In Addition The Texas Register is required by statute to publish certain documents, including applications to purchase control of state banks, notices of rate ceilings, changes in interest rate and applications to install remote service units, and consultant proposal requests and awards. To aid agencies in communicating information quickly and effectively, other information of general interest to the public is published as space allows. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Request for Proposal The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Institutional Division) TDJC(ID) announces that it requires Construction Estimating consulting services pursuant to the provisions of Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6252-11c. Description of Services . The principal goal of the Construction Estimator is, in acting as a consultant to TDCJ (ID), to provide comprehensive estimates of construction cost of projects designed for TDCJ (ID), and when requested, to aid in the evaluation of bids and/or other cost proposals or projections. These services shall be provided on an as-needed basis through 1995, and shall be provided in conjunction with the efforts of design consultants under contract to TDCJ (ID). The Construction Estimator will provide professional personnel for work at the Construction Estimator's office. This consultant service is a new service and is not presently being utilized by TDCJ (ID). Estimating Services Requirements . preliminary Estimates (Order of Magnitude Estimates). It is expected that Order of Magnitude Estimates shall have an accuracy of +15% to -15%; engineering Cost Evaluation. During the design of projects, the consultant may be called upon to prepare Engineering Cost Evaluations to aid in decisions for the selection of materials, equipment, and systems to be incorporated into projects. It is expected that Engineering Cost Evaluation estimates shall have an accuracy of +10% to -10%; engineer's Estimates. Before the completion of design, preliminary bid documents will be furnished to the Consultant for the preparation of an Engineer's Estimate for the work. Preliminary bid documents will be similar to those called 95% complete by architects and engineers. The Consultant will prepare an estimate of the cost of the work, based on the most current local construction bidding information. It is expected that Engineer's Estimates shall have an accuracy of +5.0% to - 5.0%; change Order Estimates. Consultant may be provided with Proposed Change documentation during construction for preparing estimates for the proposed changes; general. Projects at TDCJ (ID) encompass a wide variety of building and civil work. The cost of some of the work is influenced by the requirement that prison operations be maintained continuously and that safety and security of the inmates is of prime importance to TDCJ (ID). Some projects include demolition, renovation, or interface with existing facilities that also will influence the cost of the work. Award Procedures. All proposals received by or before the deadline will be reviewed by a committee to check the qualifications and performance data of each firm that submits a proposal. Based upon the criteria stated following, a short list will be developed and such interviews will be conducted by the committee if necessary. Consultant's staff proposed for these projects must participate in such interviews. The committee will select not more than three firms, in order of preference, based on the criteria stated following, whom they think to be most qualified to provide the required services. TDCJ (ID) will negotiate a contract with the firm considered to be best to provide the required services at compensation that TDCJ (ID) determines would be fair and reasonable. Should TDCJ (ID) be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm thought to be best qualified, at compensation considered fair and reasonable, discussions with that firm will be formally ended in writing. Discussions and negotiations will then be undertaken with the second best qualified firm; failing agreement with the second, negotiations with that firm will be formally ended. Like negotiations and discussions will be undertaken with the third most qualified firm. Failing accord, such will be formally ended. TDCJ (ID) may then select additional firms in order of their competence and qualifications and continue negotiations in the manner described until an agreement is reached. At any stage in the process, TDCJ (ID) may request clarification or additional information to aid in determining the qualifications, competence, and ability of the firm to provide the required services. It is TDCJ (ID)'s intent to enter into a contract about March 1, 1993. Selection Criteria. construction Estimating Experience. Of particular interest are: the degree of expertise in preparing estimates of construction cost for the building construction industry: civil, structural, architecture, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and furnishings; track record on the degree of accuracy of cost estimates when compared to actual bids received; database or costing system used plus the method and frequency of updating the costing data; and the reasonableness of the proposed fee for the services; local Experience. When other considerations are equal, preference will be given to a private consultant whose principal place of business is within the state or who will manage the consulting engagement wholly from one of its offices within the state; key and Support Staffing. The firms must submit detailed information about personnel to be assigned to the program. Personnel assigned to the program should have authority to commit the resources of the firm to the program. An organization chart that includes personnel proposed should be included in the submittal; construction Estimator's proposed price structure. Requesting the Proposal . A copy of the complete request for proposal may be obtained by writing or calling Ronald E. Howell, Contracts Manager, TDCJ (ID), P.O. Box 99CC, Huntsville, Texas 77342-9987, telephone (409) 294-6907. Further information. Clarifying information about this proposal may be obtained in writing from the previously referenced individual. Deadline for Receipt of Proposals. The deadline for submitting a proposal is 5 p.m. CST on Friday, February 12, 1993. Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 11, 1993. TRD-9317447 Jackee Cox General Counsel Texas Department of Criminal Justice Filed: January 11, 1993 Texas Department of Health Licensing Actions for Radioactive Materials The Texas Department of Health has taken actions regarding licenses for the possession and use of radioactive materials as listed in the table below. The subheading labeled "Location" indicates the city in which the radioactive material may be possessed and/or used. The location listing "Throughout Texas" indicates that the radioactive material may be used on a temporary basis at job sites throughout the state. [graphic] In issuing new licenses and amending and renewing existing licenses, the Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, has determined that the applicants are qualified by reason of training and experience to use the material in question for the purposes requested in accordance with Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation in such a manner as to minimize danger to public health and safety or property and the environment; the applicants' proposed equipment, facilities, and procedures are adequate to minimize danger to public health and safety or property and the environment; the issuance of the license(s) will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public or the environment; and the applicants satisfy any applicable special requirements in the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation. This notice affords the opportunity for a hearing on written request of a licensee, applicant, or person affected within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. A person affected is defined as a person who is resident of a county, or a county adjacent to the county, in which the radioactive materials are or will be located, including any person who is doing business or who has a legal interest in land in the county or adjacent county, and any local government in the county; and who can demonstrate that he has suffered or will suffer actual injury or economic damage due to emissions of radiation. A licensee, applicant, or person affected may request a hearing by writing David K. Lacker, Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control (Director, Radiation Control Program), 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas, 78756-3189. Any request for a hearing must contain the name and address of the person who considers himself affected by Agency action, identify the subject license, specify the reasons why the person considers himself affected, and state the relief sought. If the person is represented by an agent, the name and address of the agent must be stated. Copies of these documents and supporting materials are available for inspection and copying at the office of the Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, The Exchange Building, 8407 Wall Street, Austin, Texas, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday (except holidays). Issued in Austin, Texas, on December 31, 1992. TRD-9317278 Robert A. MacLean, M.D. Deputy Commissioner Texas Department of Health Filed: January 6, 1993 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Summary of Comments Received at Public Hearings and Department's Response General. On August 25 and 26, 1992, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the Department) held public hearings in Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Arlington, and Austin to solicit comments on the proposed use and distribution of federal fiscal year (FFY) 1993 funds provided under the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant. The Department outlined plans to use the state's LIHEAP funds to support the Weatherization Assistance, Energy Crisis, Home Energy Assistance, and proposed alternative utility assistance programs. The Department provided copies of the Intended Use Report to all affected subgrantees, utility companies, and state and federal officials for review and comment. The schedule of the four public hearings was announced in the July 28, 1992, issue of the Texas Register (17 TexReg 5301). I. CSBG COMMENTS. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. Three contractors stated that the CSBG allocation formula needed to be revised. One contractor asked that contractors be part of the process of revising the formula. Two contractors asked that the Department consider the impact of formula changes on Nest Texas and to consider population density or square miles of service area as factors in the formula. One contractor noted that any reduction in funds could reduce the capacity of Community Action Agencies to administer other programs. Three contractors expressed support for the CSBG formula change. One of the three Stated that their support applied to the 1993 allocation only. Another contractor questioned basing 95% of the formula on the prior year's grant which used 1980 Census data. Because of its negative impact on Nest Texas, this contractor felt the new formula favored urban areas. One County Judge and eight CAA board members stated that the CSBG formula should consider transportation systems available in the service area, distance that must be traveled to receive or deliver services, lack of employment opportunities, and the unemployment rate. These individuals also expressed concern as to the inaccuracies of the 1990 Census data. Two contractors expressed concern relating to the short notice the Department provided to a meeting in Austin for informal discussion of the formula change prior to the public hearings. One contractor's board stated that their agency would lose $138,345 in FFY 1993 due to the change in the CSBG formula. Board members stated that the substantial decrease in CSBG funds may result in the agency having to close its doors. The Board also questioned how the Department could determine funding levels 10 years in advance. Another contractor suggested that the formula have a base of $100,000 and that the formula be applied after the base is allocated. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The revised formula merely reflected changes in the concentrations of the poverty population in Texas and was not designed to favor urban or rural areas. Although some agencies would receive reduced CSBG grants in 1993, the most severe case did not exceed $7,000. The projection over a 10- year period was provided for planning purposes only. The Department will use the proposed allocation formula for FFY 1993, but will consider revising the formula for FFY 1994. During the planning process for FFY 1994, the Department of contractor representatives to assist in devising a formula which is fair to all recipients. The committee will consider different factors such as population density or minimum grants and evaluate how proposed changes would affect assistance to the poor throughout the State. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS. One contractor asked that the Department allocate discretionary funds to assist migrant seasonal farmworkers to all contractors that serve members of that population group rather than just to a few specialized organizations. One contractor felt the plight of migrants was so serious that more resources must be applied in order to address long term solutions as well as immediate needs. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department feels the assistance to migrants is better focused through a few contractors in order to better meet the special needs of that population group. On the other hand, contractors who do not receive a special allocation for this purpose are expected to provide the same level of service to those migrants passing through their areas as they would to any other client. The Department will continue to work with the Texas Department of Commerce and Governor's Office in trying to mobilize sufficient resources to aid migrant and seasonal farmworkers obtain a decent standard of living. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. One individual expressed concern that persons in need often do not know where to obtain assistance. One individual suggested that contractors be required to conduct public hearings prior to receiving funds from the State in order that the poor be better informed of the services offered and have the opportunity to express their needs. One individual stated that the poor often were unaware of the purposes for programs and the eligibility guidelines. Members of the Board of one contractor stated that the Department should require contractors to show evidence that the poor had participated in the planning process. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. In FFY 1994, the Department will consider requiring contractors to conduct public meetings and receive comments from the clientele it serves prior to submitting their proposed budget and performance statement. CLIENT SELF-SUFFIENCY. One contractor recommended that the Department explore the feasibility of developing a comprehensive plan that would address self- sufficiency of clients and suggested that clients receiving assistance be required to repay assistance provided or donate time and/or resources. One individual suggested that the self-sufficiency concept be incorporated into all Department grant programs. One contractor's Board stated that families that become self-sufficient often end up back in poverty because the wages they earn are too low and stressed the importance of placing people in jobs that pay a decent wage. One CSBG contractor asked that the Department form an advisory council to develop guidelines for implementing a self-sufficiency plan. One individual encouraged the Department to place greater emphasis on job training and job development. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. In FFY 1993, the Department will require contractors to report the number of individuals they assist in reaching incomes above the poverty level. The Department plans to provide training on methods of implementing in-depth case management systems. Contractors with an effective in- depth case management system in place will be more effective in assisting families out of poverty. The Department will seek input from contractors in developing guidelines for implementing self-sufficiency programs. Although the Department cannot require persons to repay assistance, voluntary donation of money or services would not be discouraged. LEVERAGING. Two contractors asked that the Department clearly define the term "leveraging". Four contractors asked that the Department remove any reference of a match or leveraging requirement for CSBG funds. Two contractors asked that match requirements take into account geographic location since rural areas have more difficulty meeting matching requirements. One contractor stated that since the CSBG law does not require match, the Department should not require match. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department strongly advocates the leveraging of CSBG funds to expand the resources available to the poor. The Department has no plans to require matching funds but would appreciate accurate reporting of other resources generated with CSBG funds. COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. Ten individuals expressed support for the programs offered by Community Services, Inc. (CSI) of Corsicana. One consultant representing three counties in the CSI service area stated that Kaufman, Collin, and Denton Counties planned to withdraw from CSI. The reason for this planned action is the belief that more funds can directly benefit persons in these counties if the counties administer the CSBG program directly. These counties feel that improvements might be made in response time to clients, documentation for expenditures, and the amount of funds used for administration. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department will encourage CSI to provide acceptable services to all counties in its service area, but federal law offers very little opportunity for providing direct CSBG grants to the counties in question. CARRY-OVER POLICY. One contractor asked that the Department review the 15% carry-over policy relating to CSBG funds and stated that the return of unexpended funds may cause a cash-flow problems. One contractor asked that the Department consider allocating the carry-over funds to agencies that receive reduced formula allocations. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department must ensure adequate tracking of CSBG expenditures. In order to close out grants each fiscal year, the Department must require contractors to return all unspent funds. The Department feels that its carry-over policy is appropriate to ensure the efficient use of CSBG funds. MISCELLANEOUS. One commenter suggested that the Department needs to coordinate programs with other state agencies, particularly the newly created Health and Human Services Commission. This could help at the local level with clients who have problems with recertification of AFDC or food stamp benefits. Two individuals expressed concern that too much CSBG funding goes towards administrative costs and not for direct client assistance. One contractor suggested that the Department not allow the Texas Association of Community Action Agencies (TACAA) to determine Department policies and asked that the Department not hold its training sessions in conjunction with TACAA. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department serves on several state advisory councils whose purpose is to coordinate programs among state agencies. The Department encourages contractors to work at the local level to develop networks to better coordinate services among service providers. The primary purpose of the CSBG grant is to provide a mechanism by which contractors can administer a wide array of programs addressing the needs of low-income persons. The use of these forms for "administration" in order to achieve that goal is encouraged. In determining its policies, the Department accepts advice from all interested parties. The Department usually has held workshops with TACAA in Austin to help reduce travel expenses for contractors. Regional workshops are usually not held in conjunction with any other organizational event. TDHCA received two letters from the Department subgrantees and one letter from an utility company containing comments regarding LIHEAP. The Department received 12 oral testimonies at the hearings specific to LIHEAP related programs. II. WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. Four weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) subgrantees and one NAP subcontractor expressed support of the Department's plan to set aside 15% of the FFY 1993 LIHEAP block grant funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program. Two WAP subgrantees and one WAP subcontractor expressed support of the Department's decision to provide LIHEAP weatherization funds under separate contract and appreciation for the flexibility to utilize LIHEAP weatherization funds for enhanced weatherization activities. Two consumers of a WAP subgrantee expressed support and gratitude for weatherization services to their homes. One WAP subgrantee stated that 5.26% of the subgrantee's funds for administration of the Weatherization Assistance Program under LIHEAP is inadequate. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The United States Department of Health and Human Services has an overall administrative cap for all programs funded by LIHEAP. III. ENERGY CRISIS PROGRAM. Eight consumers of an ECP subgrantee expressed support and gratitude for payment of their utility bills during energy crises. A subcontractor noted that the formula for providing ECP assistance is purportedly based on three factors, income level, household size, and relative energy cost; however, these factors are not taken into consideration in determining the amount of assistance per household. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. A household experiencing a bona fide energy crisis goes through an intake process by a local subgrantee to determine eligibility for the program. This intake process includes review of the factors such as household size, energy cost, and energy consumption as well as income. There is no set formula for providing energy crisis benefit to a household; there is, however, a cap on the amount of assistance an individual household may receive. A subcontractor encouraged ECP providers to utilize a greater share of the energy crisis fund to provide safe and efficient heating and cooling appliances. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. According to the past performance reports of the ECP subgrantees, most energy crises occur when extraordinary events have created problems in meeting basic household expenses, particularly utility bills so as to constitute a threat to the health or well-being of the household. The Department supports providing households with safe and efficient heating and cooling appliances; however, since this is a crisis program, the type of assistance provided is primarily determined by the household's energy related emergency. An ECP subgrantee expressed objections to using the 1990 census data in the FY '93 ECP funding allocation formula to the subgrantees, because of the possible litigation arising from the Texas Attorney General's office regarding this data. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The 1990 Texas census figures the Department is utilizing for the ECP allocation formula was provided by the Texas Department of Commerce. If changes to the 199O Texas census figure occur due to legal actions, then the Department will utilize the new data. There have been tremendous changes in the State's population and economy since 1980 and due to the significance of these changes the Department opted to use the 1990 census as it is currently available. Two subgrantees noted an error on the stated household's annual income level when determining amount of ECP assistance. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department will restate "Less than 80% but not more than 50% of Poverty" to "Less than 80% but not less than 51% of Poverty" and "Less than 125% but not more than 80% of Poverty" to "Less than 125% but not less than 81% of Poverty". IV. HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND PILOT PROJECTS. A subcontractor expressed support of the Department's proposal to fund pilot projects to develop decentralized utility assistance programs. A subcontractor stated that the HEAP program should require maximum interface with and participation of Texas utilities and should require that utilities provide either in-kind or direct financial contributions. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs has no regulatory powers to mandate Texas utility companies and cooperatives to provide services to Home Energy Assistance program subgrantees and/or clients. The Department is working to develop relationships with major utility companies in the State in order to identify and merge resources available to the low- income energy consumers. The Department has encouraged partnerships between subgrantees and their local utility companies and will continue to provide support for the subgrantees concerning the HEAP program. A subgrantee encouraged TDHCA to continue the involvement of the Department's committee of subgrantees in development of utility assistance programs. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department will work closely with the committee during the HEAP transition year. The committee members will be asked to participate in the pilot projects. A subgrantee recommended that a percent of the HEAP allocation be used for subgrantee program support costs associated with the additional outreach and intake provisions required by United States DHHS. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department will propose in the FFY 1993 LIHEAP State Plan that at least 5.0% of the LIHEAP funds allocated to the pilot projects be utilized to support subgrantee's outreach efforts. A utility company stated its objection against any mandated programs. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. The Department is very much interested in developing partnership with the utilities and would be interested in building a long-term relationship of linking and exchanging of resources for our common customer. The final decisions regarding any mandated program for the utility companies must come from the regulatory bodies. It should be noted that the Department's energy assistance programs are not mandated. A utility company has also raised concern for the impact of percentage of income payments plan (PIPP) on all customers. The utility company's two major concerns are: Any shortfall of revenues realized as a result of implementation of a PIPP must be borne by other ratepayers in order to maintain the revenue stability necessary to provide to all its customers. A percentage of income payment plan (PIPP) could serve as a disincentive to conservation; a fixed amount to be paid (by the customer) might encourage customers to seek an increase in comfort rather than a decrease in usage. PIPP should also involve energy conservation education, coordination with weatherization program and a "cap" should be placed on energy usage by participants. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. Part of the purpose for funding PIPP demonstration projects is to identify any potential programmatic and/or management problems with PIPPs and to resolve those problem is used statewide. COORDINATION OF ENERGY PROGRAMS. A subgrantee and a subcontractor expressed need for better coordination between Energy Crisis Program and Weatherization Assistance Program so that both energy conservation and consumption issues can be addressed. A subgrantee recommended the Department explore and incorporate self- sufficiency into the Weatherization Assistance and Energy Crisis Programs. A subcontractor encouraged the Department to coordinate all the energy programs. DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE. With the transfer of LIHEAP Block Grant to TDHCA from the Texas Department of Human Services, TDHCA will house the majority of the energy assistance programs for low-income Texans. The Department and its subgrantees will establish procedures to better coordinate all the energy programs to ensure absence of duplication and maximum utilization of available resources. Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 6, 1993. TRD-9317264 Susan J. Leigh Executive Director Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Filed: January 6, 1993 Railroad Commission of Texas Correction of Error The Railroad Commission of Texas proposed amendments to 16 TAC sec.9.29, concerning filings required for LP-gas installations. The rule was published in the January 1, 1993, Texas Register (18 TexReg 19). In subsection (a) the sentence which begins "Except as provided following no [No] LP-gas container may be placed...." should read as follows. "Except as further provided in this section, no [No] LP-gas container may be placed...." The next sentence repeats and is a typographical error. In proposed subsection (e)[(g)] the word "placed" was misspelled as "laced". In proposed subsection (i)[(k)] the word "by" was misspelled as "bY". Proposed subsection (l) was included at the end of proposed subsection (k) [(m)]. Subsection (l) should read as follows. "(l) If the division director or a delegate determines the completed installation varies materially from the application originally accepted, resubmission of the application for tentative approval may be required. The division's review of such resubmitted application will follow the described procedure in this subsection." The University of Texas System Consultant Proposal Request The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) request, pursuant to the provisions of Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6252-11C, the submission of proposals leading to the award of a contract for a comprehensive review of physician's fees at UTMDACC. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center is seeking a consulting firm to provide competitive, price information of physician fees in the local, regional, and national market; recommend changes in policy and/or pricing where appropriate to maximize return for service; provide a replicable methodology for pricing procedures unique to M. D. Anderson; perform that methodology through the administrative organization of PRS during the first year; and to validate the charge coding process. Consultant assistance is scheduled for commencement no later than March 1, 1993 (contingent upon a Finding of Fact, or waiver, by the Governor's Office), and will continue until completed (estimated completion date is September 1, 1993). The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted under this consultant proposal request, and to negotiate modifications to improve the quality or cost effectiveness of any proposal. UTMDACC is an institution of higher education, a government entity, and a hospital, and as such should be offered any and all applicable discounts associated with such facilities or activities. These discounts, as applicable, should be identified and noted in proposals submitted. Respondents must disclose in their proposal any relationship, whether by relative, business associate, funding agreement, or any other such kinship that exists, or is anticipated to exist, between respondent and any UTMDACC employee. Respondents must disclose in this proposal if any key personnel, owner, major officer, or other employee contributing to this proposal, has been employed by UTMDACC, or other University of Texas Component, within the past 12 months prior to March 1, 1993. Respondents must indicate in their proposal if their firm is considered a Small and/or Minority Business as defined by the State of Texas. Proposal packages will be made available to interested parties on or after January 10, 1993, with responses to be submitted 50 days after the date. Proposal packages may be obtained from John Walker at the address following. Proposals should be submitted as follows: mailing address: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Attention: John Walker or Rick Bryant, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard-Box 546, Houston, Texas 77030; office location: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Attention: John Walker or Rick Bryant, 1020 Holcombe Boulevard-Suite 230, Houston, Texas 77030. For further information, please contact John Walker, Technical Procurement Specialist, at (713) 792-2413 or Lynn Wolfgram, Manager, Physicians Referral Service, at (713) 794-4406. UTMDACC specifically requests that all inquiries on this proposal be directed only to these individuals. Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 7, 1993. TRD-9317311 Arthur H. Dilly Certifying Official The University of Texas-M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Filed: January 7, 1993 Texas Water Commission Notice of Application For Waste Disposal Permit Notice is given by the Texas Water Commission of public notices of waste disposal permit applications issued during the period of December 28, 1992- January 8, 1993. No public hearing will be held on these applications unless an affected person has requested a public hearing. Any such request for a public hearing shall be in writing and contain the name, mailing address, and phone number of the person making the request; and a brief description of how the requester, or persons represented by the requester, would be adversely affected by the granting of the application. If the commission determines that the request sets out an issue which is relevant to the waste discharge permit decision, or that a public hearing would serve the public interest, the commission shall conduct a public hearing, after the issuance of proper and timely notice of the hearing. If no sufficient request for hearing is received within 30 days of the date of publication of notice concerning the applications, the permit will be submitted to the commission for final decision on the application. Information concerning any aspect of these applications may be obtained by contacting the Texas Water Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463-7906. Listed are the name of the applicant and the city in which the facility is located, type of facility, location of the facility, permit number, and type of application-new permit, amendment, or renewal. Angelina Savings and Loan Association; the wastewater treatment facilities; are on the west bank of Willis Creek, approximately one mile south of the Willis Creek crossing of FM Road 842 and approximately two miles northeast of the intersection of FM Road 842 and State Highway 103E near the City of Lufkin in Angelina County; renewal; 11588-01. Boling Municipal Water District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are adjacent to Caney Creek, west of and adjacent to Rycade Avenue in the City of Boling in Wharton County; renewal; 10843-01. Champion International Corporation; a lumber, chip, and plywood manufacturing plant; the plant site is on the south side of the intersection of FM 942 and FM 62 in the Town of Camden in Polk County; amendment; 01598. Chelford City Municipal Utility District; the Brays Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant; the plant site is on the south side of Alief-Clodine Road, approximately 2,000 feet due west of the intersection of Alief-Clodine Road and State Highway 6 in Harris County; renewal; 11599-01. Colorado County Water Control and Improvement District Number 2; the Garwood Wastewater Treatment Facilities; the plant site is approximately 25 feet east of the intersection of Mansfield and Wirtz Streets in the City of Garwood in Colorado County; renewal; 10152-01. City of Corpus Christi; the Westside Wastewater Treatment Facilities; the plant site is located to the south of the State Highway 357 (Saratoga Boulevard), approximately one mile west of the intersection of State Highway 286 and State Highway 357 in the City of Corpus Christi in Nueces County; renewal; 10401-03. D L Utility, Inc.; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 3. 5 miles east of the intersection of FM Road 149 and 1097 in Montgomery County; renewal; 12493-01. Duval County Conservation and Reclamation District; the wastewater treatment facilities; the plant site is adjacent to and east of Benavides Street approximately 800 feet south of San Diego Creek; also 2,200 feet east of State Highway 359 and 3,300 feet south of State Highway 44 in Duval and Jim Wells Counties; renewal; 10270-01. Emerald Forest Utility District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the intersection of FM Road 1960 (Jackrabbit Road) and Perry Road in Harris County; renewal; 11201-01. City of Falls City; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 600 feet northwest of the intersection of Panna Maria Street and Maverick Street in the City of Falls City in Karnes County; renewal; 10398-01. Gard, Inc.; the wastewater treatment facilities; are located in the Jacintoport industrial development, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the confluence of the Houston Ship Channel and Carpenter's Bayou in the eastern part of Harris County; renewal; 12318-01. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; the Canyon Park Estates Wastewater Treatment Facilities; the plant site is approximately 0.2 mile west of FM Road 306 and 3.5 miles southeast of the intersection of FM Road 484 and FM Road 306 in Comal County; renewal; 11496-01. City of Hallsville; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 6,200 feet east of the intersection of FM Road 450 and U.S. Highway 80 and 1, 100 feet south of U.S. Highway 80 in Harrison County; renewal; 10460-01. Houston Independent School District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are on the north shore of Lake Livingston, approximately seven miles east of the City of Trinity in Trinity County; renewal; 11898-01. McLennan County Water Control and Improvement District Number 2; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 4,000 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Interstate Highway 35 and FM Road 308 and approximately 1,500 feet southeast of FM Road 308 in McLennan County; renewal; 10344-01. City of Magnolia; the wastewater treatment facilities; are on the northeast corner of the intersection of Arnold Branch and Nichols Sawmill Road, approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of FM Roads 1774 and 1488 in Montgomery County; renewal; 11871-01. Theron L. Moore, Sr.; the Indian Hill Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities; the plant site is at a point approximately 3,000 feet north of FM Road 2457, and approximately 12 miles northwest of the City of Livingston on the east shore of Lake Livingston in Polk County; renewal; 11621-01. Cal J. Myers; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 1/4 mile west of the intersection of Vietnam Memorial Drive and Frick Road on the south side of Frick Road in Harris County; renewal; 12414-01. North Belt Forest Utility District, Inc.; the wastewater treatment facilities; the plant site is on Wilson Road approximately 15 miles northeast of the City of Houston central business district at a point 2.7 miles east of U.S. Highway 59 and approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the intersection of Atascocita Road and Wilson Road in northern Harris County; renewal; 12571-01. North Belt 25-A Joint Ownership and North Belt Venture; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the intersection of North Belt Drive and Hardy Road, approximately 13 miles north of downtown Houston in Harris County; renewal; 12405-01. Nottingham Country Municipal Utility District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are at 19630 Stone Lodge, off of Fry Road and adjacent to Mason Creek in Harris County; renewal; 12479-01. Town of Ponder; the Ponder Wastewater Treatment Plant; the plant site is approximately 9.5 miles southwest of the City of Denton central business district and 1,000 feet southeast of the intersection of FM Road 2449 and FM Road 156 and 1,200 feet east of FM Road 156, approximately 0.3 of a mile south of the Town of Ponder in Denton County; renewal; 11287-01. City of Post; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 0.75 mile southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 84 and U.S. Highway 380 in Garza County; renewal; 13048-01. River Plantation Municipal Utility District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 1.5 miles downstream from the Interstate Highway 45 bridge, on the north bank of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River in Montgomery County; renewal; 10978-01. Sarita Sewer Service and Water Supply Corporation; wastewater treatment facility; the plant site is approximately 3,400 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 77 and La Parra Avenue in the Town of Sarita in Kenedy County; renewal; 13361-01. Schenectady Chemicals, Inc.; an alkyl phenol/petrochemical plant; the plant site is on FM Road 523, approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the intersection of FM Road 523 and State Highway 332 (at 702 FM Road 523) in the City of Freeport, Brazoria County; amendment; 01961. Specialty Sand Company; a sand dredging operation; the plant site is 0.25 mile west of State Highway 12 at a point approximately 0.5 mile northwest of Deweyville, Newton County; renewal; 01677. Solvay Interox, A Partnership of Solvay Peroxygen, Inc. and LaPorte Peroxygen, Inc.; the hydrogen peroxide, percarbonate soda and sodium perborate process and storage area; the plant site is at 1230 Battleground Road (State Highway 134) in the City of Deer Park, Harris County; renewal; 02544. City of Texarkana; the Rollingwood Wastewater Treatment Facilities; the plant site is approximately 1,000 feet west of U.S. Highway 59 and approximately 9,500 feet north of Interstate 30 in Bowie County; 10374-08. Texas Utilities Electric Company; the Stryker Creek Stream Electric Station; the plant site is on the west shore of Striker Creek Reservoir which is approximately 17 miles east of the City of Jacksonville, Cherokee County; renewal; 00946. Thirty-Two Lake Conroe Real Estate, Limited; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 100 feet south of FM Road 1097 and 1/4 mile east of Lake Conroe in Montgomery County; renewal; 13395-01. Quail Valley Utility District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are 600 feet south of the terminus of Nancy Belle Lane at the confluence of Stafford Run and Oyster Creek, 2-1/2 miles south of the City of Stafford in Fort Bend County; renewal; 11046-01. City of Waco; the Mount Carmel Surface Water Treatment plant; the plant site is on Lake Shore Drive between Mount Carmel Drive and Wooded Acres Drive, just east of Lake Waco in the City of Waco, McLennan County; renewal; 03570. City of Waco; the Riverside Water Treatment Plant; the plant site is southwest of the Brazos River, just southwest of University Parks Drive, just southeast of Colcord Avenue in the City of Waco, McLennan County; renewal; 03571. City of Waelder; the wastewater treatment facilities; are southeast of Waelder on the north bank of Baldridge Creek, approximately 1/2 mile south of U.S. Highway 90 and 1/2 mile east of State Highway 97 in Gonzales County; renewal; 10327-01. Wallace A. Raynor; the Alta Vista Mobile Home Park Wastewater Treatment Plant; is approximately 13 miles north-northeast of the City of Fort Worth central business district and 1.9 miles east of Interstate Highway 35W on the north bank of Big Bear Creek, west of its crossing of Alta Vista Road and approximately 0.5 of a mile south of the intersection of Alta Vista Road and Keller-Hicks Road, in the City of Keller in Tarrant County; renewal; 11032-01. Westwood Shores Municipal Utility District; the wastewater treatment facilities; are one mile north of FM Road 356 and three miles east of the City of Trinity in Trinity County; renewal; 11300-01. Wharton County Water Control and Improvement District Number 1; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 850 feet north of the intersection of FM Road 1160 and Loop 525, between FM Road 1160 and East Mustang Creek in Wharton County; renewal; 10849-01. Windy Hill Utilities, Inc.; the wastewater treatment facilities; are approximately 800 feet north of Zaka Road, west of Windfern Road at the southeast corner of Maple Leaf Gardens in Harris County; renewal; 12342-01. The Woodlands Corporation; the proposed wastewater treatment facilities will serve the Wood Trace Subdivision; the plant site is approximately 4,500 feet southeast of the intersection of Wright Road and State Highway 249, within an area bounded by Wright Road on the west and by State Highway 249 on the east in Montgomery County; new; 13636-01. Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1993. TRD-9317431 Gloria A. Vasquez Chief Clerk Texas Water Commission Filed: January 11, 1993 Public Hearing The Texas Water Commission proposed new and amended sections to Title 31 Texas Administrative Code, sec.sec.288.1-288.7, 295.9, and 297.1 in the October 30, 1992, issue of the Texas Register (17 TexReg 7647). The sections related to water conservation plans. The commission has scheduled a public hearing as follows to receive comments on the proposed rules: Monday, January 25, 1993, at 1 p.m., Room 1149B, Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. Persons participating in the public hearing are encouraged to summarize their testimony in written presentations. If you have any questions concerning this hearing, you may contact Sharon J. Smith, Legal Division, Texas Water Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or call (512) 463-8069. Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 11, 1993. TRD-9317444 Mary Ruth Holder Director, Legal Division Texas Water Commission Filed: January 11, 1993 Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Discount Rate; Interest Rate The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission has determined, pursuant to the authority and direction given under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, Article 8308-1.04(b), that any interest or discount provided for in the Act shall be at the rate of 3.57%, a rate computed by taking the auction rate quoted at a discount basis for 52-week treasury bills, issued by the United States Treasury, as quoted on auction on December 10, 1992. The rate shall be effective January 1, 1993-March 31, 1993. Issued in Austin, Texas, on December 31, 1992. TRD-9317318 Todd K. Brown Executive Director Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Filed: January 7, 1993