ADOPTED RULES An agency may take final action on a section 30 days after a proposal has been published in the Texas Register. The section becomes effective 20 days after the agency files the correct document with the Texas Register, unless a later date is specified or unless a federal statute or regulation requires implementation of the action on shorter notice. If an agency adopts the section without any changes to the proposed text, only the preamble of the notice and statement of legal authority will be published. If an agency adopts the section with changes to the proposed text, the proposal will be republished with the changes. TITLE 4. AGRICULTURE Part I. Texas Department of Agriculture Chapter 5. Quarantines Sweet Potato Weevil Quarantine 4 TAC sec.5.64, sec.5.71 The Texas Department of Agriculture (the department) adopts the repeal of sec.5.64 and sec.5.71, concerning sweet potato weevil quarantine, without changes to the proposed text as published in the July 15, 1994, issue of the Texas Register , (19 TexReg 5432). The department no longer recognizes a sweet potato weevil eradication area in Texas. Trapping by the department has produced no positive catches of the sweet potato weevil during the last two years in Marion County. The department has determined that since the sweet potato weevil is no longer a threat to the sweet potato industry and to the general public in Marion County, the quarantine should be removed. The repeal of sec.5.64 as adopted eliminates the designation of a sweet potato weevil eradication area in Texas. The repeal of sec.5.71 as adopted deletes from the sweet potato weevil quarantine, areas or parts of Marion County. The proposed repeals will result in more commerce and freedom of exchange of sweet potatoes in Marion County. No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeals. The repeals are adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.71.002, which provides the Texas Department of Agriculture with the authority to quarantine an infested area if the department determines a dangerous pest not widely distributed in the state exists within an area of the state; and sec.71.007, which provides the department with the authority to adopt rules necessary for the protection of agricultural and horticultural interests in the state. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448241 Dolores Alvarado Hibbs Chief Administrative Judge Texas Department of Agriculture Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: July 15, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 463-7583 Citrus Seed, Citrus Budwood and Citrus Nursery Stock Quarantine 4 TAC sec.sec.5.151-5.153 The Texas Department of Agriculture (the department) adopts amendments to sec.sec.5.151-5.153, concerning restricted shipments of citrus seed, citrus budwood and citrus nursery stock, without changes to the proposed text as published in the July 8, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 5303). The amendments are established to enhance protection of the state's citrus industry from potential introduction of plant diseases which could result from the introduction of citrus seeds, citrus budwood and citrus nursery stock into Texas. Currently, citrus seeds, citrus budded nursery stock or seedlings, citrus budwood or any part of any citrus tree or seedling can not be shipped, carried or in any way transported by any means into the State of Texas except from California and Florida under certain conditions. The sections have been amended to provide that severe forms of plant diseases are present outside Texas, that a special permit must be obtained from the commissioner of agriculture of Texas for admittance of budwood into Texas, and that citrus seed entering Texas must be accompanied by a certificate from the originating state's department of agriculture stating that the seed is from the registered stock. The amendments also require that all citrus budwood allowed to enter Texas, must have been tested using the enzyme-linked-immuno-sorbent-assay (ELISA) method and such test must have negative results and that such budwood shall be assigned to a federal or a state agency for the purpose of growing for confirmation tests to determine if the budwood is free from all virus and infectious diseases. No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendments. The amendments are adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.71.007, which provides the Texas Department of Agriculture with the authority to establish rules necessary for the protection of horticultural and agricultural interests. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas on September 14, 1994. TRD-9448082 Dolores Alvarado Hibbs Chief Administrative Law Judge Texas Department of Agriculture Effective date: October 5, 1994 Proposal publication date: July 8, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 463-7583 Imported Fire Ant Quarantine 4 TAC sec.sec.5.400-5.408 The Texas Department of Agriculture (the department) adopts new sec.sec.5. 400-5.408, concerning the imported fire ant quarantine, without changes to the proposed text as published in the July 15, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 5433). The new sections are adopted to reestablish the imported fire ant quarantine which has been repealed in order to reorganize Chapter 5. The new sections as adopted provide for imported fire ant quarantined areas; provide for imported fire ant quarantined articles; provide for imported fire ant quarantine exemptions; provide for conditions governing the movement of imported fire ant quarantined articles; provide for conditions governing the movement of imported fire ant quarantined articles within imported fire ant quarantined areas; provide for disposition of permits under the imported fire ant quarantine; provide for the movement of quarantined articles for scientific purposes under the imported fire ant quarantine; provide inspection and disposal provisions under the imported fire ant quarantine and provide penalties for violations of the imported fire ant quarantine. No comments were received regarding adoption of the new sections. The new sections are adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.71.007, which provides the Texas Department of Agriculture with the authority to adopt rules necessary for the protection of agricultural and horticultural interests. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448240 Dolores Alvarado Hibbs Chief Administrative Judge Texas Department of Agriculture Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: July 15, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 463-7583 Part II. Texas Animal Health Commission Chapter 49. Equine 4 TAC sec.49.1 The Texas Animal Health Commission adopts an amendment to sec.49.1, concerning equine infectious anemia, without changes to the proposed text as published in the July 29, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 5816). The amendment is necessary to add additional methods of officially identifying tested horses by describing hair whorls, vortices or "cow licks;" to clarify procedures for retest of infected horses; to require a quarantine to be placed on all equines on the premise with the infected horse as well as those equines epidemiologically exposed; to require testing of all equines on the premise with the infected horse at the time it was tested positive along with all equines determined to be exposed to the positive animal (nursing foals are exempt from test); to require to quarantine to remain in effect until all quarantined horses test negative at least 60 days after removal of the last EIA-positive horse. Two written comments and two oral comments were received regarding the adoption of the amendment. These comments all supported equine infectious anemia eradication measures more stringent than those in the proposal. The Commission adopts the proposal without changes as the initial phase of the eradication program and believes the changes suggested in the comments would place more restrictions on the equine industry than are necessary for that initial phase. The amendment is adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code, which provides the Texas Animal Health Commission with the authority to promulgate rules regarding the eradication or control of diseases affecting livestock, and the testing of livestock. The amendment implements the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.161.041. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448142 Terry Beals, DVM Executive Director Texas Animal Health Commission Effective date: October 24, 1994 Proposal publication date: June 29, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 719-0714 TITLE 16. ECONOMIC REGULATION Part II. Public Utility Commission Chapter 23. Substantive Rules 16 TAC sec.23.21 The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.23.21, concerning cost of service, without changes to the proposed text as published in the May 6, 1994 issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 3404). The purpose of the amendment is to reflect the fact that no interexchange carrier is subject to the provisions of sec.23.21 and to correct a typographical error. One party, AT&T Communications of the Southwest ("AT&T"), submitted comments on the proposed amendment, remarking that the amendment is consistent with recent changes to state law and will further administrative efficiency. No other comments were received. The amendment is adopted pursuant to Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c sec.16(a), which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. Cross-reference to statute: Senate Bill 377, Acts of the 73rd Legislature, which amended Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c sec.sec.3(c)(3)(2); 18(c), (d) and (l); and 78 and repealed sec.100 and sec.101. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448218 John M. Renfrow Secretary of the Commission Public Utility Commission of Texas Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: May 6, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 Rates 16 TAC sec.23.25 The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts the repeal of sec.23.25, concerning long distance rates, without changes to the proposed text as published in the May 6, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 3408). The purpose of the repeal is to reflect the fact that there is no interexchange carrier whose rates are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. One party, AT&T Communications of the Southwest ("AT&T"), submitted comments on the proposed amendment, remarking that the repeal is consistent with recent changes to state law and will advance administrative efficiency. No other comments were received. The repeal is adopted pursuant to Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a), which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. Cross-reference to statute: Senate Bill 377, Acts of the 73rd Legislature, which amended Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.sec.3(c)(3)(2); 18(c), (d) and (l); and 78 and repealed sec.100 and sec.101. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448221 John M. Renfrow Secretary of the Commission Public Utility Commission of Texas Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: May 6, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 16 TAC sec.23.29 The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts the repeal of sec.23.29, concerning cost allocation, without changes to the proposed text as published in the May 6, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 3408). The purpose of the repeal is to reflect the fact that there is no interexchange carrier subject to the Commission's jurisdiction regarding cost allocation. One party, AT&T Communications of the Southwest ("AT&T"), submitted comments on the proposed amendment, remarking that the repeal is consistent with recent changes to state law and will advance administrative efficiency. No other comments were received. The repeal is adopted pursuant to Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a), which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. Cross-reference to statute: Senate Bill 377, Acts of the 73rd Legislature, which amended Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.sec.3(c)(3)(2); 18(c), (d) and (l); and 78 and repealed sec.100 and sec.101. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448222 John M. Renfrow Secretary of the Commission Public Utility Commission of Texas Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: May 6, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 Customer Service and Protection 16 TAC sec.23.53 The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.23.53, concerning the universal service fund, without changes to the proposed text as published in the May 6, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 3408). The purpose of the amendment is to delete a reference to sec.23.25, which is repealed. One party, AT&T Communications of the Southwest ("AT&T"), submitted comments on the proposed amendment, remarking that the amendment is consistent with recent changes to state law and will further administrative efficiency. No other comments were received. The amendment is adopted pursuant to Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a), which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make and enforces rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. Cross-reference to statute: Senate Bill 377, Acts of the 73rd Legislature, which amended Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.sec.3(c)(3)(2); 18(c), (d) and (l); and 78 and repealed sec.100 and sec.101. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448219 John M. Renfrow Secretary of the Commission Public Utility Commission of Texas Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: May 6, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 16 TAC sec.23.57 The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.23.57, concerning telecommunications privacy, with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 8, 1994 issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 2464). The section clarifies existing requirements regarding the protection of certain privacy concerns. The section also requires customer notification of rights concerning customer-specific customer proprietary network information (CPNI). The following parties submitted initial comments in response to the April 8, 1994 Texas Register publication: AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T); GTE Southwest Incorporated and Contel of Texas, Inc., Joint Comments (GTE); Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT); The Texas Telephone Association (TTA); and United Telephone Company of Texas and Central Telephone Company of Texas, Joint Comments (United/Centel). No reply comments were filed. The TTA and United/Centel concur with the comments submitted by SWBT. An initial recommendation was filed on August 5, 1994. AT&T, GTE and SWBT filed comments in response to the initial recommendation. These comments do not differ substantially from those originally submitted by the parties. In general, SWBT and GTE comment that no amendments are necessary to subsections (a), (c), and (d) because the current rule adequately protects customers' privacy concerns. Both parties urge the commission not to adopt the proposed revisions to these subsections. SWBT believes the current rule has worked effectively to identify and resolve the privacy issues associated with new services or features. SWBT comments that it is "unaware of any instance" where privacy issues have not been identified and resolved in an application. SWBT argues that no modification of the rule is needed because in new service applications the LEC currently must provide an explanation of the effect of the service or feature on the privacy of customer-specific information. SWBT believes the current rule adequately identifies privacy issues and protects consumers because, "[i]t is unclear how one can have a service or feature that affected privacy which did not result in an obligation of the LEC to identify this privacy issue in its application." According to SWBT, the only amendment needed to sec.23.57 is the deletion of subsection (e), which was held to be void, and the company urges the Commission not to adopt the proposed amendments to sec.23.57. Similarly, GTE believes customer's privacy expectations are being fully met by current policies and practices. According to GTE, the Commission is proposing to address a problem that does not exist. First, GTE asserts, there is no evidence to indicate that consumers are experiencing any privacy-related problems which would be solved by tightening regulation of the LECs. Second, GTE believes that the Commission's current procedure for identifying privacy concerns in new service applications is adequate. According to GTE, "[p] roviding a specific list of examples of privacy issues adds little to the Commission's power to protect consumers." On the contrary, GTE adds, the proposed amendments merely increase the complexity of the rule. In light of this, GTE "urges the Commission to not adopt any additional amendments to this subsection." The Commission agrees with SWBT and GTE that the current rule has, for the most part, worked effectively to identify and resolve the privacy issues associated with new services or features. However, in the course of reviewing applications pursuant to sec.23.57, the Commission has found that there appear to be differing views on the intended scope of information which must be provided by applicants in order to comply with sec.23.57. Specifically, under the rule applicants who file an application in conformance with sec.23.57 must include in the application a description of any "privacy issue" raised as a result of the service or feature being offered. The term privacy issue, defined in subsection (a)(4), is in part defined as something that "would result in a change in the outflow of information about a customer." The Commission believes the term "privacy issue" should be construed broadly because it determines how much information an applicant should provide to the Commission staff for review of the application. If the term is not given a broad meaning, applicants can take a preemptively narrow interpretation and essentially decide whether the Commission staff even needs to know about a particular piece of information, thereby limiting staff's awareness of potential impacts. While the original intent of the rule was for the term "privacy issue" to be construed broadly, not all applicants have interpreted it as such. The proposed amendments to subsection (a)(4), concerning the definition of privacy issue, are therefore necessary to clarify the original intent of the rule and ensure that the term is construed broadly. The amendments essentially describe some of the types of changes in the outflow of information that constitute a privacy issue. The amendments thus do not change the original definition of privacy issue, they simply clarify it. Therefore, the Commission rejects SWBT's and GTE's recommendations regarding subsection (a)(4), and adopts the proposed changes to subsection (a)(4), with some modifications to the proposed version, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to subsection (c) are also necessary to clarify the original intent of the rule. Both the original and the amended versions of subsection (c) require the LEC to identify all privacy issues that result from the implementation of a new service or feature and all privacy issues that result in a lost degree of privacy. As amended, subsection (c) also describes the type of information the applicant shall include in its identification of privacy issues. Like the changes to subsection (a)(4), the amendments to subsection (c) clarify existing requirements. They do not alter the scope of the current standard for actual approval, which is essentially that there not be an unresolved "lost degree of privacy." Since, as discussed previously, the Commission believes that clarification of existing requirements is necessary in order to facilitate a careful and comprehensive examination of privacy issues, the Commission rejects SWBT's and GTE's recommendations regarding subsection (c) , and adopts the proposed changes to subsection (c), with some modifications to the proposed version, as discussed in the following paragraphs. GTE criticizes the proposed definition of privacy issue in subsection (a)(4) , commenting that it is "incomplete because it does not consider the interests of called parties." (Emphasis added.) GTE expresses concern that the proposed amendments to the rule "do not even attempt to protect the rights of consumers to be left alone." The Commission agrees with GTE that the right of consumers "to be left alone" is a valid privacy concern. However, the Commission disagrees with GTE's comment that the proposed amendments do not attempt to protect this right. The CPNI notification requirements, discussed in detail later, allow customers to invoke FCC-granted rights to protect themselves from unwanted marketing contacts. In recognition of GTE's expressed concern, the Commission proposes to initiate a rulemaking on general telemarketing issues. This proceeding will examine consumers' rights regarding protection from unwanted telemarketing. In its response to the initial recommendation, GTE comments that many of its concerns about the proposed rule have not been adequately addressed. According to GTE, the proposed rules "still do not attempt to protect the right of the consumer to be left alone." Furthermore, GTE contends, the rule "still impedes the ability of the local exchange carriers (LECs) to introduce new services while not significantly adding any protection to customer privacy. " In addition, GTE criticizes the rule for focusing more on "processes than on problems." According to GTE, "privacy safeguards must address how information is used, not the processes or systems by which it is gathered and stored." Furthermore, GTE comments that restrictions imposed only upon LECs are "ineffective protectors of privacy" because unregulated service providers have "greater access to confidential customer data and therefore represent a more serious risk to consumer's privacy interests." The Commission disagrees with GTE for several reasons. First, the CPNI notification provisions of the rule, discussed later, increase the opportunity for consumers to be left alone from some unwanted marketing solicitations. Second, the Commission disagrees with GTE's suggestion that the privacy review process unduly impedes a LEC's ability to offer new services. The Commission believes that consumer knowledge and control are enhanced by this process, and that this is a significant public benefit that justifies this review. Furthermore, GTE has not identified instances where the introduction of new services has been unduly delayed. Third, the Commission believes that the processes and systems by which information is gathered and stored play a crucial role in determining who has access to the information, what information is being compiled, and how that information can be used. Finally, the Commission disagrees strongly with GTE's assertion that unregulated service providers have "greater access" to confidential customer data than the LECs. Few businesses can match the LEC's vast database, which includes information on virtually every consumer in the state. In addition, the Commission finds significance in the fact that the LEC database is acquired non-consensually from customers who are required to use public utility services. There is no alternative for such customers. In general, AT&T believes that the proposed new definition for "privacy issue" in subsection (a)(4) and the identification of privacy issues in subsection (c)(1) are "overly broad" and do not seem to require the production of information relevant to the identification of privacy issues. AT&T suggests refinements to the proposed language that it believes will facilitate a clearer focus on the issue of protection of lost degrees of privacy. Specific recommendations as well as the Commission's responses to those recommendations are discussed in detail below. As proposed, subsection (a)(4)(B) defines a change in "the identity of the customers about whom information is released" as a "privacy issue." Proposed subsection (c)(1)(B) requires the "identification of customers about whom information will be released" as part of the LEC's identification of privacy issues. AT&T believes that the language in these subsections is sufficiently broad to require the applicant to produce a list of the specific identities of the affected customers. AT&T comments that even if the LEC could produce such a list, to do so would be extremely burdensome, and furthermore, such a list could be proprietary. AT&T believes that the identity of the customer classes , rather than the specific customers, may be relevant to the Commission's consideration of privacy issues, and suggests revising subsections (a)(4)(B) and (c)(1)(B) to identify the class of customers about whom information is released, rather than requiring identification of the customers themselves. The Commission agrees with AT&T that requiring the LEC to produce a list of the specific identities of the affected customers would be both burdensome and possibly proprietary. It is not the Commission's intent to require the LEC to produce such a list. Rather, the Commission intends for the LEC to identify the category of customers whose privacy will be affected by the service (e.g., residential customers, customers who subscribe to the service in question, etc. ), rather than the specific identities of the customers themselves (e.g., the customer's names). To clarify this, subsection (a)(4)(B) is changed to read "the customers about whom information is released" rather that "the identity of the customers..." and subsection (c)(1)(B) is revised to require the LEC to identify the "category of customers" rather than the "customers" about whom information will be released as a result of the new service or feature. In its response to the initial recommendation, AT&T expresses support for the revision to subsection (c)(1)(B). Both SWBT and AT&T comment that proposed subsections (a)(4)(C) and (c)(1)(C) are overly broad. As proposed, subsection (a)(4)(C) includes a change in the "entity or entities to whom the information about a customer is released" as part of the definition of privacy issue, and subsection (c)(1)(C) requires the LEC to identify the entity or entities to whom the information about a customer will be released. SWBT believes it "would not be possible for a LEC to identify each entity that may receive customer-specific information." According to SWBT, such entities may include long distance companies, 800 and 900 service providers, 911 providers, and in the case of caller identification services, the called party. Similarly, AT&T asserts that "in many cases, there is no way to accurately predict the entities to whom the information will be ultimately released." Even when the recipients of the information can be identified, the obligation of the LEC to act in a non-discriminatory manner may require the LEC to provide the information to anyone that requests it. Furthermore, AT&T believes that personal identification of the entities that may be entitled to the information is "neither efficient nor helpful." To address this problem, AT&T recommends modifying subsections (a)(4)(C) and (c)(1)(C) of the rule to require the identification of the class of entity or entities to whom information about a customer is released, rather than identification of the entity or entities themselves. According to AT&T, this modification would allow an appropriate response to the requirements of subsections (a)(4)(C) and (c)(1)(C) to be that the information will be available to any member of a particular identifiable group. It is not the Commission's intent to require the LEC to produce a list of the specific identities of the entities to whom information about a customer will be released. The Commission agrees with AT&T and SWBT that such a list would be unnecessary and could be burdensome. Rather, the Commission intends for the LEC to identify the category of entities to whom information about a customer will be released. To clarify this, the Commission has modified subsection (c)(1)(C). However, the Commission does not agree with AT&T that subsection (a)(4)(C) must also be modified. Subsection (a)(4)(C) defines privacy issue, but does not require the identification of specific entities to whom information is released. Thus, no change is made to subsection (a)(4)(C). In its response to the initial recommendation, AT&T expresses support for the revision to subsection (c)(1)(C). Both SWBT and AT&T object to proposed subsections (a)(4)(D) and (C)(1)(D), which require the identification of a change in the technology used to convey customer information. AT&T believes that this requirement is not likely to produce information that is useful to the Commission in determining the existence of a privacy issue or the impact of a proposed service on customer privacy. AT&T asserts that the issue of whether existing technology used to convey information has been modified does not, per se, seem to be relevant to the identification of privacy issues. AT&T believes that this requirement "could potentially prolong the regulatory process and thus slow the desired introduction of new services and new technology." According to AT&T, this is contrary to existing Commission policy. If the new technology does result in the collection or release of additional information by the LEC, AT&T argues, such circumstances are "adequately captured by the remaining subsections of the rule." AT&T recommends the deletion of subsections (a)(4)(D) and (c)(1)(D) in their entirety, asserting that elimination of these subsections would not impede the ability of the Commission to safeguard the privacy of Texas consumers. SWBT similarly argues that the proposed changes to subsections (a)(4)(D) and (c)(1)(D) are unnecessary because the current rule requires the LEC to identify privacy issues and the lost degree of privacy, "regardless of the signalling or transmission of the information." In addition, SWBT believes that "it would not be logical" to amend the rule to apply to a circumstance "that has not occurred and may not occur." Again, SWBT reiterates, the current rule is sufficient. The Commission disagrees with SWBT and AT&T. As stated previously, the amendments to subsections (a)(4) and (c) are clarifications of the existing requirements of the rule. Under the current version of the rule, the LEC is already required to identify changes in the technology used to convey the information about a customer, and to identify whether those changes result in a lost degree of privacy. Some technological changes may not be relevant to the identification of privacy issues involving a lost degree of privacy. Under the rule, that determination will be made by the commission, rather than the telephone company involved. Furthermore, the adoption of these amendments could not, as AT&T fears, prolong the regulatory process, because the requirements are already in place. Thus, no changes are made to the proposed text. In its response to the initial recommendation, AT&T maintains its position that subsection (c)(1)(D) should be modified as proposed in AT&T's initial comments. For the reasons previously discussed, the Commission again disagrees with AT&T's recommendation. AT&T also objects to proposed subsections (a)(4)(E) and (c)(1)(E). These subsections incorporate the changes in the time at which information is conveyed in the definition of privacy issue and require the LEC to identify and describe any changes in the time at which information about a customer is conveyed. AT&T believes this requirement is counter-productive, and would require the use of resources that "could be more gainfully employed elsewhere. " AT&T asserts that "[w]hether customer information is provided before the first ring, after the fifth ring or on a bill received 30 days after the call is only of minor importance." Rather, AT&T believes that the "key issue" is whether additional information is collected or released, or whether it is used in a new manner so as to "intrude on the privacy of the customer." Regarding proposed subsections (a)(4)(F) and (c)(1)(F), which require the LEC to identify and describe any other change in the collection, use, storage, or release of the information about a customer, AT&T reiterates that "the issue that is of relevance to the Commission's privacy review" is whether additional information about a customer is collected or released by the LEC, or whether the LEC uses information in a new manner so as to intrude on a customer's privacy. AT&T believes that any other change with respect to the use or storage of the information "would seem to have little relevance to the review of privacy issues." For example, a service which puts customer billing information in a new format for billing purposes could, under the proposed definition, create a privacy issue which would have to be included in an application by the LEC and investigated by the Commission and its staff. AT&T urges the Commission to structure its rule so that so that it can focus its attention on "issues of importance." To address its concerns, AT&T recommends the deletion of the word "storage" from proposed subsections (a)(4)(F) and (c) (1)(F) and the addition of the following language at the end of these subsections: "...which causes the collection or release of information about the customer which is additional to the information then being collected or released or which may reduce the privacy of a customer." The Commission reiterates that the current version of the rule already requires the LEC to identify such changes as privacy issues. The current requirements of the rule are simply being made more explicit, to eliminate any potential confusion. The current version of the rule defines privacy issue as a "change in the outflow of information about a customer." Changes in the timing, collection, storage, use or release of customer information are all changes in the "outflow of information about a customer" and therefore are, by definition, privacy issues. However, all privacy issues do not necessarily result in a "lost degree of privacy" for the consumer. Whether or not they do will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for each application. In its response to the initial recommendation, AT&T maintains its position that subsection (c)(1)(E) and (F) should be modified as proposed in AT&T's initial comments. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission disagrees with AT&T's recommendation. Regarding subsection (c)(3), SWBT comments that the proposed application of the requirements of the rule to new service or new feature filings made pursuant to sec.23.27, relating to Rate-Setting Flexibility for Services Subject to Significant Competitive Challenges, or pursuant to sec.23.28, relating to Promotional Rates for LEC Services, "seems inappropriate and not applicable." According to SWBT, while there "may be some remote application" to sec.23.27, "there is no application" to sec.23.28. SWBT comments that since the proposed amendments apply to new service offerings under sec.23.24 and/or sec.23.26, any filings under sec.23.27 or sec.23.28 "would have already been addressed." The Commission disagrees with SWBT. The Commission believes privacy issues may indeed arise as the result of a new service or feature offering pursuant to sec.23.27 or sec.23.28. If, on the other hand, no new privacy issue arises, the LEC simply needs to make a statement to that effect. Therefore, the Commission declines to change the proposed language. In its response to the initial recommendation, SWBT urges the Commission to not make sec.23.57 applicable to filings made under sec.23.27 or sec.23.28. SWBT comments that should a LEC file an application for rate-setting flexibility or for promotional rates in connection with an existing service for which telecommunications privacy considerations were previously addressed, "additional filings regarding these [privacy] considerations would be redundant." However, SWBT comments, should the Commission determine that it must make the privacy rule applicable to all four filing situations, SWBT suggests amending the text of each of the Substantive Rules sec.sec.23.24, 23.26, 23.27, and 23.28 to specifically refer to or otherwise incorporate the obligations imposed by sec.23.57. According to SWBT, this cross-referencing would allow an applicant to be directly apprised that there are privacy-related obligations associated with the contemplated filing. The Commission agrees with SWBT that if privacy considerations have already been addressed for a feature or service, additional filings regarding these privacy considerations would be redundant. However, the proposed amendments would not require the LEC to make such additional filings if the privacy issues associated with a service have previously been addressed by the Commission, and if no new privacy issues arise as a result of the filing. In addition, while SWBT's suggestion to amend each of the four Substantive Rules may be a good idea, to do so in place of the proposed amendments would delay the application of the requirements of sec.23.57 to filings made under sec.23.27 and sec.23.28. Therefore, no change is made. SWBT believes that if the proposed amendments are adopted, "they would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the Federal Court Order," which, according to SWBT, found that prior sec.23.57 subsection (e)(1), (2), and (5), are "PREEMPTED BY THE FCC and that subsection (e) is VOID and has NO EFFECT, including subsection (e)(4), which is merely an exception to the remaining preempted subsections of subsection (e)." Southwestern Bell Telephone v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 812 F. Supp. 706 (W.D. Tex. 1993). GTE also objects to the adoption of proposed subsection (e), relating to customer proprietary network information (CPNI). GTE contends that the FCC has preempted prior authorization rules instituted by the states. According to GTE, the proposed rule "goes well beyond" the CPNI requirements mandated by the FCC. GTE recommends that the Commission "delete the subsections found to be preempted by the court in Southwestern Bell Telephone v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 812 F. Supp. 706 (W.D. Tex. 1993)." The Commission agrees that the Federal Court held that prior sec.23.57(e) was preempted by the FCC to the extent that it required prior authorization before a Bell Operating Company could use customer- specific CPNI to market supplemental services. The Commission disagrees that proposed subsection (e) would constitute a prior authorization requirement and be preempted by FCC rules. However, proposed sec.23.57(e) has been revised to require that the local exchange carrier simply notify each of its residential customers of his or her FCC-granted customer-specific CPNI rights. Revised subsection (e) certainly does not constitute a prior authorization requirement under the FCC's rules, and therefore is not preempted by the FCC. SWBT believes that the amendments appear to focus on the "concerns customers might theoretically have...about the use and release of CPNI," in the absence of any indication that such concerns actually exist. The Commission believes that citizens have general concerns with privacy, and they are unaware of issues relating to CPNI. The Commission finds that the customers of local exchange carriers have concerns about the use and release of CPNI and that the customers should be notified of their rights regarding CPNI. SWBT asserts that the goal of the FCC, in issuing its orders allowing the use and release of CPNI, was not to encourage customers to restrict the use and release of CPNI, but rather to allow the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to access and use CPNI freely in order to facilitate the marketing and growth of enhanced services, and to encourage cost reductions in such services. SWBT asserts that the proposed amendments to sec.23.57 would "frustrate" this goal. The Commission notes that the FCC's rules allow a customer to request that his or her customer-specific CPNI be withheld from the local exchange carrier's marketing personnel. Subsection (e) as revised simply requires that the local exchange carrier notify each of its residential customers of his or her customer-specific CPNI rights. The Commission disagrees that this notification requirement "frustrates" any FCC goal, rather it allows each customer to be informed of his or her rights. The Commission simply does not find credible a contention that the FCC has adopted a national policy that grants residential customers a substantive right, but mandates customer ignorance of that right. To suggest otherwise is implausible, at the very least. SWBT further asserts that it "complies completely with the spirit, intent and letter of the FCC's mandates in all aspects of the marketing of enhanced services and the access and use of CPNI." According to SWBT, these FCC requirements include restricting access to customers' CPNI by enhanced services and CPE personnel if the customer requests such restriction, releasing CPNI to any nonaffiliated enhanced service provider or CPE vendor who has the permission of the customer to receive the customer's CPNI, annual notification of all multi-line business customers of their CPNI rights, and obtaining authorization from business customers with more than 20 lines before accessing their CPNI for enhanced services purposes. SWBT states that it complies with the FCC rules through its enforcement of company policy and procedures and the company's Code of Business Conduct. SWBT believes that its customers "have the right" to expect it to "protect the privacy of their telephone records," and to comply with FCC rules. The Commission agrees with SWBT that local exchange carrier customers "have the right" to expect the local exchange carrier to "protect the privacy of their telephone records," and to comply with FCC rules. Subsection (e) as revised simply requires the local exchange carriers to notify each customer of rights that he or she already enjoys under the FCC rules -allowing a customer to request that his or her customer-specific CPNI be withheld from the local exchange carrier's marketing personnel. SWBT cites several ways in which it believes the proposed amendments would thwart the goals of the FCC. The Commission finds that subsection (e) as revised does not thwart the goals of the FCC. First, SWBT believes the amendments are counter to the FCC's intentions of allowing the BOCs to achieve efficiencies of scale. Second, requiring prior authorization before CPNI can be released to third parties, including affiliates, is "clearly preempted by the FCC's orders," according to SWBT. Third, even though they were not otherwise specifically preempted, some of the requirements of the proposed rule are "so burdensome and onerous" that, SWBT contends, they are also preempted. SWBT asserts that the proposed amendments must be revised to be consistent with prior rules and policies of the FCC before they are adopted by the Commission. The Commission disagrees that revised subsection (e) prevents the BOC from achieving efficiencies of scale and is "so burdensome and onerous" that it is preempted. Because revised subsection (e) simply requires the local exchange carrier to notify each of its customer of his or her FCC-granted CPNI rights, it does not prevent the LEC from achieving the efficiencies of scale allowed under the FCC rules. Because revised subsection (e) does not require prior authorization before CPNI can be released to third parties, including affiliates, the Commission disagrees that it is preempted by the FCC's Orders. GTE asserts the imposition of more regulatory constraints on LECs is ineffective because such restrictions have no application to "many other unregulated service providers who have greater access to confidential customer data and therefore represent a more serious risk to consumers' privacy interests." Thus, GTE concludes, the proposed revisions to the rule may "create more harm than good and therefore should not be made." The Commission disagrees that revised subsection (e) will be ineffective because it has no application to unregulated service providers. The Commission believes there is a significant difference between CPNI which is gathered involuntarily when a customer uses a public utility and information gathered when a customer uses an unregulated service provider. SWBT further argues that the proposed amendments should not be considered by the Commission at this time because the Commission has filed comments with the FCC in an ongoing rulemaking addressing CPNI issues (In the Matter of: Additional Comment Sought on Rules Governing Telephone Companies' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information, CC Docket Numbers 90-623 and 92-256). SWBT asserts that "[m]any scenarios could result from the current review by the FCC." For example, the FCC could revise its orders, expressly preempt rules such as the Commission's sec.23.57, or amend its own rules to be consistent with that of the Commission. In the face of such uncertainty, SWBT believes it is premature for the Commission to adopt the proposed amendments. The Commission agrees that the FCC could revise its orders; however, it is not possible to know when, how, or if the FCC will revise its orders. Due to such uncertainty, the Commission disagrees with SWBT's conclusion that is premature for it to adopt the amendments to subsection (e) as revised. The Commission finds that in order to inform Texas customers about their privacy rights, it is appropriate to adopt these amendments at this time. The Commission does not believe that the FCC is likely to further restrict residential customer privacy rights by denying the right to limit the use of CPNI. Furthermore, the implementation dates in the rule as revised allow substantial time for FCC action before the local exchange carrier is required to act. SWBT argues that the FCC explicitly preempted state rules requiring prior authorization that is not required by the FCC's rules in its Computer III Order on Remand (6 FCC Rcd. at 7632-7638). SWBT believes that the proposed amendments to sec.23.57(e) "go beyond" the FCC's rules by requiring balloting, which, according to SWBT, "constitutes prior authorization." SWBT contends that the proposed amendments "attempt to alter the FCC's parameters on CPNI" and represent "another attempt by the Commission to restrict the use and access to CPNI," which is preempted by the FCC. The proposed amendments to subsection (e) required a LEC to ballot its customers and allow access to and use of CPNI only if the customer does not return the ballot, or if the customer returns a ballot authorizing such access and use. SWBT believes such a requirement constitutes a prior authorization requirement and is thus both contrary to the stated goals of the FCC and preempted by it. SWBT asserts that it does not matter whether the authorization is made by the customer returning a ballot authorizing such use or failing to return a ballot, "active or passive authorization is still a form of pre-authorization not required by the FCC." Furthermore, SWBT believes it is not possible to establish state rules on CPNI that differ from the FCC's rules on the use of CPNI for interstate services, "because the areas affected are so jurisdictionally mixed that no 'separations' approach can segregate them." Therefore, SWBT believes, changes regarding the use of CPNI should be addressed in a federal forum and "not on a state-by-state basis." The Commission disagrees that proposed subsection (e) requiring balloting is preempted by the FCC rules. However, proposed sec.23. 57(e) has been revised to require that the local exchange carrier notify each of its residential customers of his or her customer-specific CPNI rights. Subsection (e) as revised does not require balloting and does not constitute a prior authorization requirement under the FCC's rules. Subsection (e) as revised merely requires the local exchange carrier to notify each customer of the FCC rules that already allow a customer to request withholding of his or her customer-specific CPNI from the local exchange carrier's marketing personnel. Therefore, the Commission does not believe that revised subsection (e) establishes state rules on the use of CPNI that differ from the FCC's rules on the use of CPNI for interstate services. SWBT objects to the balloting requirement for several other reasons. First, SWBT believes the proposed amendments would lead to customer inconvenience because customers "prefer to get telephone service, telephone equipment and enhanced services from one source," i.e. SWBT, without "undue complexities." Moreover, SWBT contends, customers want it to act as a "single point of contact for all of their telecommunications needs." SWBT believes that customers expect the company both to use CPNI to provide better service, and to share certain information with other telecommunications companies that serve them, such as their chosen interexchange carrier. Furthermore, SWBT comments, customers "know and expect that any company they do business with logically maintain certain records to support the business relationship," and that companies will "use these records" to provide good customer service. The Commission believes the revised subsection (e) will not lead to customer inconvenience or change customer expectations. The Commission contends that subsection (e) will give customers the ability to make an informed choice regarding CPNI rights. Customers who want to take advantage of such conveniences will continue to do so; those who do not want to have information about themselves used in such a manner will know they have an FCC-granted right not to have it so used. Finally, the Commission believes there is a significant difference between CPNI, which is gathered involuntarily when a customer uses a public utility, an other records gathered by other companies to support more consensual business relationships. Second, SWBT contends that balloting will cause customer confusion "about what the customers are authorizing." The Commission disagrees that revised subsection (e) will cause customer confusion. Revised subsection (e) requires that the customer be given a notification containing an explanation of customer-specific CPNI and the customer's right to restrict the local exchange carrier's use of his or her customer-specific CPNI. The Commission has faith that, with assistance from the Commission's Staff and General Counsel, if necessary, the LECs can find an accurate way to describe CPNI and customer rights pertaining thereto. Third, SWBT believes that balloting all of its customers in Texas will be "extremely expensive to implement" due to the cost of postage, as well as the costs associated with preparing the ballots, administrative expenses, handling "thousands" of customer questions, and tracking the ballots. SWBT anticipates these costs to be "in the millions of dollars." GTE agrees that there are significant costs. In its specific comments to the proposed amendments, GTE "strongly disagrees" with the preamble statement that "[t]here is no anticipated cost to persons who are required to comply with the section as proposed." According to GTE, there are significant costs associated with compliance with proposed subsection (e). These costs include the cost of balloting residential customers, as well as implementing systems to accommodate customers' requests for CPNI restrictions. GTE estimates it will cost approximately $600,000 to ballot all of its residential customers in Texas. This figure includes the costs of "processing the requests, preparing and mailing the ballots, printing, scanning and sorting the response cards, preparing customer education material and handling customer call mailings," but does not include the costs of modifying the company's systems to comply with the rule. GTE believes its systems would have to be modified to accommodate the identification of specific CPNI restrictions. Although it has not performed a study to determine these costs, GTE believes the cost to modify its systems "could be substantial." The Commission finds that subsection (e) as revised to require notification to each customer rather than balloting should reduce the implementation cost of subsection (e) to the local exchange carriers. The Commission also finds that any cost to the local exchange carrier to implement subsection (e) is outweighed by the public interest benefits gained by the Subsection. Furthermore, the LEC systems should already be designed to accommodate customer restriction rights that have been granted by the FCC. The Commission is not persuaded that the public interest is served by keeping customers uniformed of their rights in order to spare costs that will be incurred if customers discover their rights and choose to exercise them. SWBT states that it is unaware of any change in the fundamental notions of privacy and the use of CPNI that supports amending subsection (e) to require balloting. According to SWBT, since "[t]here has been no public outcry about any issues with regard to the use of CPNI," no changes to the rule are needed. The Commission notes it would not be unexpected that customers who are not aware of their FCC-granted rights choose not to exercise them. Subsection (e) has been revised to require that the local exchange carrier notify each customer of his or her CPNI rights. The Commission finds that this amendment is necessary in order to inform Texas customers about their privacy rights. SWBT maintains that the "overwhelming majority" of its Texas multi-line business customers "have never objected" to SWBT having access to their CPNI. In fact, SWBT asserts, "less than 2.0% of all multi-line business customers with 20 lines or less have ever requested such restriction to CPNI." SWBT asserts that it is not necessary to ballot all business and residential customers of all Texas LECs. Rather, SWBT contends, "only multi-line business customers should be reminded of their CPNI options, as is currently required by the FCC." SWBT maintains that there is "no evidence that customers are concerned about current use of CPNI." Therefore, state rules that go beyond the FCC requirements are not needed to protect customer privacy. Subsection (e) has been revised to require notification rather than balloting. The Commission agrees that multi-line business customers should be reminded of their CPNI rights and finds that residential customers should also be notified of their CPNI rights as set forth in the revised subsection (e). The Commission has been given no reason to believe that residential customers are less concerned about their privacy rights than are multi-line business customers. SWBT believes that the amendments should "not use the justification of a customer's right to privacy to undermine or negate" the goals of the FCC. Further, SWBT believes that complying with the proposed amendments would be "unduly burdensome and impractical." Specifically, it contends that compliance with subsection (e)(2)(B) is "not possible" because information available for review is either marked restricted or not restricted. SWBT argues that it cannot restrict separate categories, even if a customer so desires, because a "Customer Service Representative cannot function effectively with access to only portions or certain categories of CPNI in a customer's record." Moreover, SWBT estimates the cost to "completely reformat and reprogram" its database to implement this capability to be "prohibitive." Furthermore, SWBT believes such a requirement could compel it not to use CPNI to sell its own services, because the cost to comply with the proposed amendment would "outweigh any economic benefit from the selective use of CPNI." SWBT comments that the requirement set forth in proposed subsection (e)(2)(B) would "defeat the purpose of the FCC in permitting customers to 'one stop shop'" with the LEC and hinder the FCC's goals of promoting enhanced services. GTE believes that proposed subsection (e)(2)(B), which requires that the ballot allow the customer to restrict each category of information separately, is "unduly burdensome, unnecessary and will create customer confusion." Moreover, GTE contends that this requirement will "dramatically increase" its system costs as well as its administrative costs of compliance. In addition, GTE believes customer educational material will require more detail if this requirement is adopted, so that customers can make informed choices. Second, GTE argues that the rule's restrictions on the use of CPNI "differ significantly from, and are preempted by, the rule adopted by the FCC." The proposed sec.23.57(e) has been revised to require that the local exchange carrier notify each of its residential customers of his or her customer-specific CPNI rights. Accordingly, the ballot requirements and the requirements of proposed subsection (e)(2)(b) have been eliminated from the revised subsection (e). As previously stated, the ability to implement CPNI restrictions flows from FCC requirements; the revised rule simply informs customers of their FCC-granted right to request such restriction. The Commission notes that the LEC is also responsible for restricting use of multi-line customer-specific CPNI, and therefore, must already have a system in place to honor such customers' requests. SWBT contends, the verbal pre-authorization requirement of subsection (e)(3) "is not in the best interest of customer accessibility to our service centers and would prove very awkward to follow." This is because if a customer who has previously restricted access to CPNI calls SWBT and asks that his or her CPNI be used by SWBT personnel to market supplemental services, "any effective mechanized restriction imposed...could not be removed in real time to obtain access to the customer's CPNI." The employee who answered the call would be required to transfer the customer to a network-only employee who would be authorized to access the CPNI-restricted account. The network-only employee, however, is not authorized to sell enhanced services, and furthermore, according to SWBT, "may not be best suited to handle all of a customer's inquiries and needs." SWBT believes this could result in "customer delay and inconvenience." GTE contends that, in addition to being unnecessary, additional regulatory requirements may actually "be harmful to the existing relationship between GTE and its customers." GTE expresses the fear that such restrictions may disrupt its relationship with its customers, because customers will be "confused and frustrated if required to deal with several different GTE people with fragmented responsibility." GTE also disagrees with the requirement in proposed subsection (e)(3) that LECs obtain verbal authorization from the customer to use customer- specific CPNI to market supplemental services to residential customers each time a customer contacts the LEC to inquire about such services. GTE believes that any time a customer calls the LEC to inquire about services, "it should be presumed that, for the purposes of that transaction, the customer has consented to the use of his or her CPNI." GTE contends that the verbal authorization requirement is "illogical" and does not enhance the customer's privacy protection because "the answer will virtually always be yes." GTE believes that customers expect the LEC to use information about them in the course of business and may be confused or aggravated by the proposed verbal authorization requirement. In response to the comments, subsection (e)(3) has been changed to delete the requirement that the local exchange carrier personnel obtain verbal authorization from the customer to use CPNI when the customer contacts the local exchange carrier. Revised subsection (e)(3) allows the local exchange carrier to use customer-specific CPNI, even if a residential customer requests restriction of the use of his or her CPNI, if such customer contacts the local exchange carrier to inquire about supplemental services. The Commission notes that it is interpreting the FCC's right to restriction expansively to accomplish this reasonable result. By its terms, however, the FCC's Order on Remand would seem to suggest that the customer's restriction request should be honored without limitation. The Commission is not aware if the LECs raised this issue in response to the FCC's Order. The Commission believes that the requirement of subsection (e)(3) does not have to result in customer dely and inconvenience. The LECs should already have systems in place to allow a customer to restrict his or her CPNI. These systems could be modified to accommodate the benefits of subsection (e)(3). Further, SWBT believes that the provision in subsection (e)(4) of the proposed rule which restricts the provision or release of customer-specific CPNI to third parties, including any business affiliated with the LEC, without prior authorization from the customer, is "totally contrary" to the intent of the FCC's rules, in particular the Computer III Order on Remand. SWBT asserts that because the proposed amendment restricts an affiliate's use of CPNI and limits the integration of marketing services "clearly authorized" by the FCC, it is preempted. SWBT cites the following FCC orders in support of this reasoning: Computer III Order on Remand, CC Docket Number 90-623, Phase I Order, CC Docket Number 88-2, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Notice and Petition for Removal of the Structural Separation Requirement and Waiver of Certain State Tariffing Requirements, Release November 2, 1992 (specifically footnote 19). SWBT concludes that the proposed amendment's requirement that prior authorization must be obtained for the provision and release of CPNI is "contrary to the FCC rules" and therefore preempted. Furthermore, GTE finds the language in proposed subsection (e)(4)(B) to be "too restrictive." GTE believes that in the unbundled telecommunications environment of the future, the LEC will offer an increasing number of features and functions on an optional basis because some customers will want to buy them that way. GTE suggests substituting the phrase "offer ANI to" for the phrase "provide ANI to" in subsection (e)(4)(B) to better accommodate the Commission's concerns in the future telecommunications environment. GTE also believes that the proposed subsection (e)(4)(D) is contrary to the Commission's statement in subsection (b) that "customers should be able to control the outflow of information about themselves." Proposed subsection (e) (4)(D) states that the LEC must provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of customers, (except those that have requested that such information be unlisted or unpublished for the purpose of directory publication), to any entity requesting such information. GTE believes that in addition to being contrary to the Commission's privacy policy, proposed subsection (e)(4)(D) is at odds with attempts by other legal and regulatory entities to limit the intrusion of telemarketers upon a residential customer's privacy, such as the FCC's Second Order on Reconsideration in Docket Number 91-115, prohibiting the sale of billing name and address information for marketing purposes, released December 7, 1993. Moreover, GTE contends, it already makes this information available to all entities, through the published white pages telephone directory. The directory is available to any entity upon request. GTE asserts that although the customer has allowed his or her name to be made public in a white pages directory that cannot be copyright-protected, "this is still not a reason to assume that the customer wants the LEC to provide additional lists to telemarketers that would make it easier for the customer's home to be invaded by a multitude of marketing calls." GTE believes that the proposed "solution to an alleged competitive issue" will create "an even greater privacy problem. " Subsection (e)(4) has been eliminated from the rule. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to reserve action on this specific substantive issue until such time as the FCC has had an opportunity to re-examine its CPNI requirements, and/or until the fate of proposed federal legislation concerning CPNI is better known. The Commission's decision not to pursue this issue at this time should not be taken as agreement with the contentions of SWBT and GTE; nor should it be taken as an indication that the Commission may not choose to re- open this issue at a later date even absent FCC or federal legislative action. All comments received, including those not specifically referenced herein, were fully considered by the Commission. The amendment is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16, which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. Cross Index to Statutes: Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c. sec.23.57. Telecommunications Privacy. (a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (1)-(3) (No change.) (4) Privacy Issue-an issue that arises when a telecommunications utility proposes to offer a new telecommunications service or feature that would result in a change in the outflow of information about a customer. The term privacy issue is to be construed broadly. It includes, but is not limited to, changes in the following: (A) the type of information about a customer that is released; (B) the customers about whom information is released; (C) the entity or entities to whom the information about a customer is released; (D) the technology used to convey the information; (E) the time at which the information is conveyed; and (F) any other change in the collection, use, storage, or release of information. (5) (No change.) (b) Privacy Considerations. Local exchange service customers should be permitted to control the outflow of information about themselves. Any local exchange carrier proposing to offer a new service or a new feature to an existing service under the provisions of sec.23.24 of this title (relating to Form and Filing of Tariffs), sec.23.26 of this title (relating to New and Experimental Services), sec.23.27 of this title (relating to Rate-Setting Flexibility for Services Subject to Significant Competitive Challenges), or sec.23.28 of this title (relating to Promotional Rates for LEC Services) for which the commission finds a lost degree of privacy, and for which the local exchange carrier has not shown good cause pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii) and (D) of this section, must, in a manner ordered by the commission: (1) provide a means of restoring the lost degree of privacy at no charge to the public; and (2) educate the public as to the means by which the lost degree of privacy can be restored. (c) New Services or Features. For all LEC applications filed pursuant to sec.23.24 of this title, sec.23.26 of this title, sec.23.27 of this title, or sec.23.28 of this title, the LEC must identify all privacy issues, as that term is defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section, that result from the implementation of the new service or feature, and all privacy issues that result in a lost degree of privacy. (1) Identification of privacy issues. The LEC shall identify all privacy issues that result from the implementation of the new service or feature. Identification of privacy issues shall include, but not be limited to: (A) identification and description of the type of information that is released as a result of the new service or feature; (B) identification of the category of customers about whom information will be released; (C) identification of the category of entities to whom information about a customer will be released; (D) identification and description of the change in the technology used to convey the information; (E) identification and description of the change in the time at which the information is conveyed; and (F) identification and description of any other change in the collection, use, storage, or release of information. (2) Lost degree of privacy. For each privacy issue identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, the LEC shall identify all circumstances under which a customer of the local exchange carrier may experience a lost degree of privacy as a result of the implementation of the new service or feature proposed in the application, including, but not limited to, whether a customer's name, address, or telephone number will be provided to a called party or to any other third party, and for each such circumstance identified: (A) state whether the lost degree of privacy can be restored by the affected customers and how such customers can restore it; (B) state whether the local exchange carrier will charge the affected customers for restoring the lost degree of privacy and, if applicable: (i) what such charge will be; and (ii) show good cause for such charge; (C) state how the local exchange carrier will educate the affected customers as to the implications for privacy and, if applicable, the means by which such customers can restore the lost degree of privacy; and (D) show good cause, if applicable, for not offering the affected customers a means by which the lost degree of privacy can be restored. (3) Staff Review. Staff shall review all applications submitted by a local exchange carrier under the provisions of sec.23.24 of this title, sec.23. 26 of this title, sec.23.27 of this title, or sec.23.28 of this title for privacy issues and privacy issues resulting in a lost degree of privacy. (d) Notice of Number Delivery Over 800 and 900 Services. The local exchange carriers shall print in the white pages of their telephone directories, and send as a billing insert annually to all of their customers, the statement: "When an 800 or 900 number is dialed from your telephone, your telephone number may be transmitted to the company you have called and may be available to that company's service representative before your call is answered." The statement must appear in all telephone directories published for the local exchange carrier subsequent to the effective date of this section. The statement must appear as a billing insert for each local exchange carrier within 60 days of the effective date of this section and annually thereafter. (e) Customer Proprietary Network Information (Customer-specific). Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, local exchange carrier personnel may not use customer-specific CPNI to market supplemental services to a residential customer if restriction is requested by such residential customer. (1) Annually, each local exchange carrier shall notify each residential customer of his or her customer-specific CPNI rights. (A) Distribution and timing of distribution of the notification. (i) Each local exchange carrier shall print such notification in the white pages of its telephone directories. Such notification must appear in all local exchange carrier telephone directories published more than 300 days after the effective date of this section. (ii) Within 300 days of the effective date of this section and annually thereafter, each local exchange carrier shall send such notification as a billing insert to each of its residential customers. (B) Contents of the notification. (i) The notification shall provide the customer with an explanation of customer-specific CPNI. (ii) The notification shall describe the customer's right to restrict the local exchange carrier's use of his or her customer-specific CPNI. (iii) The notification shall state with specificity the manner in which the customer may restrict the local exchange carrier's use of his or her customer- specific CPNI. (iv) The notification shall explain that restricting the local exchange carrier's use of customer-specific CPNI may not eliminate all marketing contacts from the local exchange carrier. (v) The notification shall state that there will be no charge to the customer for electing to restrict the use of his or her customer-specific CPNI. (vi) The notification must state the limited circumstances described in paragraph (3) of this subsection, under which the local exchange carrier personnel may use customer-specific CPNI to market supplemental services even if the customer requests restriction of the use of the customer-specific CPNI. (C) Staff review of the notification. The notification shall be reviewed by the staff of the Telephone Utility Analysis Division before it is distributed. The staff shall notify the general counsel of any concerns it may have with the proposed notification, and the general counsel shall notify the local exchange carrier within ten days of submission whether the proposed notification may be distributed or must be modified and distributed. (2) The local exchange carrier may not charge the customer for electing to restrict the use of his or her customer-specific CPNI. (3) Even if a residential customer requests restriction of the use of his or her customer-specific CPNI, local exchange carrier personnel may use customer- specific CPNI to market supplemental services to that customer if such customer contacts the local exchange carrier to inquire about supplemental services offered by the local exchange carrier. (f)-(g) (No change.) This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448117 John Renfrow Public Utility Commission of Texas Secretary of the Commission Effective date: October 6, 1994 Proposal publication date: April 8, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 Quality of Service 16 TAC sec.23.61 The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.23.61, concerning telephone utilities, without changes to the proposed text as published in the May 6, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 3409). The purpose of the amendments is to reflect the fact that the term "dominant carrier" does not include an interexchange carrier that is not a certificated local exchange carrier. One party, AT&T Communications of the Southwest ("AT&T"), submitted comments on the proposed amendment, remarking that the amendments are consistent with recent changes to state law and will further administrative efficiency. No other comments were received. The amendment is adopted pursuant to Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a), which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. Cross-reference to statute: Senate Bill 377, Acts of the 73rd Legislature, which amended Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.sec.3(c)(3)(2); 18(c), (d) and (l); and 78 and repealed sec.100 and sec.101. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448220 John M. Renfrow Secretary of the Commission Public Utility Commission of Texas Effective date: October 7, 1994 Proposal publication date: May 6, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 TITLE 25. HEALTH SERVICES Part II. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Chapter 401. System Administration Subchapter A. Advisory Committees 25 TAC sec.401.26 The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TXMHMR) adopts new sec.401.26, without changes to the proposed text as published in the August 5, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 6086). The new section recognizes a newly created advisory committee concerning the search and screen committee, which will assist the Texas Board of Mental Health and Mental Retardation in its search for a new TXMHMR Commissioner. The new section outlines the purpose, tasks, and duration of the committee, which is subject to all other requirements of Chapter 401, Subchapter A, concerning advisory committees. No comment were received regarding adoption of the new section. The new section is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, sec.532. 015, which provides the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation with broad rulemaking powers. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 14, 1994. TRD-9448060 Ann K. Utley Chairman Texas Board of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Effective date: October 5, 1994 Proposal publication date: August 5, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 206-4516 TITLE 34. PUBLIC FINANCE Part X. Texas Public Finance Authority Chapter 222. Public Records 34 TAC sec.222.1 The Texas Public Finance Authority adopts new sec.222.1, concerning charges for records, without changes to the proposed text as published in the August 23, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 6655). This new rule is in compliance with Chapter 428, Acts, 73rd Legislature, Regular Session, which requires agencies to adopt rules specifying charges for copies of public record. This new rule will function as a guideline for the costs incurred when requesting open records information. The following section would be added to the current rules to clarify agency policy on charges for public records. The new section is proposed in compliance Chapter 428, Acts, 73rd Legislature, Regular Session, which requires agencies to adopt rules specifying charges for copies of public records. No comments were received regarding adoption of the new section. The new section is adopted under Texas Civil Statues, Article 601d, sec.21, which give the Texas Public Finance Authority the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 14, 1994. TRD-9448072 Anne L. Schwartz Executive Director Texas Public Finance Authority Effective date: October 5, 1994 Proposal publication date: August 23, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 463-5544 TITLE 40. SOCIAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE Part I. Texas Department of Human Services Chapter 3. Income Assistance Services The Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) adopts amendments to sec.sec.3. 501, 3.704, 3.902, 3.2504, 3.2701, and 3.2801, concerning Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) household determination, types of resources and income countable in determining eligibility for Food Stamps, allowable deductions used in determining eligibility for Food Stamps, combined allotments, alcoholic and narcotic treatment centers, and reporting requirements, in its Income Assistance Services rule chapter. The purpose of the amendments is to incorporate federally mandated provisions of Public Law 103-66, the "Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act" into the rules. The justification for the amendments is as follows: Section 3.501 is amended to allow children age 22 or older living with parents to have separate household status if they purchase and prepare food separately. A child under age 22 must be included in his parent's household, unless the child is married and lives with his spouse or has a minor child of his own living in the home. This amendment also revises the sibling policy. Section 3.704 is amended to exempt vehicles necessary to carry the household's primary source of fuel for heating or water for home consumption. This amendment raises the exemption for the value of vehicles from $4,500 to $4,550. In addition, the amendment exempts Earned Income Tax Credits from resources for 12 months from the month of receipt if the household member was participating in the Food Stamp Program at the time the EITC payment was received, and the household member participates continuously for the 12-month period. Section 3.902 is amended to exempt earnings of children age 21 or younger, attending elementary or high school at least half time, and under parental control of another household member. In addition, sec.3.902 is amended to exclude as income general assistance vendor payments, paid from state or local funds, made on behalf of households for energy or utility expenses, and to exclude, retroactive to August 1, 1994, payments for utility assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). Section 3.2504 is amended to provide a full month's benefits to eligible households recertified but whose food stamp case has been denied less than one month. Section 3.2701 is amended to allow children who live together with parents who are residents of a drug or alcohol treatment center to be certified as one household. Section 3.2801 is amended to delete the requirement that households report changes in medical expenses during a certification period. The amendments will function by making Food Stamp program benefits available to more needy people. Subchapter E. Household Determination 40 TAC sec.3.501 The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapters 22 and 33, which provides the department with the authority to administer public and nutritional assistance programs. The amendment is effective September 1, 1994, in compliance with federal requirements. The amendment implements the Human Resources Code, sec.22.001 and sec.33.002. sec.3.501. AFDC and Food Stamp Household Determination. (a)-(c) (No change.) (d) Food stamps. DHS allows separate households according to the requirements stipulated in 7 Code of Federal Regulations sec.273.1(a)(2) and in Public Law 103-66, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448114 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Human Services Effective date: September 1, 1994 Proposal publication date: N/A For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter G. Resources 40 TAC sec.3.704 The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapters 22 and 33, which provides the department with the authority to administer public and nutritional assistance programs. The amendment is effective September 1, 1994, in compliance with federal requirements. The amendment implements the Human Resources Code, sec.22.001 and sec.33.002. sec.3.704. Types. (a)-(b) (No change.) (c) Food stamps. Countable resources for food stamps are those listed in 7 Code of Federal Regulations sec.273.8(c) and sec.273.8(d) and in Public Law 103- 66, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. (d) Food stamps. Exclusions from resources for food stamps are those stipulated in 7 Code of Federal Regulations, the United States Code sec.2014(g) and (j), Public Laws 101-426 and 101-201, and in Public Law 103-66, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448113 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Human Services Effective date: September 1, 1994 Proposal publication date: N/A For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter I. Income 40 TAC sec.3.902 The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapters 22 and 33, which provides the department with the authority to administer public and nutritional assistance programs. The amendment is effective September 1, 1994, in compliance with federal requirements. The amendment implements the Human Resources Code, sec.22.001 and sec.33.002. sec.3.902. Types. (a)-(c) (No change.) (d) Food stamps. DHS excludes as income the types of income stipulated in Public Laws 101-201 and 101-425, and 7 Code of Federal Regulations sec.273.9(c) and in Public Law 103-66, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act, except for child support payments, educational assistance, and certain types of income of SSI recipients. DHS excludes educational assistance and income of SSI recipients a stipulated in United States Code sec.2014, Part 5(d) and (e). DHS does not exclude any portion of child support payments. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448112 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Human Services Effective date: September 1, 1994 Proposal publication date: N/A For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter Y. Issuing Benefits 40 TAC sec.3. 2504 The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapters 22 and 33, which provides the department with the authority to administer public and nutritional assistance programs. The amendment is effective September 1, 1994, in compliance with federal requirements. The amendment implements the Human Resources Code, sec.22.001 and sec.33.002. sec.3.2504. Combined Allotments. The Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) combines and issues food stamp allotments for the month of application and following month as stipulated in 7 Code of Federal Regulations sec.274.2(b)(2) and (3), the United States District Court decision in Johnson vs. the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Public Law 103-66, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448111 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Human Services Effective date: September 1, 1994 Proposal publication date: N/A For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter AA. Special Households 40 TAC sec.3. 2701 The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapters 22 and 33, which provides the department with the authority to administer public and nutritional assistance programs. The amendment is effective September 1, 1994, in compliance with federal requirements. The amendment implements the Human Resources Code, sec.22.001 and sec.33.002. sec.3.2701. Alcoholic/Narcotic Treatment Centers. The Texas Department of Human Services determines food stamp eligibility and benefits for residents of alcoholic/narcotic treatment centers according to requirements stipulated in 7 Code of Federal Regulations sec.273.11(e) and in Public Law 103-66, the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. As a result, treatment centers must meet licensing requirements as stipulated by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (TCADA). This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448110 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Human Services Effective date: September 1, 1994 Proposal publication date: N/A For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter BB. Changes 40 TAC sec.3.2801 The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapters 22 and 33, which provides the department with the authority to administer public and nutritional assistance programs. The amendment is effective September 1, 1994, in compliance with federal requirements. The amendment implements the Human Resources Code, sec.22.001 and sec.33.002. sec.3.2801. Reporting Requirements. (a) (No change.) (b) Changes that food stamp clients must report include those stipulated in 7 Code of Federal Regulations sec.273.12(a)(1) and as directed by the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, to not require households to report changes in medical expenses during a certification period. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 15, 1994. TRD-9448109 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Human Services Effective date: September 1, 1994 Proposal publication date: N/A For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Texas Department of Insurance Exempt Filing Notification Pursuant to the Insurance Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter L (Editor's note: As required by the Insurance Code, Article 5.96 and Article 5.97, the Register publishes notices of actions taken by the State Board of Insurance pursuant to Chapter 5, Subchapter L, of the Code. Board action taken under these articles is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. These actions become effective 30 days prior to final adoption. The text of the material being adopted will not be published, but may be examined in the offices of the State Board of Insurance, 333 Guadalupe, Austin.) The Commissioner of Insurance at a public hearing held on September 6, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., under Docket Number 2104, in Room 100 of the Texas Department of Insurance Building, 333 Guadalupe Street in Austin, adopted a staff proposal to amend Rule IV.A.5 in the Homeowner's Section and Rule IV.A.5 in the Farm and Ranch Owner's Section of the Texas Personal Lines Manual, relating to increased limits for business personal property. The amended rules remove the $5,000 limit on the available coverage for business personal property under the Homeowner's Policy and the Farm and Ranch Owner's Policy and provide, instead, that this coverage may be increased as needed by the policyholder by attachment to the Homeowner's Policy of Endorsement Number HO-111 with additional premium charge and attachment of Endorsement Number FRO-411 to the Farm and Ranch Owner's Policy with additional premium charge. The Commissioner also adopted amendments to the business personal property rating rules in the Texas Personal Lines Manual (Premium Chart Number 7 in the Homeowner's Section and Premium Chart Number 21 in the Farm and Ranch Owner's Section) to provide that the premiums for this additional coverage be 40 cents per $100 of insurance. The Commissioner adopted the staff proposal in lieu of a petition by a consumer proposing three alternatives to address the problem of insufficient coverage for business personal property in residential property policies: simplify the definition of personal property in both the homeowner's and renter's policies to cover all personal property used by the policyholder personally on the premises, whether or not this property is used for income generation; or remove the ceiling on Endorsement Number HO-111 coverage or permit purchase of multiple Endorsement Number HO-111 riders to cover additional business personal property insurance needs; or expand Endorsement Number HO-126 (personal computer coverage) to include all electronic and media equipment used for business purposes in the home. Notice of both proposals (Reference Number P-0594-13) was published in the July 29, 1994 issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 5833). The staff's proposal was adopted without changes to the proposal as published. The Commissioner has determined that there are inadequate limits of liability in residential property policies for business personal property currently eligible for coverage under these policies. The Commissioner has further determined that the rule amendments proposed by staff are necessary and are the best means by which to address this problem. These rule amendments provide increased coverage for certain business personal property located in a residence without compromising the integrity of the Homeowner's and the Farm and Ranch Owner's policies as residential policies and allow policyholders to purchase whatever amount of business personal property coverage is agreeable between the policyholder and the insurer with only those policyholders who obtain such coverage bearing the cost of the coverage. Such coverage is for residential dwelling property used in part for business purposes if the business purposes are in the form of an office, studio or private school and if the total area used for the office, studio, or private school does not exceed 50 percent of the total area of the dwelling. Under the current Homeowner's Policy and Farm and Ranch Owner's Policy, business personal property coverage of $2,500 is available with the ability to increase that coverage to a maximum of $5,000 by endorsement with an additional $10 in premium. Under the amended rules, policyholders will be able to increase their business personal property coverage as needed from the basic $2,500 available under the residential property insurance policy. The increased coverage will be provided by endorsement and for an additional premium of 40 cents per $100 of insurance coverage, which is the same rate currently charged for the additional limit of $2,500 in coverage. The residential property insurance policies that are eligible for the increased business personal property coverage are the Homeowner's Policy (Forms HO-B and HO-C), the Homeowner's Tenant Policy (Forms HO-BT and HO-CT), the Homeowner's Condominium Policy (HO-B-CON and HO-C-CON), and Farm and Ranch Owner's Policy (Forms FRO-A and FRO-B). The Commissioner has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to the Insurance Code, Articles 5.101, 5.35, 5.96, and 5.98. The amended rules are filed with the Chief Clerk under Reference Number P-0594- 13 and are incorporated by reference by Commissioner Order Number 94-1005. This notification is made pursuant to the Insurance Code, Article 5.96, which exempts action taken under Article 5.96 from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Administrative Procedure Act, 73rd Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 268, sec.1, 1993 Texas General Laws 737 (codified at Texas Government, Code, Title 10, Chapter 2001)). Consistent with the Insurance Code, Article 5.96(h), prior to October 15, 1994, the effective date of this action, the Texas Department of Insurance will notify all insurers affected by this action. IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER of the Commissioner of Insurance of the Texas Department of Insurance that Texas Personal Lines Manual Rule IV.A.5 in the Homeowner's Section and Rule IV.A.5 in the Farm and Ranch Owner's Section be amended to remove the $5,000 limit on the available coverage for business personal property coverage under the Homeowner's Policy (Forms HO-B and HO-C), the Homeowner's Tenant Policy (Forms HO-BT and HO-CT), the Homeowner's Condominium Policy (Forms HO-B-CON and HO-C-CON), and the Farm and Ranch Owner's Policy (Forms FRO-A and FRO-B), and to provide, instead, that business personal property coverage may be increased as needed by the policyholder by the attachment to the Homeowner's Policy Forms of Endorsement Number HO-111 with additional premium charge and attachment to the Farm and Ranch Owner's Policy Forms of Endorsement Number FRO-411 with additional premium charge. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the business personal property rating rules in the Texas Personal Lines Manual (Premium Chart Number 7 in the Homeowner's Section and Premium Chart Number 21 in the Farm and Ranch Owner's Section) be amended to provide that the premium for this additional coverage be 40 cents per $100 of insurance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these amendments be effective for all affected policies issued on and after October 15, 1994. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 1994. TRD-9448225 D. J. Powers General Counsel and Chief Clerk Texas Department of Insurance Effective date: October 15, 1994 Proposal publication date: July 29, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 463-6327