developed by the commission?

2. Have there been any changes in the competitive or market conditions that would justify a modification to the categories of access lines as developed by the commission?

3. In situations where a certificated telecommunications provider (CTP) end-use customer is geographically located in a different exchange from the CTP's serving switch, should the end-use customer's line be classified as an access line? If not, how should it be classified?

4. Considering line sharing or line splitting scenarios:

a. What is the appropriate quantification of the line(s)?

b. What compensation is appropriate?

5. What, if any, other issues regarding redefinition of access lines should be addressed by the commission?

Responses may be filed by submitting 16 copies to the commission's Filing Clerk, Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326 within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Electronic copies should be submitted, as well. All responses should reference Project Number 25450.

Questions concerning the workshop or this notice should be referred to Hayden Childs, Telecommunications Policy Analyst, Telecommunications Division, (512) 936-7390, hayden.childs@puc.state.tx.us, or Michelle Lingo, Senior Attorney, Policy Development Division, (512) 936-7217, michelle.lingo@puc.state.tx.us. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200201008

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: February 19, 2002

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission
Public Opening of Request for Proposal for 9-1-1 Mapping Application

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission 9-1-1 Emergency Communications will open submitted proposal responses to their mapping application Request for Proposal No. 02-911-01 issued on February 21, 2002, on Monday, March 25, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. central time at 2210 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas.

TRD-200201007

Chester Jourdan

Executive Director

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission

Filed: February 19, 2002

Stephen F. Austin State University
Notice of Consultant Contract Renewal

In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2254, Subchapter B, Texas Government Code, Stephen F. Austin State University furnishes this notice of renewal to the University's contract with consultant Thomas A. Wood, 2115 Avenue T, Huntsville, Texas 77340. The original contract was in the sum of $6,000 plus expenses. The contract will be renewed for a total multiple year sum not to exceed $30,000.00, including all past and future fees and expenses.

No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be required to be presented by the outside consultant. Services are provided on an as-needed basis.

For further information, please call (936)468-2906.

TRD-200200983

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: February 15, 2002

Notice of Consultant Contract Renewal

In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2254, Subchapter B, Texas Government Code, Stephen F. Austin State University furnishes this notice of renewal of the University's contract with consultant John Merbler, Ph.D., 2000 Cambridge Drive, Muncie, Indiana 47304. The original contract was in the sum of $6,000 plus expenses. The contract will be renewed for a total multiple year sum not to exceed $25,000.00, including all past and future fees and expenses.

No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be required to be presented by the outside consultant. Services are provided on an as-needed basis.

For further information, please call (936)468-2906.

TRD-200200984

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: February 15, 2002

Texas Department of Transportation
Public Notice - Aviation

Pursuant to Transportation Code, §21.111, and Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, §30.209, the Texas Department of Transportation conducts public hearings to receive comments from interested parties concerning proposed approval of various aviation projects.

For information regarding actions and times for aviation public hearings, please go to the following web site:

http://www.dot.state.tx.us

Click on Aviation, click on Aviation Public Hearing. Or, contact Karon Wiedemann, Aviation Division, 150 East Riverside, Austin, Texas 78704, (512) 416-4520 or 800 68 PILOT.

TRD-200200917

Bob Jackson

Deputy General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: February 14, 2002

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission
Invitation to Applicants for Appointment to the Medical Advisory Committee

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission invites all qualified individuals to apply for openings on the Medical Advisory Committee in accordance with the eligibility requirements of the Procedures and Standards for the Medical Advisory Committee.

Commissioners for the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission appoint the Medical Advisory Committee members, which are composed of 18 primary and 18 alternate members representing health care providers, employees, employers, insurance carriers, and the public.

The purpose and tasks of the Medical Advisory Committee are outlined in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, §413.005, which includes advising the Commission's Medical Review Division on the development and administration of medical policies, rules and guidelines.

The Medical Advisory Committee meetings are scheduled for every month of the year; however, meetings may occur less frequently, and must be held at least quarterly each fiscal year during regular Commission working hours. Members are not reimbursed for travel, per diem, or other expenses associated with Committee activities and meetings.

During a primary member's absence, an alternate member must attend meetings of the Medical Advisory Committee, subcommittees, and work groups to which the primary member is appointed. The alternate may attend all meetings and shall fulfill the same responsibilities as primary members, as established in the Procedures and Standards for the Medical Advisory Committee as adopted by the Commission.

Medical Advisory Committee positions currently open:

1. Alternate member -Osteopath, term through 8/31/03

2. Primary and Alternate member - Dentist, term through 8/31/03

3. Alternate member - Pharmacist, term through 8/31/03

4. Alternate member - Employee, term through 8/31/02

5. Primary and Alternate member - Acupuncturist, terms through 8/31/03.

Applications and other relevant Medical Advisory Committee information may be viewed and downloaded from the Commission's website at http://www/twcc.state.tx.us and then clicking on "Events," then "Calendar," then "Medical Advisory Committee." Applications may also be obtained by calling Jane McChesney at 512-804-4855, or Ruth Richardson at 512-804-4850.

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission at its August 16, 2001 public meeting revised the Procedures and Standards for its Medical Advisory Committee. The revisions include the addition of an acupuncturist representative, qualifications for members who represent specific health care provider groups, and terms of appointment for all positions. The approved Procedures and Standards are as follows:

Procedures and Standards for the Medical Advisory Committee to the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

LEGAL AUTHORITY The Medical Advisory Committee for the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, Medical Review Division is established under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, (the Act) §413.005.

PURPOSE AND ROLE The purpose of the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) is to bring together representatives of health care specialties and representatives of labor, business, insurance and the general public to advise the Medical Review Division in developing and administering the medical policies, fee guidelines, and the utilization guidelines established under §413.011 of the Act.

COMPOSITION Membership. The composition of the committee is governed by the Act, as it may be amended. Members of the committee are appointed by the Commissioners and must be knowledgeable and qualified regarding work-related injuries and diseases.

Members of the committee shall represent specific health care provider groups and other groups or interests as required by the Act, as it may be amended. As of September 1, 2001, these members include a public health care facility, a private health care facility, a doctor of medicine, a doctor of osteopathic medicine, a chiropractor, a dentist, a physical therapist, a podiatrist, an occupational therapist, a medical equipment supplier, a registered nurse, and an acupuncturist. Appointees must have at least six (6) years of professional experience in the medical profession they are representing and engage in an active practice in their field.

The Commissioners shall also appoint the other members of the committee as required by the Act, as it may be amended. An insurance carrier representative may be employed by: an insurance company; a certified self-insurer for workers' compensation insurance; or a governmental entity that self-insures, either individually or collectively. An insurance carrier member may be a medical director for the carrier but may not be a utilization review agent or a third party administrator for the carrier.

A health care provider member, or a business the member is associated with, may not derive more than 40% of its revenues from workers compensation patients. This fact must be certified in their application to the MAC.

The representative of employers, representative of employees, and representatives of the general public shall not hold a license in the health care field and may not derive their income directly from the provision of health care services.

The Commissioners may appoint one alternate representative for each primary member appointed to the MAC, each of whom shall meet the qualifications of an appointed member.

Terms of Appointment. Members serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners, and individuals are required to submit the appropriate application form and documents for the position. The term of appointment for any primary or alternate member will be two years, except for unusual circumstances (such as a resignation, abandonment or removal from the position prior to the termination date) or unless otherwise directed by the Commissioners. A member may serve a maximum of two terms as a primary, alternate or a combination of primary and alternate member. Terms of appointment will terminate August 31 of the second year following appointment to the position, except for those positions that were initially created with a three-year term. For those members who are appointed to serve a part of a term that lasts six (6) months or less, this partial appointment will not count as a full term.

Abandonment will be deemed to occur if any primary member is absent from more than two (2) consecutive meetings without an excuse accepted by the Medical Review Division Director. Abandonment will be deemed to occur if any alternate member is absent from more than two (2) consecutive meetings which the alternate is required to attend because of the primary member's absence without an excuse accepted by the Medical Review Division Director.

The Commission will stagger the August 31st end dates of the terms of appointment between odd and even numbered years to provide sufficient continuity on the MAC.

In the case of a vacancy, the Commissioners will appoint an individual who meets the qualifications for the position to fill the vacancy. The Commissioners may re-appoint the same individual to fill either a primary or alternate position as long as the term limit is not exceeded. Due to the absence of other qualified, acceptable candidates, the Commissioners may grant an exception to its membership criteria, which are not required by statute.

RESPONSIBILITY OF MAC MEMBERS Primary Members. Make recommendations on medical issues as required by the Medical Review Division.

Attend the MAC meetings, subcommittee meetings, and work group meetings to which they are appointed.

Ensure attendance by the alternate member at meetings when the primary member cannot attend.

Provide other assistance requested by the Medical Review Division in the development of guidelines and medical policies.

Alternate Members. Attend the MAC meetings, subcommittee meetings, and work group meetings to which the primary member is appointed during the primary member's absence.

Maintain knowledge of MAC proceedings.

Make recommendations on medical issues as requested by the Medical Review Division when the primary member is absent at a MAC meeting.

Provide other assistance requested by the Medical Review Division in the development of guidelines and medical policies when the primary member is absent from a MAC meeting.

Committee Officers. The chairman of the MAC is designated by the Commissioners. The MAC will elect a vice chairman. A member shall be nominated and elected as vice chairman when he/she receives a majority of the votes from the membership in attendance at a meeting at which nine (9) or more primary or alternate members are present.

Responsibilities of the Chairman. Preside at MAC meetings and ensure the orderly and efficient consideration of matters requested by the Medical Review Division.

Prior to a MAC meeting confer with the Medical Review Division Director, and when appropriate, the TWCC Executive Director to receive information and coordinate:

a. Preparation of a suitable agenda.

b. Planning MAC activities.

c. Establishing meeting dates and calling meetings.

d. Establishing subcommittees.

e. Recommending MAC members to serve on subcommittees.

If requested by the Commission, appear before the Commissioners to report on MAC meetings.

COMMITTEE SUPPORT STAFF The Director of Medical Review will provide coordination and reasonable support for all MAC activities. In addition, the Director will serve as a liaison between the MAC and the Medical Review Division staff of TWCC, and other Commission staff if necessary.

The Medical Review Director will coordinate and provide direction for the following activities of the MAC and its subcommittees and work groups:

Preparing agenda and support materials for each meeting.

Preparing and distributing information and materials for MAC use.

Maintaining MAC records.

Preparing minutes of meetings.

Arranging meetings and meeting sites.

Maintaining tracking reports of actions taken and issues addressed by the MAC.

Maintaining attendance records.

SUBCOMMITTEES The chairman shall appoint the members of a subcommittee from the membership of the MAC. If other expertise is needed to support subcommittees, the Commissioners or the Director of Medical Review may appoint appropriate individuals.

WORK GROUPS When deemed necessary by the Director of Medical Review or the Commissioners, work groups will be formed by the Director. At least one member of the work group must also be a member of the MAC.

WORK PRODUCT No member of the MAC, a subcommittee, or a work group may claim or is entitled to an intellectual property right in work performed by the MAC, a subcommittee, or a work group.

MEETINGS Frequency of Meetings. Regular meetings of the MAC shall be held at least quarterly each fiscal year during regular Commission working hours.

CONDUCT AS A MAC MEMBER Special trust has been placed in members of the Medical Advisory Committee. Members act and serve on behalf of the disciplines and segments of the community they represent and provide valuable advice to the Medical Review Division and the Commission. Members, including alternate members, shall observe the following conduct code and will be required to sign a statement attesting to that intent.

Comportment Requirements for MAC Members:

Learn their duties and perform them in a responsible manner;

Conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes cooperation and effective discussion of issues among MAC members;

Accurately represent their affiliations and notify the MAC chairman and Medical Review Director of changes in their affiliation status;

Not use their memberships on the MAC: a. in advertising to promote themselves or their business. b. to gain financial advantage either for themselves or for those they represent; however, members may list MAC membership in their resumes;

Provide accurate information to the Medical Review Division and the Commission;

Consider the goals and standards of the workers' compensation system as a whole in advising the Commission;

Explain, in concise and understandable terms, their positions and/or recommendations together with any supporting facts and the sources of those facts;

Strive to attend all meetings and provide as much advance notice to the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission staff, attn: Medical Review Director, as soon as possible if they will not be able to attend a meeting; and

Conduct themselves in accordance with the MAC Procedures and Standards, the standards of conduct required by their profession, and the guidance provided by the Commissioners, Medical Review Division or other TWCC staff.

TRD-200201002

Susan Cory

General Counsel

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Filed: February 19, 2002