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 1. ADMINISTRATION
PART IV. Office of the Secretary of State
CHAPTER 81.Elections
Miscellaneous
1 TAC sec.81.75
The Office of the Secretary of State, Elections Division, adopts new rule, 
sec.81.75, concerning the procedure to enable persons on a space flight to vote 
on election day. The new rule is adopted without changes to the proposed text as 
published in the October 3, 1997, issue of the Texas Register (22 TexReg 9783). 
The new rule is adopted to define the procedure persons will follow to cast 
their votes from space, in accordance with the Texas Election Code (the "Code"), 
sec.105.002. 
The rule is adopted with an immediate effective date under the Texas Government 
Code, sec.2001.036(a)(2). The Secretary finds that an immediate effective date 
is necessary to ensure that personnel currently in space have a procedure in 
place to allow voting in the November 4, 1997 constitutional amendment election. 
No comments were received regarding adoption of the new rule.
The new rule is adopted under the Code, Chapter 31, Subchapter A, sec.31.003, 
which provides the Secretary of State with authority to promulgate rules to 
obtain uniformity in the interpretation and application of the Code, and under 
the Code, Chapter 105, sec.105.002, which authorizes the Secretary of State to 
prescribe procedures for voting from space on election day by secure electronic 
means. 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 3, 1997.
TRD-9714478
Clark Kent Ervin
Assistant Secretary of State
Office of the Secretary of State
Effective date: November 3, 1997
Proposal publication date: October 3, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 463-5650

TITLE 4. AGRICULTURE
PART I. Texas Department of Agriculture
CHAPTER 3. Boll Weevil Eradication Program
SUBCHAPTER A. Election Procedures
4 TAC sec.sec.3.2-3.4, 3.6
The Texas Department of Agriculture (the department) adopts amendments to 
sec.sec.3.2-3.4, and 3.6, concerning election procedures for the conducting of 
boll weevil eradication program elections and referenda, with changes to the 
proposed text as published in the September 19, 1997, issue of the Texas 
Register (22 TexReg 9400). Section 3.3 and sec.3.6 are adopted with changes. 
Section 3.2 and sec.3.4 are adopted without changes and will not be republished. 
Section 3.1 and sec.3.5 are being withdrawn by the department and refiled as a 
new proposal in a separate submission. 
Section 3.3 at subsection (d), has been changed to correct a grammatical error 
and subsection (g) has been changed to clarify how a ballot may be requested. 
Section 3.6(c) has been changed to clarify that failure of an assessment 
referendum also precludes conducting a second referendum on the same issue for 
one year and to clarify validity of board member elections. 
The amendments are adopted in order to update the sections to make them 
consistent with statutory changes made during the 75th Legislative Session, to 
delete unnecessary language, including language already stated in the statute, 
to clarify the sections and to make the election and referendum process more 
efficient. Amendments to sec.3.2 update and clarify provisions relating to board 
candidates. Amendments to sec.3.3 delete unnecessary language, update and 
clarify provisions for conduct of elections and providing notice, add references 
to referenda on adding or transferring areas, and add notice requirements for 
referenda including a proposition for approval of a third party contractor. 
Amendments to sec.3.4 delete unnecessary language and clarify requirement for 
ballots. Amendments to sec.3.6 delete unnecessary language, update and clarify 
requirements for and results of approval or disapproval by voters. 
No public comments were received regarding the proposal. 
The amendments are adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.74.114, as 
amended by Senate Bill 1814, 75th Legislature, 1997, which requires the Texas 
Department of Agriculture to adopt procedures for the conducting of elections 
and referenda conducted in accordance with the Code, Chapter 74, Subchapter D. 

sec.3.3. Conduct of Elections; Notice. 
(a) The election of board members from each proposed eradication zone shall be 
held concurrently with the eradication zone referendum or referenda.
(b) The department may conduct an assessment referendum or referenda either in 
conjunction with a board election and eradication zone referendum or referenda 
or at a time subsequent to the initial board election and referendum or 
referenda. 
(c) A board election and referendum or referenda conducted under the Texas 
Agriculture Code Chapter 74, Subchapter D, as amended, or Senate Bill 1814, 75th 
Legislative Session, 1997, and these rules must be preceded by at least 45 days 
notice published in one or more newspapers published and distributed throughout 
the proposed or established eradication zone or zones, or area proposed to be 
added or transferred. The notice shall be published not less than once a week 
for three consecutive weeks. In addition, direct written notice of the election 
shall be given to each county extension agent of the Texas Agricultural 
Extension Service in the eradication zone or zones or area proposed to be added 
or transferred at least 45 days before the date of the election, referendum, or 
referenda. 
(d) Notice provided in accordance with subsection (c) of this section shall 
include: 
(1) the date of the election; 
(2) the manner in which the election is to be conducted (i.e., by mail 
balloting); 
(3) the purpose of the election and/or referendum; 
(4) if appropriate, information regarding the election of board members, 
including how to get on the ballot; 
(5) if an assessment referendum is being conducted, the maximum assessment to be 
paid by cotton growers having production in the eradication zone and the time 
for which the assessment will be collected;
(6) who to contact for more information; and 
(7) if a referendum includes a proposition for approval of a third party 
contractor to carry out an eradication program, in accordance with the Texas 
Agriculture Code, sec.74.124, as amended, the name of the proposed contracting 
party. 
(e) A referendum and/or board election conducted under the Texas Agriculture 
Code, Chapter 74, Subchapter D, as amended, or Senate Bill 1814, and these rules 
shall be conducted by mail ballot, with ballots returned by mail to the 
principal headquarters of the department. 
(f) No ballot will be valid if postmarked after midnight on the last day for 
voting in the board election, referendum, or referenda.
(g) An eligible voter who has not received a ballot from the department, 
foundation or another source may request a ballot by mail by calling the 
department headquarters or by contacting the Texas Agricultural Extension 
Service office in a county within the eradication zone or proposed eradication 
zone, or other governmental office designated by the department.
(h) Instructions for county agents and voters will be available in each election 
from the department. 

sec.3.6. Approval of Zones, Assessment Rates, Board Elections. 
(a) A referendum to establish a zone, to establish an eradication program in an 
existing zone, to add a county or area to an existing zone, to transfer an area 
or county from one statutory zone to another, to discontinue the program in a 
zone, or to set an assessment rate must pass by a favorable vote of at least 
two-thirds of those voting on the referendum or a favorable vote of growers who 
farm more than 50% of the total acreage of cotton in the relevant eradication 
zone or area. The total acreage of cotton in each zone or area shall be 
determined by use of the latest available figures from the Texas office of the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency. 
(b) A retention referendum conducted under the Texas Agriculture Code, 
sec.74.114(a) and a referendum or proposition included in a referendum to 
approve use of a third party contractor to carry out an eradication program, 
must pass by majority vote of growers voting. 
(c) If a zone or program establishment, assessment, or retention referendum 
conducted under the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.74.114 is not approved, the 
department may not conduct another referendum in the same area on that same 
issue before one year after the date of the election on the failed referendum. 
In addition, if a zone is not established or is discontinued, any concurrent 
board member election has no effect, and the commissioner shall appoint a board 
member to represent the zone in which the election was held.
(d) If a discontinuation referendum conducted under the Texas Agriculture Code, 
sec.74.112, as amended, is not approved, no such referendum may be held within 
two years of any other referendum in the eradication zone pertaining to 
establishing or discontinuing the eradication zone. 
(e) After the commissioner has certified the referendum and board election and 
issued certificates of election to any elected board members, those members may 
act in accordance with the powers provided to them by the Texas Agriculture 
Code, Chapter 74, Subchapter D, as amended. 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 3, 1997.
TRD-9714497
Dolores Alvarado Hibbs
Deputy General Counsel
Texas Department of Agriculture
Effective date: November 24, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 19, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7541

4 TAC sec.3.10, sec.3.11
The Texas Department of Agriculture (the department) adopts new sec.3.10 and 
sec.3.11, concerning the boll weevil eradication program, with changes to the 
proposed text as published in the September 19, 1997, issue of the Texas 
Register (22 TexReg 9403). The new sections are adopted to establish procedures 
for petitioning the department to add counties or areas to an existing 
eradication zone, or to conduct a recall referendum in accordance with the Texas 
Agriculture Code (the Code), Chapter 74, Subchapter D, as amended by Senate Bill 
1814, 75th Legislature, 1997. 
New sec.3.10 has been changed at subsections (e), (j) and (k), and by adding 
subsections (c), (d) and (h) to make the petition process for petitions filed to 
add counties or areas similar to the process for petitions filed requesting a 
recall referendum. Section 3.10(b) and (e) have been changed to clarify that 
only those growers having cotton production in the area proposed to be moved or 
added are eligible to sign a petition, and section 3.10(j) has been changed to 
clarify the process for promulgating a rule to add or move an area to an 
eradication zone. New sec.3.11(e) has been changed to make it consistent with 
sec.3.10(e). New sec.3.10 provides procedures for adding an area or county to an 
existing eradication zone or to transfer an area or county in one eradication 
zone to another eradication zone including notice requirements, requirements for 
content of petitions, requirements for eligibility to sign a petition, filing 
requirements, and procedures for receipt and review of petitions by the 
department. New sec.3.11 provides procedures for requesting a recall referendum 
including notice requirements, requirements of content of petition and 
signatures on the petition, requirements for eligibility to sign the petition, 
filing requirements, and procedures for receipt and review of petitions by the 
department. 
No public comments were received regarding the proposal. 
The new sections are adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code, sec.74.120, as 
amended by Senate Bill 1814, 75th Legislature, 1997, which provides the 
department with the authority to adopt reasonable rules necessary to carry out 
the purposes of the Texas Agriculture Code, Chapter 74, Subchapter D. 

sec.3.10. Petitions To Add An Area Or County To An Existing Eradication Zone Or 
To Transfer An Area Or County In One Eradication Zone To Another Eradication 
Zone.
(a) Parties wishing to petition for addition or movement into an existing boll 
weevil eradication zone shall notify the commissioner of their intent in 
writing. The notice shall include: 
(1) a geographic description of the proposed area to be added or moved; 
(2) information sufficient for the commissioner to determine whether or not 
cotton production has begun or could begin in the proposed area; 
(3) information sufficient for the commissioner to determine whether or not the 
proposed area is adjacent to an eradication zone or is in an area with 
biological characteristics similar to the eradication zone to which the area is 
requesting to be added or moved; and 
(4) any other pertinent information on the zone to which the area would be moved 
or added. 
(b) The department shall develop and make available a petition form for the 
party conducting the petition drive. The completed form must include: 
(1) certification by the person signing the petition that he or she is an 
eligible cotton grower in the area proposed to be added or moved by having 
cotton production in the area proposed to be added or moved or sharing in the 
proceeds of cotton production in the current crop year;
(2) the complete name and address of the eligible cotton grower or entity; 
(3) a legible signature of the person with authority to sign for the person or 
entity; and 
(4) the date signed. 
(c) Only one signature or petition form per entity may be gathered. 
(d) Signatures that are dated before the date the petition process starts are 
invalid. 
(e) Grower eligibility to sign a petition shall be determined as follows. 
(1) If the petitioning process commences prior to or after traditional cotton 
production in the area, the immediately preceding cotton crop year information 
as maintained by the Consolidated Farm Service Agency of the United States 
Department of Agriculture (FSA) determines eligibility for having a grower's 
name on the petition. 
(2) If a petition drive crosses crop years, the commissioner shall use the most 
current complete eligible list of growers in the area proposed to be added or 
moved as maintained by the FSA, and shall notify the petitioning party of the 
appropriate date when the eligibility list changes. Thus, if a person farmed in 
a year other than the year determined to be the eligible year, that signature or 
petition form will not be valid. 
(f) Upon receipt of the notice of intent to petition, the department shall 
notify the petitioning party of the eligible voter/grower list that will be used 
to determine if the total number of grower signatures or petition forms gathered 
meets or exceeds 30% of growers in the petitioning area, as required by the 
Texas Agriculture Code, sec.74.108(b), as amended.
(g) Completed petitions may be filed with the department either by sending them 
to the department by certified mail, returned receipt requested, or by hand-
delivery to the department's headquarters in Austin. The filing date of the 
petition shall be the date the petition is actually received by the department. 
Signatures may not be added to or withdrawn from a petition, once filed with the 
department. 
(h) The petitioning party must certify that the documents submitted to the 
department for review have been alphabetized, if on individual petition forms, 
and that they have been screened to eliminate possible duplicates. In addition, 
the petitioning party must attest in an affidavit that all signatures are valid 
according to the agreed upon eligibility list. If, upon review, greater than 10% 
of signatures or petition forms are not in compliance with this section, the 
petition will be deemed null and void and will be rejected.
(i) Once a petition is received by the department, department staff shall review 
the petition for compliance with the 30% requirement. The commissioner, at his 
discretion, may appoint a committee to review the petition.
(j) Within 21 days of receipt of the petition, the department shall notify the 
petitioning party of a decision, and, if appropriate, file for publication in 
the Texas Register a proposed rule adding or moving the area, and set a hearing 
in the area to take public comment on the rule, if the commissioner deems 
appropriate. Once the required period for public comment on the proposed rule 
has passed, the commissioner may adopt a rule adding or moving an area, and may 
hold a grower referendum, if appropriate. 
(k) If a referendum of growers is held, the department shall conduct the 
referendum to add or move an area or county in the same manner as other 
referenda conducted under Texas Agriculture Code, Chapter 74, Subchapter D, as 
amended, and Chapter 3, Subchapter A of this title (relating to Election 
Procedures). 
(l) If growers approve an area being added or moved to an existing zone, all 
cotton growers in the proposed area will become part of the amended zone and be 
subject to assessment and other participation requirements for that zone. 

sec.3.11. Petitions Requesting a Recall Referendum.
(a) Parties wishing to petition for a recall referendum in an existing boll 
weevil eradication zone shall notify the commissioner of their intent in 
writing. No recall referendum may be held in a zone in which a recall or 
establishment referendum has been held within the preceding two years. If the 
two-year prohibition period applies, a petition drive conducted under this 
section may begin no sooner than nine months before the expiration of the two-
year period. 
(b) The Department shall develop and make available a petition form for the 
party conducting the petition drive. The completed form must include: 
(1) certification by the person signing the petition that he or she is an 
eligible cotton grower in the zone by having cotton production or sharing in the 
proceeds of cotton production in the current crop year;
(2) the complete name and address of the eligible cotton grower or entity; 
(3) a legible signature of the person with authority to sign for the person or 
entity; and 
(4) the date signed. 
(c) Only one signature or petition form per entity may be gathered. 
(d) Signatures that are dated before the date the petition process starts or the 
date allowed for the petitioning process to begin, in accordance with subsection 
(a) of this section, are invalid. 
(e) Grower eligibility to sign a petition shall be determined as follows. 
(1) If the petitioning process commences prior to or after traditional cotton 
production in the zone, the immediately preceding cotton crop year information 
as maintained by the Consolidated Farm Service Agency of the United States 
Department of Agriculture (FSA) determines eligibility for having a grower's 
name on the petition. 
(2) If a petition drive crosses crop years, the commissioner shall use the most 
current eligible list of growers as maintained by the FSA, and shall notify the 
petitioning party of the appropriate date when the eligibility list changes. 
Thus, if a person farmed in a year other than the year determined to be the 
eligible year, that signature or petition form will not be valid.
(f) Upon receipt of the notice of intent to petition, the department shall 
notify the petitioning party of the eligible voter/grower list that will be used 
to determine if the total number of grower signatures or petition forms meets or 
exceeds 30% of growers in the zone, as required by the Texas Agriculture Code, 
sec.74.112(f), as amended. 
(g) Completed petitions may be filed with the department either by sending to 
the department by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand-delivery 
to the department's headquarters in Austin. The filing date of the petition 
shall be the date the petition is actually received by the department. 
Signatures may not be added to or withdrawn from a petition, once filed with the 
department. 
(h) The petitioning party must certify that the documents submitted to the 
department for review have been alphabetized, if on individual petition forms, 
and that they have been screened to eliminate possible duplicates. In addition, 
the petitioning party must attest in an affidavit that all signatures are valid 
according to the agreed upon eligibility list. If, upon review, greater than 10% 
of the signatures or petition forms are not in compliance with this section, the 
petition will be deemed null and void and will be rejected.
(i) Once a petition is received by the department, department staff shall review 
the petition for compliance with the 30% requirement. The commissioner, at his 
discretion, may appoint a committee to review the petition.
(j) Within 21 days of receipt of the petition, the department shall notify the 
petitioning party of a decision, and set a referendum date within 90 days of the 
date the petition was received by the Department, if the petition meets all 
requirements. 
(k) If a referendum of growers is held, the department shall conduct the 
referendum in the same manner as other referenda conducted under the Texas 
Agriculture Code, Chapter 74, Subchapter D, as amended, and Chapter 3, 
Subchapter A of this title (relating to Election Procedures). 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 3, 1997.
TRD-9714500
Dolores Alvarado Hibbs
Deputy General Counsel
Texas Department of Agriculture
Effective date: November 24, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 19, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7541

TITLE 16. ECONOMIC REGULATION
PART II. Public Utility Commission of Texas
CHAPTER 22.Practice and Procedure
The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts two new subchapters to its 
procedural rules: Subchapter Q, Post-Interconnection Agreement Dispute 
Resolution (sec.sec.22.321-22.328) and Subchapter R, Approval of Amendments to 
Existing Interconnection Agreements and Agreements Adopting Terms and Conditions 
Pursuant to FTA sec.252(i) (sec.sec.22.341-22.342), with changes to the proposed 
text as published in the September 5, 1997, issue of the Texas Register (22 
TexReg 8816). Subchapter Q establishes procedures for resolution of disputes 
arising under or pertaining to interconnection agreements approved by the 
commission pursuant to its authority under the federal Telecommunications Act of 
1996 (FTA). Subchapter R establishes procedures for approval of amendments to 
existing interconnection agreements and agreements adopting terms and conditions 
available under FTA sec.252(i). 
The commission also adopts amendments to existing Subchapter P, Dispute 
Resolution, with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 5, 
1997, issue of the type-name="italic">Texas Register (22 TexReg 8816). 
Subchapter P is amended to reflect current practice and to make minor changes. 
An amendment to sec.23.97 of this title (relating to Interconnection) is also 
being adopted to provide a cross-reference to the new dispute resolution rules 
adopted herein. 
Prior to publishing the text of the proposed rules, the commission sponsored two 
public workshops on May 14 and June 23, 1997. During and after these workshops, 
participants had the opportunity to, and did, recommend changes to proposed 
draft rules. The following parties filed initial comments in response to the 
proposed rules as published: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB), AT&T 
Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T), MCI Telecommunications Corp. 
(MCI), the Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications (ACSEC), and 
GTE Southwest Inc. (GTE). Replies to the initial comments were filed by SWB, 
AT&T, MCI, and the Texas Association of Long Distance Telephone Companies 
(TEXALTEL). 
The participation at the workshops and the subjects of the written comments, 
which are discussed in further detail below, exemplify the need for these rules 
in providing a forum for expeditious resolution of disputes arising from 
interconnection agreements. Now that the commission has approved several 
negotiated and arbitrated interconnection agreements under the federal 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (FTA), an impediment to achieving competition in 
the local exchange telecommunications market remains: the actual implementation 
of these interconnection agreements. 
Both state and federal law charge the commission with ensuring that competition 
in the telecommunications market becomes a reality and not simply a conceptual 
goal. The Public Utility Regulatory Act, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, 
chapter 166, sec.1, 1997 Texas Session Law Service 713 (Vernon) (to be codified 
at TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. sec.sec. 11.001- 63.063) (PURA), entrusts the commission 
with promoting, among other things, diversity in telecommunications providers 
and interconnectivity and encouraging a fully competitive telecommunications 
marketplace. PURA sec.51.001(b). Under federal law, the commission must not only 
arbitrate any open interconnection issue but must also provide a schedule for 
implementation of the terms and conditions contained in the agreements. FTA 
sec.252(c). Therefore, the commission's authority is not only to ensure that an 
agreement is signed and approved but that its terms and conditions are 
implemented as well. The Eighth Circuit Court reached the same conclusion: ". . 
. state commissions retain the primary authority to enforce the substantive 
terms of the agreements made pursuant to FTA sections 251 and 252. . . . We 
believe that the state commissions' plenary authority to accept or reject these 
agreements necessarily carries with it the authority to enforce the provisions 
of agreements that the state commissions have approved."
Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC, No. 96-3321, slip opinion (8th Cir. July 18, 1997). 
The rules adopted and amended herein are necessary to provide the appropriate 
mechanisms by which the commission may fulfill its mandate to ensure the 
establishment of competitive telecommunications markets. 
Certain revisions have been made to the proposed rules as a result of the 
comments received from interested persons. Discussion of the comments will refer 
to the sections of the rule as published in the Texas Register. As a preliminary 
matter, only SWB raised fundamental concerns about the commission's authority to 
promulgate these rules and actually concluded that these rules were unnecessary. 
All other commentors generally supported the rules with some suggested language 
change. 
Threshold issues. 
In its comments, SWB asked the commission to address certain threshold issues 
concerning the commission's authority to adopt these rules and the standards to 
be applied. Specifically, SWB raises concerns about the legal authority for the 
rules, the commission's lack of authority to adjudicate contract disputes, the 
economic costs involved, and the types of issues to be handled under these 
proposed rules. AT&T, MCI, and TEXALTEL responded in support of the commission's 
authority and proposed parameters. 
The commission has explained its authority and motivation in enacting these 
rules in the paragraphs above and need not repeat its general state and federal 
authority. As to SWB's other specific concerns, the commission understands that 
some confusion may exist between the scope of these rules and the commission's 
more global Project Number 18000, Informal Dispute Resolution, which used to be 
referred to as "rope' em and throw' em". As AT&T properly recognizes in its 
reply, Project 18000 is intended to provide a flexible framework to resolve 
disputes concerning competitive issues that arise outside the context of a 
commission-approved interconnection agreement. Disputes filed under Project 
18000 may be mediated or channeled through more formal procedures. In contrast, 
the new dispute resolution provisions in Subchapter Q are to specifically 
address disputes arising from or pertaining to interconnection agreements 
already approved by the commission under the FTA. The measures set forth in 
Subchapter Q offer parties different types of avenues for relief, although the 
ultimate decision as to the appropriate proceeding rests with the arbitrator 
assigned to the case. 
SWB's specific concerns need only brief, additional discussion. First, SWB's 
assertion that the commission lacks authority to adjudicate contract rights is 
answered above in the commission's reiteration of its authority to enforce 
interconnection agreements. Moreover, the dispute resolution provisions in the 
commission's procedural rules are not intended to be the exclusive recourse for 
contract disputes. The commission is simply providing a logical and efficient 
mechanism through which disputes relating to interconnection agreements may be 
resolved. Second, SWB argued that the proposed rules will have an economic 
impact on the parties involved because of the expenses incurred in the dispute 
resolution process. The commission confirms that no additional economic impact 
results from the rules. Rather, the commission's dispute resolution procedures 
offer an alternative, and likely a less expensive alternative, to court 
litigation and commercial arbitration. The rules do not impose any additional 
costs on parties who need a third party adjudicator in any case. Finally, SWB 
argued that the commission needs to make determinations on the type of issues 
that are appropriately handled under these new rules. The text of the rules 
themselves specify the types of disputes addressed in the rules. Moreover, the 
arbitrator to whom the case is assigned will serve as a check on the 
appropriateness of the dispute filed pursuant to these rules. 
Subchapter P. 
Proposed sec.22.305(a) required the applicant to file, in addition to other 
things, the most current version of the interconnection agreement with any 
request for arbitration. SWB argued that proposed sec.22.305(b), which addresses 
the response, should also be amended to allow the respondent to file its own 
version of the most current interconnection agreement. AT&T replied that no 
change should be made. 
The commission agrees that no change is necessary. Section 22.305(b) already 
allows the response to "indicate any disagreement with the matters contained in 
the request for arbitration and may provide such additional information as the 
party wishes to present." To the extent that the responding party needs to 
clarify any part of the filed version of the interconnection agreement, such 
clarification may be made under the existing language. 
Proposed sec.22.305(n) added a provision requiring the parties to file a 
decision point list (DPL), if requested by the arbitrator. SWB commented that 
the rule should specify when the DPL is to be filed and that the commission may 
want to specify the format of the DPL. SWB, joined by MCI in its reply, 
supported the language that allows parties to amend the DPL before the close of 
the hearing. In its reply, AT&T stated that formatting and timing of the DPL 
should be left to the arbitrator's decision. Also, AT&T disagreed with SWB's 
position that supported allowing the DPL to be amended before the close of the 
hearing. 
The commission makes no change to sec.22.305(n). The formatting and timing of 
the DPL is best left to the arbitrator's discretion. The commission also 
concludes that parties should be allowed the flexibility to amend the DPL when 
necessary before the end of the hearing. 
Proposed sec.22.309(a) provided that parties shall jointly file the application 
for approval of an arbitrated interconnection agreement. AT&T proposed two 
changes: 1) only the applicant should file the application; and 2) the agreement 
should be filed within 30 days of the arbitration award. AT&T's comments are 
based on the concern that one party could delay the review and approval process 
if the commission requires a joint filing. SWB commented that a joint filing is 
appropriate. MCI and TEXALTEL support AT&T's comments. In its reply, SWB 
objected to AT&T's first change but did not oppose the second. 
The commission concludes that AT&T's concern regarding one party delaying the 
joint filing of the application should be allayed by imposing a date definite on 
the filing of the agreement. Thus, the commission modifies proposed 
sec.22.309(a) to include a 30 day deadline to file the arbitrated agreement, 
unless otherwise provided by the arbitrator. 
Subchapter Q. 
Proposed sec.22.323 provided that any amendment to an interconnection agreement 
required as a result of dispute resolution should be filed for commission review 
and approval. AT&T supported the filing but added a 20 day deadline for filing 
the amended agreement. MCI supported AT&T's comment, and SWB did not object to 
the extent that the amendments are agreed to by the parties. The commission 
agrees with AT&T that specifying a deadline for filing the amended agreement may 
prevent delay. Therefore, the commission amends proposed sec.22.323 to add a 20 
day deadline. 
Proposed sec.22.325 provided for informal settlement conferences. AT&T proposed 
language to specify that a party's failure to appear will not preclude the other 
party and staff from conducting the conference. MCI supported AT&T's change. SWB 
raised concerns of unfairness if only one party meets with staff and requests 
that, at a minimum, documentation of notice and an intentional waiver of 
presence be required. 
The commission makes no change to proposed sec.22.325. The commission shares 
SWB's concerns to the extent that the informal settlement conference should not 
be an avenue for one party to come directly to the commission without first 
attempting to discuss and negotiate the issue of concern with the other party. 
At the same time, the informal settlement conference is intended to provide an 
easily available forum for parties to explore an objective, reasoned approach to 
their dispute. The proposed language of sec.22.325 is sufficient to assure that 
both parties are notified of the request for and the scheduling of a conference 
and the issues in dispute (the requesting party must serve a copy of the request 
on the other party, and the staff is charged with notifying the parties of the 
date and time of the conference). 
Proposed sec.22.326 provided for a formal dispute resolution proceeding to 
commence no later than 50 days from the date the complaint is filed. SWB 
commented that the grant of authority to the arbitrator in proposed 
sec.22.326(h) is unprecedented and should be limited to sanctions provided for 
in the agreement. MCI suggested that, in lieu of or in addition to the DPL 
referred to in sec.22.326(j), the parties should be allowed to submit proposed 
contract language. Also, MCI proposed language to require parties to file their 
direct cases at the same time. In its comments, ACSEC argued that it has a vital 
interest in any decision involving a disputed 9-1-1 issue and that the 
commission should require the arbitrator to mail any such decision to ACSEC and 
to place that decision on the commission's agenda for the next open meeting to 
allow for comments. In reply, SWB objected to MCI's change on the contract 
language but does not oppose filing direct cases at the same time. SWB also 
supported ACSEC's request. TEXALTEL replied that ACSEC's opportunity to comment 
on the ultimate agreement that would embody any arbitrator's decision should 
satisfy ACSEC's concerns on all counts. 
The commission agrees in part with MCI's comments regarding the filing of direct 
cases and revises proposed sec.22.326(j) to reflect that the parties' direct 
cases should be filed at the same time. 
The commission also makes revisions to proposed sec.22.326(k) to respond in part 
to ACSEC's concerns over 9-1-1 related decisions. Recognizing that ACSEC has 
unique concerns when interconnection issues relate to 9-1-1 operations, the 
commission revises proposed sec.22.326(k) to provide that, to the extent the 
decision involves 9-1-1 issues, the arbitrator shall send a copy of the decision 
to ACSEC at the same time as the decision is sent to the parties. However, the 
decision will not be placed automatically on the agenda. To do so would defeat 
the purpose of having these proceedings handled by commission staff and the goal 
of expeditious resolution. To the extent the decision raises a concern affecting 
9-1-1 services or operations, ACSEC may file a letter requesting a commissioner 
to place the decision on the agenda. 
The commission makes no changes in response to SWB's comments. Much of the 
authority given to the arbitrator is the same as that given to the presiding 
officer. The authority to award certain additional remedies is to allow the 
arbitrator to interpret what was intended under the interconnection agreement as 
originally approved by the commission. 
Proposed sec.22.327 established procedures pursuant to which a party may request 
an expedited ruling with a hearing no later than 20 days from the filing of the 
complaint. SWB argued that this provision should allow a party being demanded to 
provide service or an unbundled network element without payment to also request 
expedited ruling. Further, SWB argued that it should be able to request an 
expedited ruling for public safety reasons. MCI repeated the comments made in 
relation to proposed sec.22.326, i.e., that, in lieu of or in addition to the 
DPL, the parties should be allowed to submit proposed contract language and that 
parties should be imposed the same deadline. ACSEC also made the same request 
for amendment as that requested under proposed sec.22.326, i.e., that the 
commission should require the arbitrator to mail any decision relating to 9-1-1 
issues to ACSEC and to place that decision on the commission's agenda for the 
next open meeting to allow for comments. In reply to SWB, AT&T asserted that the 
proposed language already satisfies SWB's request. SWB also made the same 
replies to MCI's comments as those raised for proposed sec.22.326. 
The commission agrees with AT&T as to SWB's comments and makes no changes to the 
proposed section based on SWB's comments. To the extent that SWB has a dispute 
concerning a payment for service or network element and contends that the 
situation is subject to sec.22.327, the existing language does not preclude SWB 
from making such a request. The same would be true for SWB's comment regarding 
the request for an expedited ruling on a public safety issue. Such an issue 
could also be raised in a response to an expedited ruling. 
Similarly to the changes made to proposed sec.22.326, the commission revises 
proposed sec.22.327 in response to MCI's and ACSEC's comments. The commission 
revises proposed sec.22.327(e) to reflect that, to the extent the arbitrator 
requests the parties to file a DPL, the parties should file at the same time. 
Also, the commission revises proposed sec.22.327(f) to provide that, to the 
extent the decision involves 9-1-1 issues, the arbitrator shall send a copy of 
the decision to ACSEC. To the extent the decision raises a concern affecting 9-
1-1 services or operations, ACSEC may file a letter requesting a commissioner to 
place the decision on the agenda. 
Proposed sec.22.328 established procedures for a request for interim ruling 
pending dispute resolution with a hearing within three business days of the 
filing of the request. SWB repeated the same comments as those made for proposed 
sec.22.327, i.e., that the provision should apply for issues of compensation and 
public safety. In addition, SWB argued that the factors listed in proposed 
sec.22.328(d) should include costs associated with providing the service. ACSEC 
also made the same request for amendment as that requested under proposed 
sec.22.326 and sec.22.327. 
The commission makes no changes in response to SWB's comments. Issues of costs 
and payments are not usually the subject of interim relief when the main concern 
is to prevent actual harm. Economic compensation can be discussed during the 
hearing on the merits that will follow the interim relief proceeding under 
proposed sec.22.328. Furthermore, SWB would not be precluded from raising any 
issue during the interim relief proceeding that had relevance to the 
determination. In answer to ACSEC's comments, the commission revises proposed 
sec.22.328(e) to provide that, to the extent the decision involves 9-1-1 issues, 
the arbitrator shall send a copy of the decision to ACSEC. 
Subchapter R. 
Proposed sec.22.341 established procedures for approval of amendments to 
existing interconnection agreements. AT&T recommended making two changes to this 
section. First, AT&T proposed new language to make explicit that if amendments 
to interconnection agreements cannot be mutually agreed upon, then a party can 
make a request under Subchapter Q seeking dispute resolution. Second, AT&T 
proposed an amendment to sec.22.341(d) that would allow one party to seek 
interim approval of an amendment without requiring both parties to agree. MCI 
supported AT&T's proposed revisions. SWB objected to AT&T's proposals, arguing 
that the negotiations and arbitrations are bilateral and one party should not be 
permitted to unilaterally obtain an amendment to an interconnection agreement 
through the approval process. According to SWB, a party must invoke the 
arbitration process if it seeks an amendment to an existing agreement but cannot 
come to agreement with the other party. The commission does not make any changes 
to sec.22.341. As stated above, this section specifies expedited procedures for 
the commission to approve amendments to interconnection agreements. The 
commission understands AT&T's arguments but notes that these procedural 
provisions are not intended to address substantive disputes. If the parties 
cannot agree to an amendment, the parties' options will vary depending on their 
interconnection agreement and the substance of their dispute. Again, the 
commission reiterates that the provisions for dispute resolution set forth in 
Subchapter Q are intended for issues that arise under or pertain to an existing 
interconnection agreement. To the extent that the amendment being sought 
concerns an issue that falls outside of that category, the issue may well have 
to be arbitrated, if the parties are unable to negotiate. Similarly, interim 
approval of an amendment should be agreed to by both parties because proposed 
sec.22.341 does not envision a substantive dispute over the amendment between 
the parties. 
Proposed sec.22.342 established procedures for approval of agreements adopting 
terms and conditions pursuant to FTA sec.252(i). AT&T proposed changes to this 
section to make clear that a requesting carrier is allowed to "opt in" any 
interconnection, service, or network element provided under a commission-
approved agreement regardless of whether the incumbent LEC concurs. AT&T argues 
that the FTA does not require the incumbent LEC's concurrence before the 
commission may approve the agreement. GTE specifically objected to the 
commission's proposed requirement that the parties file an affidavit of public 
interest under sec.22.342(a)(4) and, more generally, commented that the 
commission should not require a separate approval process for agreements adopted 
under FTA sec.252(i). (The commission notes that although GTE referred in its 
comments to sec.22.341(a)(3), the commission believes that GTE intended to cite 
to sec.22.342(a)(4) because GTE's statements concern agreements adopted under 
FTA sec.252(i).) According to GTE, because the original agreement has already 
been approved, the commission need not review the "adopted" agreement.
MCI supported AT&T's comments. SWB objected to AT&T's recommended changes, 
stating that the ability to opt into an agreement does not obviate the need for 
the incumbent LEC and the requesting carrier to negotiate the exact terms and 
conditions and enter into an agreement. AT&T objected to GTE's comments, 
asserting that an affidavit from the parties will be helpful to commission staff 
and other interested persons as evidentiary support.
The commission recognizes that there are still unanswered issues surrounding 
adoption of terms and conditions under FTA sec.252(i). However, the provisions 
in proposed sec.22.342 are procedural and are not intended to resolve the 
substantive issues raised by AT&T. Thus, the commission rejects AT&T's proposed 
changes. Nevertheless, the commission agrees in part with AT&T's and SWB's 
arguments. The commission agrees with AT&T that the language of FTA sec.252(i) 
is unequivocal when it states that the LEC "shall make available any 
interconnection, service, or network element" provided under a commission-
approved interconnection agreement. However, the commission also agrees with SWB 
that making a term or condition from one interconnection agreement available to 
another requesting carrier may require some modification of the previously-
approved agreement. 
The possibility of modification to the adopted agreement also leads the 
commission to reject GTE's comments regarding the redundancy of the approval 
process. Although the original interconnection agreement has been approved by 
the commission, the terms and conditions being adopted by the requesting carrier 
have not been ruled to be in the public interest as to that new carrier.
Because the commission is charged with reviewing all interconnection agreements, 
the commission disagrees that merely filing notices of adoption of terms and 
conditions under sec.252(i), as requested by GTE, would satisfy the commission's 
obligation under the FTA. 

SUBCHAPTER P.Dispute Resolution
16 TAC sec.sec.22.303, 22.305, 22.308, 22.309
These new rules and amendments are adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory 
Act, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 166, sec.1, 1997 Texas Session 
Law Service 732, 733 (Vernon) (to be codified at TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. sec.14.002 
and sec.14.052) (PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission of Texas 
with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise 
of its powers and jurisdiction, and including rules of practice and procedure, 
and the FTA, which authorizes the commission to engage in negotiation, 
arbitration, approval, and enforcement of agreements for interconnection, 
services, or network elements. 
Cross-reference to statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act sec.14.002 and 
sec.14.052. 

sec.22.309. Approval of Arbitrated Agreements. 
(a) Application. Any agreement resulting from arbitration shall be submitted to 
the commission for review and approval in accordance with the arbitrator's 
requirements within 30 days of the date of the arbitrator's final decision and 
report, unless otherwise provided by the arbitrator. Following the conclusion of 
an arbitration proceeding under sec.22.305 of this title (relating to Compulsory 
Arbitration), the parties shall jointly file an application for approval of the 
agreement by filing 13 copies of the application with the commission's filing 
clerk . Any agreement submitted to the commission for approval is a public 
record and no portion of the agreement may be treated as confidential 
information under sec.22.306 of this title (relating to Confidential 
Information). The application for approval of an arbitrated agreement shall 
include: 
(1)-(3) (No change.) 
(b) Notice. The presiding officer may require the parties to the agreement to 
provide reasonable notice of the filing of the agreement. The presiding officer 
may require publication of the notice in addition to direct notice to affected 
persons. The presiding officer shall determine the appropriate scope and wording 
of the notice to be provided. In addition to any notice ordered by the presiding 
officer, the commission shall cause to be published notice of the filing of the 
agreement in the Texas Register. 
(c) (No change.) 
(d) Comments. An interested person and the general counsel may file written 
comments concerning the agreement by filing 13 copies of the comments with the 
commission's filing clerk and serving a copy of the comments on each of the 
parties to the agreement. Such comments shall be limited to whether the 
agreement meets the requirements of the FTA96 and relevant portions of state 
law. If such comments request rejection or modification of the agreement, the 
interested person must provide the following information:
(1)-(3) (No change.) 
(e)-(g) (No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 28, 1997.
TRD-9714270
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: November 17, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 5, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308

SUBCHAPTER Q.Post-Inetrconnection Aggeement Dispute Resolution
16 TAC sec.sec.22.321-22.328
These new rules and amendments are adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory 
Act, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 166, sec.1, 1997 Texas Session 
Law Service 732, 733 (Vernon) (to be codified at TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. sec.14.002 
and sec.14.052) (PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission of Texas 
with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise 
of its powers and jurisdiction, and including rules of practice and procedure, 
and the FTA, which authorizes the commission to engage in negotiation, 
arbitration, approval, and enforcement of agreements for interconnection, 
services, or network elements. 
Cross-reference to statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act sec.14.002 and 
sec.14.052. 

sec. 22.323. Filing of Agreement. 
To the extent that the arbitrator concludes that the dispute resolution requires 
amending the interconnection agreement, such amended agreement shall be 
submitted to the commission for review and approval in accordance with 
Subchapter P, sec.22.309 of this title (relating to Approval of Arbitrated 
Agreements). The amended agreement shall be submitted within 20 days after the 
arbitrator's decision is final.

sec.22.326.Formal Dispute Resolution Proceeding.
(a) Initiation of formal proceeding. A formal proceeding for dispute resolution 
under this subchapter will commence when a party (complainant) files a complaint 
with the commission and, on the same day, delivers a copy of the complaint 
either by hand delivery or by facsimile to the other party (respondent) to the 
interconnection agreement from which the dispute arises.
(1) The complaint shall include: 
(A) the name, address, telephone number and facsimile number of each party to 
the interconnection agreement and the complainant's designated representative; 
(B) a description of the parties' efforts to resolve their differences by 
negotiation; 
(C) a detailed list of the discrete issues in dispute, with a cross- reference 
to the area or areas of the agreement applicable or pertaining to the issues in 
dispute; 
(D) an identification of pertinent background facts and relevant law or rules 
applicable to each disputed issue; and 
(E) the complainant's proposed solution to the dispute. 
(2) To the extent applicable, the complainant may also include in the complaint 
a request for an expedited ruling under sec.22.327 of this title (relating to 
Request for Expedited Ruling) or an interim ruling under sec.22.328 of this 
title (relating to Request for Interim Ruling Pending Dispute Resolution). 
(b) Response to the complaint. Unless sec.22.327 or sec.22.328 of this title 
apply, the respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 10 business 
days after the filing of the complaint. On the response filing date, the 
respondent shall serve a copy of the response on the complainant. The response 
shall specifically affirm or deny each allegation in the complaint. The response 
shall include the respondent's position on each issue in dispute, a cross-
reference to the area or areas of the contract applicable or pertaining to the 
issue in dispute, and the respondent's proposed solution on each issue in 
dispute. In addition, the response also shall: 
(1) stipulate to any undisputed facts; and 
(2) identify relevant law or rules applicable to each disputed issue. 
(c) Reply to response to complaint. Unless sec.22.327 or sec.22.328 of this 
title apply, the complainant may file a reply within five business days after 
the filing of the response to the complaint and serve a copy on respondent on 
the same day. The reply shall be limited solely to new issues raised in the 
response to the complaint. 
(d) Provisions incorporated from Subchapter P, sec.22.305 of this title 
(relating to Compulsory Arbitration). Except as specified otherwise in this 
subchapter, the following provisions of Subchapter P, sec.22.305 are 
incorporated by reference into this subchapter: sec.22.305(c), (d), (f), (h), 
(i), (j), (l), (o), (p), and (q).
(e) Number of copies to be filed. Unless otherwise ordered by the arbitrator, 
parties shall file 13 copies of pleadings subject to this subchapter. 
(f) Participation. Only parties to the interconnection agreement may participate 
as parties in the dispute resolution proceeding subject to this subchapter.
(g) Notice and hearing. Unless sec.22.327 or sec.22.328 apply, the arbitrator 
shall make arrangements for the hearing to address the complaint, which shall 
commence no later than 50 days after filing of the complaint. The arbitrator 
shall notify the parties, not less than 15 days before the hearing, of the date, 
time, and location of the hearing. The hearing shall be transcribed by a court 
reporter designated by the arbitrator. 
(h) Authority of arbitrator. The arbitrator has broad discretion in conducting 
the dispute resolution proceeding and has the authority given to a presiding 
officer pursuant to Subchapter K, sec.22.202 of this title (relating to 
Presiding Officer). The arbitrator shall also have the authority to award 
remedies or relief deemed necessary by the arbitrator to resolve a dispute 
subject to the procedures established in this subchapter. The authority to award 
remedies or relief includes, but is not limited to, the award of prejudgment 
interest, specific performance of any obligation created in or found by the 
arbitrator to be intended under the interconnection agreement subject to the 
dispute, issuance of an injunction, or imposition of sanctions for abuse or 
frustration of the dispute resolution process subject to this subchapter and 
Subchapter P, except that the arbitrator does not have authority to award 
punitive or consequential damages. 
(i) Discovery. Parties may obtain discovery by submitting requests for 
information (RFIs), which include requests for inspection and production of 
documents, requests for admissions, and depositions by oral examination, as 
provided by Subchapter H, sec.22.141(b) of this title (relating to Discovery 
Methods), and as allowed within the discretion of the arbitrator.
(j) Prefiled evidence/witness list. The arbitrator shall require the parties to 
file a direct case and a joint decision point list (DPL) on or before the 
commencement of the hearing. The arbitrator shall require the parties to file 
their direct cases under the same deadline. The prepared direct case shall 
include all of the party's direct evidence, including written direct testimony 
of all of its witnesses and all exhibits that the party intends to offer. The 
DPL shall identify all issues to be addressed, the witnesses who will be 
addressing each issue, and a short synopsis of each witness's position on each 
issue. Except as provided in sec.22.324 of this title (relating to Confidential 
Information), all materials filed with the commission or provided to the 
arbitrator shall be considered public information under the Open Records Act, 
Tex. Gov't Code, sec.552.001, et seq.
(k) Decision. 
(1) The written decision of the arbitrator shall be filed with the commission 
within 15 days after the close of the hearing and shall be mailed by first- 
class mail to all parties of record in the dispute resolution proceeding. The 
decision of the arbitrator shall be based upon the record of the dispute 
resolution hearing, and shall include a specific ruling on each of the disputed 
issues presented for resolution by the parties. The decision may also contain 
the items addressed in Subchapter P, sec.22.305(r)(4)-(6) to the extent deemed 
necessary by the arbitrator to explain or support the decision. On the same day 
that the decision is issued, the arbitrator shall notify the parties by 
facsimile that the decision has been issued. To the extent that the decision 
involves 9-1-1 issues, the arbitrator shall also notify the Advisory Commission 
on State Emergency Communications (ACSEC) by facsimile on the same day.
(2) Within three business days from the date the arbitrator's decision is 
issued, any commissioner may place the arbitrator's decision on the agenda for 
the next available open meeting. If no commissioner places the arbitrator's 
decision on the open meeting agenda within three business days, the arbitrator's 
decision is final and effective on the expiration of that third business day. 
The arbitrator may provide for later implementation of specific provisions as 
addressed in the arbitrator's decision. Should the decision be scheduled for 
open meeting, then the decision shall be stayed until the commission affirms or 
modifies the decision. 

sec.22.327. Request for Expedited Ruling. 
(a) Purpose. This section establishes procedures pursuant to which a party who 
files a complaint to initiate a dispute resolution under this subchapter may 
request an expedited ruling when the dispute directly affects the ability of a 
party to provide uninterrupted service to its customers or precludes the 
provisioning of any service, functionality, or network element. The arbitrator 
has the discretion to determine whether the resolution of the complaint may be 
expedited based on the complexity of the issues or other factors deemed 
relevant. Except as specifically provided in this section, the provisions and 
procedures of sec.22.326 of this title (relating to Formal Dispute Resolution 
Proceeding) apply. 
(b) Filing a request. Any request for expedited ruling shall be filed at the 
same time and in the same document as the complaint filed pursuant to 
sec.22.326. The complaint shall be entitled "Complaint and Request for Expedited 
Ruling." In addition to the requirements listed in sec.22.326(a), the complaint 
shall also state the specific circumstances that make the dispute eligible for 
an expedited ruling. 
(c) Response to complaint. The respondent shall file a response to the complaint 
within five business days after the filing of the complaint. In addition to the 
requirements listed in sec.22.326(b), the respondent shall state its position on 
the request for an expedited ruling. The respondent shall serve a copy of the 
response on the complainant by hand-delivery or facsimile on the same day as it 
is filed with the commission. 
(d) Hearing. After reviewing the complaint and the response, the arbitrator will 
determine whether the complaint warrants an expedited ruling. If so, the 
arbitrator shall make arrangements for the hearing, which shall commence no 
later than 20 days after the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator shall 
notify the parties, not less than three business days before the hearing of the 
date, time, and location of the hearing. If the arbitrator determines that the 
complaint is not eligible for an expedited ruling, the arbitrator shall so 
notify the parties within five days of the filing of the response. 
(e) Decision point list (DPL) and witness list. The arbitrator may require the 
parties to file a DPL on or before the commencement of the hearing. The 
arbitrator shall require the parties to file their DPL under the same deadline. 
The DPL shall identify all issues to be addressed, the witness, if any, who will 
be addressing each issue, and a short synopsis of each witness's position on 
each issue. Except as provided in sec.22.324 of this title (relating to 
Confidential Information), all materials filed with the commission or provided 
to the arbitrator shall be considered public information under the Open Records 
Act, Tex. Gov't Code, sec.552.001, et seq. 
(f) Decision. The arbitrator shall issue a written decision on the complaint 
within 10 days after the close of the hearing. On the day of the issuance, the 
arbitrator shall notify the parties by facsimile that the decision has been 
issued. To the extent that the decision involves 9-1-1 issues, the arbitrator 
shall also notify the Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications 
(ACSEC) by facsimile on the same day. A decision issued pursuant to this section 
is subject to the commission review provisions under sec.22.326(k) and will 
become final under the terms therein. 

sec.22.328. Request for Interim Ruling Pending Dispute Resolution. 
(a) Purpose. This section establishes procedures pursuant to which a party who 
files a complaint to initiate a dispute resolution under either sec.22.326 of 
this title (relating to Formal Dispute Resolution Proceeding) or sec.22.327 of 
this title (relating to Request for Expedited Ruling) may also request an 
interim ruling on whether the party is entitled to relief pending the resolution 
of the merits of the dispute. This section is intended to provide an interim 
remedy when the dispute compromises the ability of a party to provide 
uninterrupted service or precludes the provisioning of scheduled service. 
(b) Filing a request. Any request for an interim ruling shall be filed at the 
same time and in the same document as the complaint filed pursuant to sec.22.326 
or sec.22.327 of this title. The heading of the complaint shall include the 
phrase "Request for Interim Ruling." The complaint shall set forth the specific 
grounds supporting the request for interim relief pending the resolution of the 
dispute, as well as a statement of the potential harm that may result if interim 
relief is not provided. A complaint that includes a request for interim ruling 
shall be verified by affidavit. Such complaint must list the contact person, 
address, telephone number, and facsimile number for both the complainant and 
respondent. 
(c) Service. The complainant shall serve a copy of the complaint and request for 
an interim ruling on the respondent by hand-delivery or facsimile on the same 
day as the pleading is filed with the commission. The complainant shall certify 
on the pleading filed with the commission that service has been accomplished in 
compliance with this rule. 
(d) Hearing. Within three business days of the filing of a complaint and request 
for interim ruling, the arbitrator selected under this subchapter shall conduct 
a hearing to determine whether interim relief should be granted during the 
pendency of the dispute resolution process. The arbitrator will notify the 
parties of the date and time of the hearing by facsimile within 24 hours of the 
filing of a complaint and request for interim ruling. The parties should be 
prepared to present their positions and evidence on factors including but not 
limited to: the type of service requested; the economic and technical 
feasibilities of providing that service; and the potential harm in providing the 
service. The arbitrator will issue an interim ruling on the request based on the 
evidence provided at the hearing. 
(e) Ruling. The arbitrator shall issue a written ruling on the request within 24 
hours of the close of the hearing and will notify the parties by facsimile of 
the ruling. To the extent that the decision involves 9-1-1 issues, the 
arbitrator shall also notify the Advisory Commission on State Emergency 
Communications (ACSEC) by facsimile on the same day. The interim ruling will be 
effective throughout the dispute resolution proceeding until a final decision is 
issued pursuant to this subchapter. 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 28, 1997.
TRD-9714269
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: November 17, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 5, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308

SUBCHAPTER R.Approval of Amendments to Existing Interconnection Agreements and 
Agreements Adopting Terms and Conditions Pursuant to FTA96 sec.251(i)
16 TAC sec.sec.22.341, 22.342
These new rules and amendments are adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory 
Act, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 166, sec.1, 1997 Texas Session 
Law Service 732, 733 (Vernon) (to be codified at TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. sec.14.002 
and sec.14.052) (PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission of Texas 
with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise 
of its powers and jurisdiction, and including rules of practice and procedure, 
and the FTA, which authorizes the commission to engage in negotiation, 
arbitration, approval, and enforcement of agreements for interconnection, 
services, or network elements. 
Cross-reference to statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act sec.14.002 and 
sec.14.052. 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 28, 1997.
TRD-9714268
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: November 17, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 5, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308

CHAPTER 23.Substantive Rules
Telephone
16 TAC sec.23.97
The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.23.97, 
relating to Interconnection, without changes to the text as published in the 
September 5, 1997 issue of the Texas Register (22 TexReg 8822). The amendment is 
to provide a cross-reference to the commission's new procedural rules relating 
to Post-Interconnection Agreement Dispute Resolution. 
Prior to publishing the text of the amendment, the commission sponsored two 
public workshops on May 14 and June 23, 1997. The following parties filed 
initial comments in response to the amended rule as published in the September 
5, 1997, issue of the Texas Register: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) 
and AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T). Replies to the initial 
comments were filed by SWB and MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI). 
The amended rule will make clear to those entering into interconnection 
agreements that they may choose to have the commission settle disputes arising 
under or pertaining to those agreements. 
No revisions have been made to the proposed amendment as a result of the 
comments received from interested persons. 
Proposed sec.23.97(f) and (g) add that any dispute arising under or pertaining 
to interconnection agreements may be resolved under the commission's new 
procedural rules relating to post-interconnection agreement dispute resolution. 
SWB commented that, to the extent the commission accepted SWB's revisions to the 
proposed procedural rules relating to post-interconnection agreement dispute 
resolution, then the cross-reference to those rules in the proposed amendment 
would be unnecessary. AT&T sought clarification that the proposed amendment 
would not preclude a party from seeking other available remedies. In its reply, 
MCI supported AT&T's comments. SWB replied that, to avoid the "shotgun" approach 
to resolving interconnection disputes, there needs to be a limitation on the 
simultaneous number of avenues that a party has to seek relief. 
The commission makes no changes to the proposed amendments. The commission 
rejected in part SWB's comments to the dispute resolution procedural rules, 
therefore, the need to cross-reference to those rules still exists. The 
commission agrees with AT&T that the dispute resolution rules are not an 
exclusive remedy but notes that no change to the proposed amendment is needed. 
The language of the amendment specifies that a dispute may be resolved pursuant 
to the commission's dispute resolution rules. The term "may" makes the 
invocation of the rules permissive and not mandatory. 
These amendments are adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory Act, 75th 
Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 166, sec.1, 1997 Texas Session Law Service 
732 (Vernon) (to be codified at Texas Utilities Code Annotated sec.14.002) 
(PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority 
to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and 
jurisdiction, and the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which authorizes 
the commission to engage in negotiation, arbitration, approval, and enforcement 
of agreements for interconnection, services, or network elements. 
Cross-reference to statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act sec.14.002.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 28, 1997.
TRD-9714267
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: November 17, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 5, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308

TITLE 28. INSURANCE
PART I. Texas Department of Insurance
CHAPTER 34.State Fire Marshal
28 TAC sec.34
(Editor's Note: In order to comply with Sentate Bill 371, effective September 1, 
1997, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, transfers all functions and duties from 
the State Fire Marshal's Office relating to the continuation and function of the 
Texas Commission on Fire Prtoection, Title 37, Part XIII, Chapter 501, 503, 511, 
520, 521, 531, 541, 591, to the Texas Department of Insurance, Title 28, Part I, 
Chapter 34, State Fire Marshal. The transfer is effective September 1, 1997.
The Texas Register is administratively transferring the following rules listed 
in the conversion chart published in the issue under the Tables and graphics 
section. The table lists the old rule numbers and the new rule numbers that 
correspond to them.)
Figure: 28 TAC Chapter 34

TITLE 37. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART XIII. Commission on Fire Protection
CHAPTER 501.Flammable Liquids
37 TAC sec.501
(Editor's Note: In order to comply with Sentate Bill 371, effective September 1, 
1997, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, transfers all functions and duties from 
the State Fire Marshal's Office relating to the continuation and function of the 
Texas Commission on Fire Prtoection, Title 37, Part XIII, Chapter 501, 503, 511, 
520, 521, 531, 541, 591, to the Texas Department of Insurance, Title 28, Part I, 
Chapter 34, State Fire Marshal. The transfer is effective September 1, 1997.
The Texas Register is administratively transferring the following rules listed 
in the conversion chart published in the issue under the Tables and graphics 
section. The table lists the old rule numbers and the new rule numbers that 
correspond to them.)
Figure: 28 TAC Chapter 34

TITLE 40. SOCIAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE
PART V. Veterans Land Board
CHAPTER 176.Veterans Homes
SUBCHAPTER 
40 TAC sec.sec.176.1-176.10
The Veterans Land Board adopts new Chapter 176, with changes to sec.176.7 of the 
proposed text published in the September 12, 1997, issue of the Texas Register 
(22 TexReg 9230).
The new sections provide for the sale of bonds, bond fund administration, the 
appointment of an operator, admission requirements, operational and other 
aspects of the administration and operation of state veterans homes. 
As adopted the new rules will provide for a minimum of 600 nursing home beds for 
eligible veterans, with a significant number of such beds designated 
specifically for Alzheimer and dementia patients. 
Two comments were received concerning the proposed rules, both involved 
admission requirements, and whether the residents of the homes would have 
sufficient funds to defray their share of the costs of residing in a State 
Veterans Home. 
Mr. John Stockton of the Texas Department of Human Services suggested that the 
term "medicaid eligible" be deleted, and in its place language be inserted 
stating that the veteran meet institutional medicaid eligibility criteria. 
Section 176.7 has been changed to provide that each veteran must meet medicaid 
eligibility criteria. 
Mr. Douglas Brown of the Texas Veterans Commission also asked that consideration 
be given to requiring veterans to have wartime service, as peacetime veterans 
are not eligible to receive a VA pension. 
Language has been added to sec.176.7 to require each veteran to be eligible for 
USDVA aid and attendance benefits. 
No other comments were received concerning the proposed rules. 
These sections are adopted under the provisions of Natural Resources Code, 
sec.164.004(6) which directs the Veterans Land Board to adopt rules for the 
construction, acquisition, ownership operation, maintenance, or equipping of 
veteran's homes.

sec.176.7. Admissions Requirements 
(a) Admission to a state veterans home shall be limited to Texas Veterans. 
During the biennium ending August 31, 1999, admission will also be dependent on: 
(1) The veteran meeting institutional medicaid eligibility criteria including 
financial, age, disability, citizenship and resident requirements as determined 
by TDHS; 
(2) The veteran passing the institutional risk criteria as administrated by 
TDHS; 
(3) A determination that the veteran has a medical necessity by National 
Heritage Insurance Company (NHIC); and 
(4) The veteran being eligible to receive and receiving USDVA aid and attendance 
payments. 
(b) A Texas Veteran is someone who: 
(1) is at least 18 years of age; 
(2) is a citizen of the United States of America; 
(3) is a bona fide resident of Texas at the time of application for admission to 
said home. 
(4) has served not less than 90 continuous days in the Army, Navy, Air Force, 
Coast Guard, Marine Corps, or United States Public Health Service, unless 
discharged earlier because of a service-connected disability, which service must 
have been after September 16, 1940, or have completed at least 20 years of 
active or reserve military service in any of the above branches of service, as 
computed when determining the person's eligibility to receive retirement pay, 
(5) has not been dishonorably discharged from military service; 
(6) was a bona fide resident of Texas at the time of enlistment, induction, 
commissioning, or drafting; or, has resided in Texas continuously for at least 
two years immediately before applying for admission. For purposes of determining 
if a veteran has resided in Texas for two continuous years, the Board may 
require an affidavit from the veteran or the veteran's guardian, setting forth 
residence addresses for this two - year period. In addition, the veteran, and/or 
guardian may be required to furnish documentary evidence of such residence, 
including, but not limited to driver's licenses, voter registrations, tax 
receipts, W-2 forms, etc.; 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 3, 1997.
TRD-9714509
Garry Mauro
Chairman
Veterans Land Board of the State of Texas
Effective date: November 24, 1997
Proposal publication date: September 12, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 305-9129

TITLE 43. TRANSPORTATION
PART I. Texas Department of Transportation
CHAPTER 22. Use of State Property
SUBCHAPTER C. Use of State Intellectual Property
43 TAC sec.sec.22.20-22.22
The Texas Department of Transportation adopts new sec.sec.22.20-22.22, 
concerning use of state intellectual property, without changes to the proposed 
text as published in the August 12, 1997, issue of the Texas Register (22 TexReg 
7478) and will not be republished.
Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6673a-4 authorizes the department to apply for, 
register, secure, hold, license, and protect copyrights, trademarks, patents, or 
other evidence of protection or exclusivity, and to receive license fees, 
royalties, or other consideration for the use of its intellectual property. 
Government Code, sec.2054.115, requires the department to obtain appropriate 
compensation for the development of software. 
New sec.22.20 establishes that the department may receive license fees, 
royalties, or other consideration for the use of its intellectual property, and 
describes the purpose of the subchapter which is to prescribe the policies and 
procedures governing the protection and use of department intellectual property. 
New sec.22.21 provides words and terms used in this subchapter. New sec.22.22 
prescribes the contents of the request for license, and approval of a license 
based on consistency with law, benefit to the department, and non-conflict with 
department plans or activities. The section also requires the department to 
prepare a written statement describing the reason for disapproval, and develop a 
fee schedule that considers commercial rates for comparable property, original 
development cost, intended use of the property, private or public status of the 
requestor, and primary beneficiary of the license. The department may waive or 
reduce fees if the waiver or reduction will further the goals and missions of 
the department and result in a net benefit to the state. The section requires 
the execution of a written agreement prior to receiving the copies or the 
license containing provisions such as license term and geographical area, rights 
granted, description of products utilizing the trademark, fees or royalties, 
inspection of licensee's books and records, policing of trademark or copyright 
infringement, prohibited uses, and indemnification of the department. The 
section also establishes an appeal procedure to the intellectual property 
committee if the request is not approved. 
No comments were received on the proposed new sections. 
The new sections are adopted under Transportation Code, sec.201.101, which 
provides the Texas Transportation Commission with the authority to promulgate 
rules for the conduct of the work of the Texas Department of Transportation, and 
Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6673a-4, which authorizes the department to adopt 
rules concerning the use of intellectual property. 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 31, 1997.
TRD-9714423
Bob Jackson
Deputy General Counsel
Texas Department of Transportation
Effective date: November 20, 1997
Proposal publication date: August 12, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 463-8630

CHAPTER 25. Traffic Operations
SUBCHAPTER A. General
43 TAC sec.25.7
The Texas Department of Transportation adopts an amendment to sec.25.7, 
concerning the removal and storage of personal property from the state highway 
system, without changes to the proposed text as published in the August 12, 
1997, issue of the Texas Register (22 TexReg 7481) and will not be republished.
Transportation Code, sec.sec.472.011-472.014, authorizes the Texas Department of 
Transportation to remove and dispose of spilled cargo or other personal property 
on state rights of way or a portion of the roadway of the state highway system. 
Senate Bill 370, sec.1.43, 75th Legislature, 1997, expanded the existing 
authority of the department to move personal property from the state highway 
system to include vehicles, as defined by sec.502.001 of the Transportation 
Code. Section 25.7 is amended to include vehicles as items the department could 
remove from the state highway system. 
No comments were received on the proposed amendments. 
The amendment is adopted under Transportation Code, sec.201.101, which provide 
the Texas Transportation Commission with the authority to promulgate rules for 
the conduct of the work of the Texas Department of Transportation and, more 
specifically, Transportation Code, sec.sec.472.011-472.014, which authorize the 
Texas Department of Transportation to remove obstructions from state highways 
and rights of way. 
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 
Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 31, 1997.
TRD-9714424
Bob Jackson
Deputy General Counsel
Texas Department of Transportation
Effective date: November 20, 1997
Proposal publication date: August 12, 1997
For further information, please call: (512) 463-8630