Coastal Coordination Council
Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Requests for Consistency Agreement/Concurrence under the Texas Coastal Management Program
On January 10, 1997, the State of Texas received federal approval of the
Coastal Management Program (CMP) (62 Federal Register pp. 1439-1440). Under
federal law, federal agency activities and actions affecting the Texas coastal
zone must be consistent with the CMP goals and policies identified in 31 TAC
Chapter 501. Requests for federal consistency review were received for the
following projects(s) during the period of August 2, 2000, through August
10, 2000:
FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS:
Applicant: Sullivan Land & Cattle Company; Location: The project is
located on 99th Street adjacent to Sydnor Bayou, Galveston, Galveston County,
Texas. Approximate UTM coordinates: Zone 15; 319000; Northing: 3237300. CCC
Project No.: 00-0277-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes
to construct a subdivision with a community pier. The applicant will raise
the grade of his property with approximately 3,000 cubic yards of clean sand.
A portion of the work will fill 0.356 acre of wetlands along the shore of
Sydnor Bayou. The applicant also proposes to construct a 200-foot-long community
pier with a 20-foot by 20-foot gazebo end structure. The applicant proposes
to place 4.394 acres of existing wetlands on the site under a deed restriction.
He will enhance wetlands along the southern edge of his property by scraping
down a high marsh area to create 0.481 acre of low marsh and excavating 0.367
acre to create a small lake and a circulation channel to allow tidal circulation
into the area. He will also scrape down upland to create 0.172 acre of wetlands.
Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application #21995 under §10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403) and §404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
Applicant: Davis Petroleum Corporation; Location: The project site is located
in Carancahua Bayou at its intersection with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
in Galveston County, Texas. CCC Project No.: 00-0278-F1; Description of Proposed
Action: The applicant proposes to hydraulically dredge approximately 6,000
cubic yards of material from Carancahua Bayou in order to drill up to 6 wells
for the production of oil and/or gas. The dredged material will be placed
in an upland area located adjacent to and northwest of the project site. Levees
will be constructed around the placement area with a 16-inch drain carrying
the effluent back into the slough. The applicant also requests authorization
to construct at least four pile clusters with navigation aids along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, the applicant proposes to install well
guards and a production platform if the wells are productive. Type of Application:
U.S.A.C.E. permit application #22107 under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403).
Applicant: Tepco, Inc. Location: The site is in Well No. 1 in State Tract
62, West Galveston Bay, east of Greens Lake at the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
near Galveston, Galveston County, Texas. CCC Project No.: 00-0279-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes an extension of time to drill Well
No. 1 in State Tract 62. Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application
#21246(01)/001 under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403)
and §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
Applicant: Floyd and Robin Edmonds; Location: The project is located at
the northern end of a man-made canal off Double Bayou at 208 Eagle Road in
Oak Island, Chambers County, Texas. Approximate UTM coordinates: Zone 15;
Easting: 336400; Northing: 3282100. CCC Project No.: 00-0280-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to maintain 231 cubic yards of
fill material previously placed into approximately 1,000 square feet of wetlands
without a Department of the Army permit. The applicant placed the fill material
to clean up the area and prevent the deposition of dead fish and debris behind
a commercial facility. Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application
#21873 under §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
Applicant: Friede Goldman Offshore, TX, L.P.; Location: The project is
located along the west bank of the Sabine River, south of the intersection
of Interstate 10 and State Highway 358, Orange, Orange County, Texas. The
disposal sites are located in Corps of Engineers Disposal Areas 31 (in Texas)
and 37 (in Louisiana), just south and east of the project site, respectively.
Approximate UTM coordinates for the project site: Zone 15; Easting: 430260;
Northing: 3328850. Approximate UTM coordinates for the disposal sites: Disposal
Area 31; Zone 15; Easting: 429800; Northing: 3325500. Disposal Area 37; Zone
15; Easting: 430730; Northing: 332850. CCC Project No.: 00-0281-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install 800 feet of sheet pile
bulkhead behind (landward of) the existing bulkhead and dock, then remove
the existing 800-foot bulkhead and 800- by 30-foot dock and hydraulically
dredge an area approximately 180 feet by 800 feet along the shoreline in front
of the bulkhead. The applicant proposes to maintain this dredged area to a
depth of 30 feet. However, since the majority of this area is already at or
near a depth of 30 feet, the currently proposed amount of material to be dredged
is approximately 30,500 cubic yards. Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit
application #22035 under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C.A. §403) and §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
Applicant: Crown Central Petroleum Corporation; Location: The site is located
at Mile 45 at Corps of Engineers Station 985+00, downstream of the Washburn
Tunnel, in Pasadena, Harris County, Texas. Approximate UTM coordinates: Zone
15; Easting: 295800; Northing: 3292000. CCC Project No.: 00-0282-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to modify Permit Number 10141(05)
to add the Dynegy Dredge Material Placement Area for use during previously
authorized dredging activities. Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application
#10141(06) under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403).
Pursuant to §306(d)(14) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C.A. §§1451-1464), as amended, interested parties are invited
to submit comments on whether a proposed action is or is not consistent with
the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies and whether the action
should be referred to the Coastal Coordination Council for review. Further
information for the applications listed above may be obtained from Ms. Janet
Fatheree, Council Secretary, Coastal Coordination Council, 1700 North Congress
Avenue, Room 617, Austin, Texas 78701-1495, or janet.fatheree@glo.state.tx.us.
Persons are encouraged to submit written comments as soon as possible within
30 days of publication of this notice. Comments should be sent to Ms. Fatheree
at the above address or by fax at 512/475-0680.
TRD-200005781
Larry R. Soward
Chief Clerk, General Land Office
Coastal Coordination Council
Filed: August 16, 2000
Notice of Request for Proposals
Notice of Request for Proposals: Pursuant to Chapter 2254, Subchapter B,
Texas Government Code, and Section 403.020, Texas Government Code, the Comptroller
of Public Accounts (Comptroller) announces the issuance of its Request for
Proposals (RFP) from qualified, independent firms to provide consulting services
to the Comptroller. The successful respondent will assist the Comptroller
in conducting a management and performance review of the Fort Worth Independent
School District (Fort Worth ISD). The services sought under this RFP will
culminate in a final report, which shall contain findings, recommendations,
implementation timelines, plans, and be a component part of the review of
the Fort Worth ISD. The successful respondent will be expected to begin performance
of the contract on or about October 17, 2000.
Contact: Parties interested in submitting a proposal should contact Clay
Harris, Assistant General Counsel, Contracts, Comptroller of Public Accounts,
111 E. 17th St., ROOM G-24, Austin, Texas, 78744, telephone number: (512)
305-8673, to obtain a copy of the RFP. The Comptroller will mail copies of
the RFP only to those specifically requesting a copy. The RFP was made available
for pick-up at the above-referenced address on Friday, August 25, 2000, between
2 p.m. and 5 p.m., Central Zone Time (CZT), and during normal business hours
thereafter. The Comptroller also made the complete RFP available electronically
on the Texas Marketplace after Friday, August 25, 2000, 2 p.m. (CZT). All
written inquiries, questions, and mandatory Letters of Intent to propose must
be received at the above-referenced address prior to 2 p.m. (CZT) on Tuesday,
September 12, 2000. Prospective respondents are encouraged to fax Letters
of Intent and Questions to (512) 475-0973 to ensure timely receipt. The Letter
of Intent must be addressed to Clay Harris, Assistant General Counsel, Contracts,
and must contain the information as stated in the corresponding Section of
the RFP and be signed by an official of that entity. Mandatory Letters of
Intent and Questions received after this time and date will not be considered.
The responses to questions and other information pertaining to this procurement
will be posted on Friday, September 15, 2000, on the Texas Marketplace http://www.marketplace.state.tx.us.
Closing Date: Proposals must be received in Assistant General Counsel's
Office at the address specified above (ROOM G-24) no later than 2 p.m. (CZT),
on Friday, September 22, 2000. Proposals received after this time and date
will not be considered.
Evaluation and Award Procedure: All proposals will be subject to evaluation
by a committee based on the evaluation criteria and procedures set forth in
the RFP. The Comptroller will make the final decision.
The Comptroller reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals
submitted. The Comptroller of Public Accounts is under no legal or other obligation
to execute a contract on the basis of this notice or the distribution of any
RFP. The Comptroller shall pay for no costs incurred by any entity in responding
to this Notice or the RFP.
The anticipated schedule of events is as follows: Issuance of RFP - August
25, 2000, 2 p.m. CZT; Mandatory Letters of Intent and Questions Due - September
12, 2000, 2 p.m. CZT; Responses to Questions - September 15, 2000; Proposals
Due - September 22, 2000, 2 p.m. CZT; Contract Execution - October 2, 2000,
or as soon thereafter as practical; Commencement of Project Activities - October
17, 2000.
TRD-200005771
David R. Brown
Assistant General Counsel for Contracts
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Filed: August 16, 2000
Notice of Rate Ceilings
The Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas has ascertained the following
rate ceilings by use of the formulas and methods described in §303.003
and §303.009, Tex. Fin. Code.
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by §303.003 and §303.009 for
the period of 08/21/00 - 08/27/00 is 18% for Consumer
1
/Agricultural/Commercial
2
/credit thru
$250,000.
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by §303.003 and §303.09 for
the period of 08/21/00 - 08/27/00 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
1
Credit for personal, family or household
use.
2
Credit for business, commercial, investment
or other similar purpose.
TRD-200005719
Leslie L. Pettijohn
Commissioner
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Filed: August 15, 2000
Application(s) to Expand Field of Membership
Notice is given that the following applications have been filed with the
Credit Union Department and are under consideration:
An application was received from First Educators Credit Union, Houston,
Texas to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit the employees
of StafUSA who are employed and paid by StafUSA from its headquarters in Conroe,
Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from United Heritage Credit Union, Austin,
Texas to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit the employees
of E3 Group, Inc., who are paid from Dallas, Texas to be eligible for membership
in the credit union.
An application was received from United Heritage Credit Union, Austin,
Texas to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit persons
that work or reside within Smith County, Texas to be eligible for membership
in the credit union.
An application was received from Centex Citizens Credit Union, Mexia, Texas
to expand its field of membership. The proposal would permit persons who work
or reside in Limestone County and that portion of Freestone County west of
I-45 and specifically Fairfield; the portion of Navarro County west of I-45
and south of Highway 22; and the portion of Hill County south of Highway 22
and east of I-35 to include Hillsboro; with the following exclusion: persons
that are eligible for primary membership in existing occupational or association-based
credit unions in Navarro and Hill Counties, Texas to be eligible for membership
in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch offices
located in Houston and Dallas, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees,
retirees, annuitants, and their family members of TeleCheck Services, Inc.
who are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit
union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Americaid Community Care, who work
out of the Bellaire, Texas office to be eligible for membership in the credit
union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Houston West Chamber of Commerce,
Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Richfield Investment Corporation,
who work at or are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership
in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Westchase District, who work at or
are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Surpas Resource Corporation, who work
at or are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit
union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Trendsetter Staffing, who are paid
from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Roxar, Inc., who work at or are paid
from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of AssembleTech, Inc., who work at or
are paid from Sugar Land, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit
union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Ruska Instrument Corporation, who
work at or are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the
credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Baker Hughes INTEQ, who work at or
are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Image Concepts, who work at or are
paid from Stafford, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit union.
An application was received from Premier America Credit Union, Chatsworth,
California to expand the field of membership of its out-of-state branch office
located in Houston, Texas. The proposal would permit the employees, retirees,
annuitants, and their family members of Petroleum Geo-Services, who work at
or are paid from Houston, Texas to be eligible for membership in the credit
union.
Comments or a request for a meeting by any interested party relating to
an application must be submitted in writing within 30 days from the date of
this publication. Credit unions that wish to comment on any application must
also complete a Notice of Protest form. The form may be obtained by contacting
the Department at (512) 837-9236. Any written comments must provide all information
that the interested party wishes the Department to consider in evaluating
the application. All information received will be weighed during consideration
of the merits of an application. Comments or a request for a meeting should
be addressed to the Texas Credit Union Department, 914 East Anderson Lane,
Austin, Texas 78752-1699.
TRD-200005789
Harold E. Feeney
Commissioner
Credit Union Department
Filed: August 16, 2000
In accordance with the provisions of 7 TAC Section 91.103, the Credit Union
Department provides notice of the final action taken on the following application(s):
Application(s) to Expand Field of Membership - Approved
United Heritage Credit Union, Austin, Texas - See Texas Register issued
dated June 30, 2000
Denton Area Teachers Credit Union, Denton, Texas (2 Appls.) - See Texas
Register issue dated June 30, 2000
Educational Employees Credit Union, Fort Worth, Texas (Amended) - Individuals
who live or work in the cities of Fort Worth, Haslet, or Mansfield, Texas;
excluding persons eligible for primary membership in any other credit union
with a full service office in the specified geographic area on June 19, 2000,
and having a total membership of less than 20,000 members at the time membership
is sought unless such credit union overlaps Educational Employees Credit Union's
Select Employee Groups as a result of having sought a low-income or other
community field of membership expansion.
Mid-County Teachers Credit Union, Port Neches, Texas - See
Texas Register
issue dated June 30, 2000
Mesquite Credit Union, Mesquite, Texas - See
Texas Register
issue dated June 30, 2000
Gulf Employees Credit Union, Groves, Texas - See
Texas Register
issue dated June 30, 2000
Vought Heritage Credit Union, Grand Prairie, Texas - See
Texas Register
issue dated June 30, 2000
TRD-200005790
Harold E. Feeney
Commissioner
Credit Union Department
Filed: August 16, 2000
Grant Funds Available
The Texas Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (TCDHH) has $20,000
available for projects to (1) provide services to adults or children who are
hard of hearing, late-deafened or oral deaf or (2) provide services that will
impact on the provision of services to persons who are hard of hearing, late-deafened
or oral deaf. Applicants must complete and submit the attached form to be
considered for funding. Applications will be received and considered until
such time as the funds are depleted. Applications will be evaluated on the
basis of the selection criteria printed elsewhere in this document. Applications
receiving a score of 80 or higher maybe funded on a "first-come first-serve"
basis, pending availability of funds.
Project Requirements
Projects are to:
* serve persons who are hard of hearing, late-deafened or oral deaf either
as direct services or to impact services provided to these groups;
* be a one-time event and not more than 1 week in duration;
* seek other funds and use TCDHH funding only as a last resort (when no
one else will provide funding); and
* acknowledge Commission funding during the event, and on publications,
letterhead, materials, etc (TCDHH artwork will be supplied if necessary).
Sample Projects:
Sample projects may include:
* workshops/training regarding legal rights, advocacy, communication strategies
and communication access; hearing loss technology; coping strategies for improving
daily living; resources and available services
* establishment of new support/education groups
* mentoring and training projects for children
* assistive device demonstrations
Projects not appropriate include:
* funding of services that are legally required by entities
* equipment purchases for individuals
Additional Information:
Preference will be given to:
* not-for-profit groups
* projects which can provide matching funds and
* projects which address the needs of the Spanish-speaking community.
Deadline for submitting proposals: Applications may be received at any
time but no later than August 1, 2001.
Maximum funds available: $20,000
Maximum award amount: $4,500
Project performance period: Projects funded shall provide services before
September 1, 2001.
Selection Criteria:
Applications will be evaluated based on the following:
Points
1. The extent to which the project narrative is clear and comprehensive
10
2. The extent to which the proposed cost allocations are reasonable in
relation to the objectives of the project. 10
3. The extent to which the qualifications of project staff are sufficient
for project. 10
4. The extent to which the project would serve unmet needs, or serve
underserved or unserved areas 30
5. The extent to which the project is innovative 10
6. The extent to which the project is meeting the needs of the Hard of
Hearing program 20
7. The extent to which the project can be duplicated in other areas 10
TRD-200005769
David W. Myers
Executive Director
Texas Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Filed: August 16, 2000
Notice of Correction: Deadline for Receipt of Proposals in Request for Proposals Concerning Texas Permanent School Fund Investment Management Services: Domestic Small/Mid Cap Broad Style
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) published Request for Proposals (RFP)
#701-00-042 concerning domestic small/mid cap broad style investment management
services to be provided to the Texas Permanent School Fund in the August 11,
2000, issue of the
Texas Register
(25 TexReg
7917). The TEA is amending the Deadline for Receipt of Proposals paragraph
in the
Texas Register
Notice to read, "Proposals
must be received in the Document Control Center of the Texas Education Agency
by 5:00 p.m. (Central Time), Wednesday, September 6, 2000, to be considered."
This correction reflects a change from the original deadline for receipt of
proposals from Friday, September 8, 2000.
Further Information. For clarifying information about the RFP, contact
Paul Ballard, Texas Permanent School Fund, Texas Education Agency, (512) 463-9l69.
TRD-200005777
Criss Cloudt
Associate Commissioner, Policy Planning and Research
Texas Education Agency
Filed: August 16, 2000
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) published Request for Proposals (RFP)
#701-00-043 concerning domestic small/mid cap growth style investment management
services to be provided to the Texas Permanent School Fund in the August 11,
2000, issue of the
Texas Register
(25 TexReg
7917). The TEA is amending the Deadline for Receipt of Proposals paragraph
in the
Texas Register
Notice to read, "Proposals
must be received in the Document Control Center of the Texas Education Agency
by 5:00 p.m. (Central Time), Thursday, September 7, 2000, to be considered."
This correction reflects a change from the original deadline for receipt of
proposals from Friday, September 8, 2000.
Further Information. For clarifying information about the RFP, contact
Paul Ballard, Texas Permanent School Fund, Texas Education Agency, (512) 463-9l69.
TRD-200005776
Criss Cloudt
Associate Commissioner, Policy Planning and Research
Texas Education Agency
Filed: August 16, 2000
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) published Request for Proposals (RFP)
#701-00-044 concerning domestic small/mid cap value style investment management
services to be provided to the Texas Permanent School Fund in the August 11,
2000, issue of the
Texas Register
(25 TexReg
7918). The TEA is amending the Deadline for Receipt of Proposals paragraph
in the
Texas Register
Notice to read, "Proposals
must be received in the Document Control Center of the Texas Education Agency
by 5:00 p.m. (Central Time), Monday, September 11, 2000, to be considered."
This correction reflects a change from the original deadline for receipt of
proposals from Friday, September 8, 2000
Further Information. For clarifying information about the RFP, contact
Paul Ballard, Texas Permanent School Fund, Texas Education Agency, (512) 463-9l69.
TRD-200005775
Criss Cloudt
Associate Commissioner, Policy Planning and Research
Texas Education Agency
Filed: August 16, 2000
Notice of Public Hearing
The Commission on State Emergency Communications will hold a public hearing
regarding §251.9, Guidelines for Addressing Maintenance Funds, on September
5, 2000, at 2:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at 333 Guadalupe Street,
Room 100, Austin, Texas.
A notice of intent to review §251.9, concerning Guidelines for Addressing
Maintenance Funds, has also been published in the rule review section of this
issue of the
Texas Register
. The review is
in accordance with the Appropriations Act, Article IX, §167.
The Commission on State Emergency Communications previously proposed and
adopted the review regarding this section, which was effective August 16,
1999. The agency would again like to invite public comment and feedback regarding
this section.
TRD-200005692
James D. Goerke
Executive Director
Commission on State Emergency Communications
Filed: August 14, 2000
Public Notice
The Golden Crescent Workforce Development Board, Inc. will release it's
Requests for Applications for 1) transportation; 2) non-traditional child
care; 3) marketing; and 4) Rapid Response activities on August 25, 2000.
BIDDERS' CONFERENCE SCHEDULE Wednesday, August 30, 2000, @ 10:00 a.m. Transportation,
Wednesday, August 30, 2000, @ 2:00 p.m. Marketing, Thursday, August 31, 2000,
@ 10:00 a.m. Child Care, Thursday, August 31, 2000, @ 2:00 p.m. Rapid Response
The deadline for response for all of these procurements is 5 p.m., September
25, 2000.
A complete set of specifications may be obtained at 2710 Airline, Victoria,
Texas, Phone: (361) 576-5872, Fax: (361) 573-0225, or email: sandy.heiermann@twc.state.tx.us.
TRD-200005725
Isabel Simmons
Administrative Clerk
Golden Crescent Workforce Development Board
Filed: August 15, 2000
Notice of Adopted Medicaid Provider Payment Rates
As single state agency for the state Medicaid program, the Health and Human
Services Commission adopts new per diem payment rates for the nursing facilities
program operated by the Texas Department of Human Services. Payment rates
are adopted to be effective September 1, 2000, as follows: Rates by TILE (Texas
Index for Level of Effort) class: see Table 1
[graphic]
Methodology and justification. The adopted rates in the chart above were
determined in accordance with the rate setting methodology at 1 Texas Administrative
Code (TAC) Chapter 355, subchapter C, §355.307 (relating to Reimbursement
Setting Methodology) and §355.308 (relating to Enhanced Direct Care Staff
Rate). These rates were subsequently adjusted in accordance with 1 TAC 355,
subchapter A, §355.101 and §355.109 (relating to Cost Determination
Process).
Participating facilities requesting to staff above the minimum staffing
requirements included in the rates in the above chart may receive one of the
following payment rates per day in addition to the above payment rates (within
available funds): see Table 2
[graphic]
Methodology and justification. The adopted rates in the chart above were
determined in accordance with the rate setting methodology at 1 Texas Administrative
Code (TAC) Chapter 355, subchapter C, §355.308 (relating to Enhanced
Direct Care Staff Rate).
TRD-200005764
Marina Henderson
Executive Deputy Commissioner
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Filed: August 15, 2000
Notice of Draft Proposed 2001-2002 Texas State Health Plan Update
The Statewide Health Coordinating Council announces the availability of
the Draft Proposed 2001-2002 Texas State Health Plan Update: Ensuring a Quality
Health Care Workforce for Texas, for public comment from August 25, 2000 until
September 15, 2000.
The plan is available for review from the Texas Department of Health, Office
of Policy and Planning, Moreton Building, Room M-660, 1100 West 49th Street,
Austin, Texas 78756. A meeting of the council will be held on September 21,
2000, at the Texas Department of Health, Room M-739 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:30
p.m. A public comment session will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Written comments on the plan may be sent to Dennis Finuf, Texas Department
of Health, Office of Policy and Planning, Moreton Building, Room M-660, 1100
West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756; by electronic mail to Dennis.Finuf@tdh.state.tx.us;
or by Fax to (512) 458-7344.
TRD-200005782
Susan K. Steeg
General Counsel
Texas Department of Health
Filed: August 16, 2000
Insurer Services
The following applications have been filed with the Texas Department of
Insurance and are under consideration:
Application to change the name of CELTIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY to CELTIC
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign life company. The home office is in Chicago,
Illinois.
Application to change the name of MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY to
AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign fire and casualty company. The
home office is in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Application for admission to the State of Texas by BROKERS NATIONAL LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign life company. The home office is in Sherwood,
Arkansas.
Application for admission to the State of Texas by MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign fire and casualty company. The home office is
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Any objections must be filed with the Texas Department of Insurance, addressed
to the attention of Godwin Ohaechesi, 333 Guadalupe Street, M/C 305-2C, Austin,
Texas 78701.
TRD-200005778
Judy Woolley
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 16, 2000
The Commissioner of Insurance, or his designee, will consider approval
of a rating manual request submitted by Kemper Insurance Companies proposing
to use a rating manual different than that promulgated by the Commissioner
of Insurance pursuant to TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art 5.101, 3(l). They are proposing
to adopt a companion policy discount. The 7% discount provides a reduction
in premium for private passenger automobile policyholders if the named insured
has a homeowner's policy written through one of the Kemper Insurance companies.
The discount is applicable to premiums for liability, medical payments, personal
injury protection, collision and comprehensive coverages.
Copies of the filing may be obtained by contacting George Russell, at the
Texas Department of Insurance, Automobile/Homeowners Division, P.O. Box 149104,
Austin, Texas 78714-9104, telephone (512) 305-7468.
This filing is subject to Department approval without a hearing unless
a properly filed objection, pursuant to art. 5.101, 3(h), is made with the
Senior Associate Commissioner for Property & Casualty, Mr. C.H. Mah, at
the Texas Department of Insurance, MC 105-5G, P.O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas
78701, within 30 days after publication of this notice.
TRD-200005763
Judy Woolley
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 15, 2000
The following third party administrator (TPA) applications have been filed
with the Texas Department of Insurance and are under consideration.
Application for admission to Texas of Bob McClosky Agency, Inc., a foreign
third party administrator. The home office is Matawan, New Jersey.
Application for admission to Texas of American Agency System, Inc., a foreign
third party administrator. The home office is Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Application for incorporation in Texas of Assurance Resources, Inc., (doing
business under the assumed name of A.R.I.), a domestic third party administrator.
The home office is Houston, Texas.
TRD-200005565
Judy Woolley
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 10, 2000
Texas Insurance Code Article 9.07(c) requires the Department of Insurance
to hold a biennial hearing to consider adoption of premium rates and such
other matters and subjects relative to the regulation of the business of title
insurance as may be requested by any association, any title insurance company,
any title insurance agent, any member of the public, or as the commissioner
may determine necessary to consider. Notice of the hearing will appear in
the
Texas Register
at a later date. Any association,
any title insurance company, any title insurance agent, or any member of the
public that would like to request that any matter or subject, other than the
rates for title insurance, be considered at the biennial hearing must provide
a detailed description of the matter or subject no later than September 25,
2000.
All requests should be addressed to the Office of the Chief Clerk, Mail
Code 113-2A, P.O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas 78714-9104 (please refer to reference
number O-0800-20-I). It is encouraged that the requests be additionally submitted
in 3 1/2 inch diskette format.
TRD-200005767
Judy Woolley
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 15, 2000
The Commissioner of Insurance will hold an open meeting under Docket No.
2456 on Friday, September 15, 2000, at 10:00 A.M. in Austin, Texas, to consider
the manual rate filing for commercial risks and classes of risks submitted
by the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Interested persons may present
either oral or written comments on the filing of the open meeting.
Copies of the manual rate filing are available for review in the Office
of the Chief Clerk of the Texas Department of Insurance, 333 Guadalupe Street,
Austin, Texas 78701. For further information or to request copies of the filing,
please contact Sylvia Gutierrez, at (512) 463-6327, (refer to Reference No.
P-0800-19).
Comments on the filing must be submitted no later than September 8, 2000,
to the Office of the Chief Clerk, P.O. Box 149104, MC 113-2A, Austin, Texas
78714-9104.
This notification is made pursuant to the Insurance Code, Article 21.49,
which requires notification to the Texas Register of the manual rate filing
and exempts the proceeding from the contested case hearing procedures in Chapter
40, Texas Insurance Code (formerly Article 1.33B) and Chapter 2001, Government
Code.
TRD-200005564
Judy Woolley
Deputy Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 10, 2000
Request for Proposals
Grant
Pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Title 10, Article 2254, Subchapter
B, the Commission on Jail Standards invites proposals for consulting services
from qualified individuals to advise and assist TCJS in a survey of jails
across the state under the terms of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, Public Law 93-415, as modified.
The individual selected will conduct analyses of records for county and
municipal jails and prepare required documentation and reports to verify compliance
information regarding the removal of juveniles from the facilities. The selected
consultant shall report directly to Terry Julian at the Texas Commission on
Jail Standards.
All work performed under this contract shall be reimbursed on an hourly
basis and is expected to be completed by August 31, 2001.
Travel expenses shall be reimbursed upon state per diem rates with direct
operating expenses provided by TCJS.
Detailed specifications are contained in the Consultant Proposal Request
available August 25, 2000 from the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, 300
W. 15th Street, Suite 503, Austin, Texas between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday. For detailed information, contact Brandon S. Wood
at (512) 463-5505.
Responses will be accepted only if actually received in writing in the
Texas Commission on Jail Standards office no later than September 5, 2000,
no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time on this date. The Texas Commission
on Jail Standards reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.
All proposals submitted by the deadline will be reviewed by the executive
director. The executive director may request interviews with the top rated
proposers. Based on proposers response, availability, experience, qualifications
and demonstrated ability to work independently, the executive director will
select the individual most qualified to provide services.
TRD-200005768
Jack E. Crump
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
Filed: August 16, 2000
Request for Funding for Consumer and Auctioneer Education
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and the Auctioneer Education
Advisory Board hereby solicits requests for funding. Requests must include
education for the advancement of the auctioneer profession. The subject matter
should concern universal standards of auctioneering, including the subjects
of ethics, deceptive trade practice act, laws and administrative rules concerning
taxes to be collected and paid to the State of Texas by auctioneers, and all
other state and federal statutes that apply to the auction business in the
State of Texas, including the Texas Auctioneer Law. Requests for funding must
encompass all four of the above subject areas, target delivery to all areas
of the state, and seek to attract both full time and part time licensed auctioneers.
To receive copies of the Request for Funding contact Caroline Jackson at
(512) 463-7348 or electronically at caroline.jackson@license.state.tx.us.
Requests for Funding must be received by September 29, 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Requests for Funding will be evaluated for completeness, content, and usefulness.
More than one request may be recommended for funding. Requests may be made
for clarification, but no changes to requests will be accepted. A recommendation
will be made by the Auctioneer Education Advisory Board to the Commissioner
of Licensing and Regulation at a public meeting to be scheduled and announced
at a later date.
The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all requests
submitted. The Department is under no legal or other obligation to execute
a contract on the basis of this Request for Funding. The Request for Funding
does not commit the Department to pay for any costs incurred prior to the
approval of a request.
TRD-200005706
William H. Kuntz, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Filed: August 14, 2000
Air Quality Standard Permit for Concrete Batch Plants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
is issuing a new standard permit for concrete batch plants. The new air quality
standard permit will be effective September 1, 2000, and is applicable to
permanent, temporary, and specialty concrete batch plants. The air quality
standard permit is based on statutory requirements of the Texas Health and
Safety Code (THSC), Chapter 382 and a comprehensive evaluation of air quality
emissions and potential impacts. This air quality standard permit for concrete
batch plants will also implement portions of Senate Bill (SB) 1298 from the
76th Session of the Texas Legislature, 1999.
OVERVIEW OF STANDARD PERMIT
The commission is issuing an air quality standard permit for concrete batch
plants under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F, Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modification, based on the results of the
extensive protectiveness review. The commission previously authorized the
majority of concrete batch plants under the conditions of 30 TAC Chapter 106.
This standard permit would combine requirements for new or relocated concrete
batch plants currently in §106.201, Permanent and Temporary Concrete
Batch Plants; §106.202, Temporary Concrete Batch Plants; and §106.203,
Specialty Batch Plants, into one standard permit issued under §116.602.
This consolidation of requirements is consistent with the desire of the commission
to simplify its regulatory structure and recognize the potential significance
of some sources by developing standard permits to replace existing permits
by rule that provide qualification criteria that are lengthy, complex, widely
used, and potentially contentious. The general public often expresses concern
with concrete batch plant registration applications. These objections often
include: traffic safety; noise; appearance; and property values. These concerns
are beyond the commission's jurisdiction to address. The general public also
expresses concerns over nuisance dust, ambient air quality, and potential
negative health impacts and are the focus of the concrete batch plant protectiveness
review and the proposed conditions of the standard permit. In accordance with
TCAA, §382.058, some concrete batch plant registrations must undergo
public notification and provide opportunity for a contested case hearing.
Any contested case hearing will be limited to whether or not a plant meets
the conditions of the standard permit. Issues such as noises, traffic, aesthetics,
and property values will be outside the scope of the hearing.
The standard permit is designed to allow for registration of a typical
concrete batch plant. However, it is not intended to provide an authorization
mechanism for all possible plant configurations and production rates. Those
facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for
a case- by-case review air quality permit under §116.111.
In addition to combining the requirements in the permits by rule, the commission
is adding requirements to control dust based on current best available control
technology (BACT) as required by §116.602(c) and distance limitations
or setbacks based on emission estimations, computer dispersion modeling, impacts
analysis, and plant observations performed to verify the protectiveness of
the standard permit. The detailed technical evaluations and modeling results
are available from the Air Permits Division (APD) upon request. The commission
has concluded extensive research which shows that the standard permit for
concrete batch plants is protective of the public health and welfare and that
facilities which operate under the conditions specified will comply with TNRCC
rules and regulations.
PUBLIC MEETING AND COMMENTERS
In accordance with §116.603, the TNRCC published notice of the proposed
standard permit in the
Texas Register
and
newspapers of the largest general circulation in the following metropolitan
areas: Amarillo; Austin; Corpus Christi; Dallas; El Paso; Houston; Lower Rio
Grande Valley; Lubbock; Permian Basin; San Antonio; and Tyler. The date for
these publications was April 28, 2000, and listed a public comment period
from April 28th to May 31st, 2000.
COMMENTS REQUESTED
The commission solicited, in particular, comments regarding a fee for each
standard permit registration. Several commenters raised serious concerns over
a proposed fee being imposed for each permit registration request, and the
standard permit was revised based on these comments.
COMMENTS
A public meeting on the proposal was held May 16, 2000, in Room 254S of
the TNRCC Building E, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. Oral comments
were provided by several individuals and trade associations, including: Association
of General Contractors or Texas (AGC); Site Concrete (Site); Pioneer Concrete
(Pioneer); and Westward Environmental (Westward).
The period for written comments on the proposed standard permit closed
at 5:00 pm, May 31, 2000.
Written comments were submitted by the following: Chairman, Residents for
a Better Community; Association of General Contractors of Texas (AGC); Texas
Aggregates and Concrete Association (TACA); Sundt Construction, Inc. (Sundt);
Environmental Engineering Department of TXI Operations, LP (TXI); Safety &
Environmental Manager, Transit Mix (Transit Mix); Westward Environmental,
Inc. (Westward); CSR Pipe & Concrete Products (CSR); and Pioneer South
Central, Inc. (Pioneer).
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Notice of Standard Permit
Ms. Scheinder raised concerns over the sufficiency of notice regarding
the new standard permit.
This standard permit has followed the THSC, §382.05195 and §116.602
requirements for notice of the proposed standard permit, including publication
in the
Texas Register
and newspapers across
the state in areas which may be affected by this standard permit. The TNRCC
provided outreach to several interested persons, provided a comment period
of over 30 days, and held the required public meeting regarding this standard
permit. All statutory and regulatory requirements for notification have been
met by this standard permit.
Applicability of Standard Permit
Ms. Scheinder commented that the new standard permit requirements should
not be retroactive to pending registrations.
The TNRCC appreciates this comment and has clearly stated that the standard
permit for concrete batch plants is effective only for new registrations received
after its effective date of September 1, 2000, and will not affect any other
registrations received prior to that date.
Consistency of Enforcement
Transit Mix believes that TNRCC inspections might not always be as focused
on the "smaller" concrete companies with two or three plants. Transit Mix
believes that equal attention should be paid to this group. Small businesses,
which are never inspected, not only have a greater potential to pollute the
environment, but, also have a financial advantage. Small businesses can add
up to a large number of concrete plants in the state.
TACA expressed concern that TNRCC enforcement activity "has not been meted
out in equal shares." They continue to state that it is imperative for the
success of the standard permit and the public image of the concrete industry
that violators of these requirements be processed with equal enforcement standards.
In the past there have been a number of ready mix plants which have begun
construction and operation without even applying for the former Standard Exemption
No. 71 (currently §106.201, Permit by Rule). Even though this was an
egregious violation of TNRCC rules, these companies were allowed to remain
operational as long as they begin application processing. The excuse cited
by the TNRCC for not shutting down these operations was that they were traditionally
small operators who could not afford a stoppage in business. TACA strongly
disagrees with this rationale and believes that a violator of this kind should
be met with a balanced, yet strict, enforcement action.
Pioneer also commented that every plant operator should be treated equally
during enforcement considerations and raised concerns over the existing enforcement
fine schedule.
The TNRCC is concerned about equal enforcement of the rules across not
only a specific regulated entity group, like concrete batch plants, but against
all sources subject to its jurisdiction. The agency has an adopted penalty
policy that further describes the statutory-based factors that are taken into
consideration in enforcement proceedings, and that policy is followed. Each
enforcement action has its own unique circumstances, and the ultimate outcome
of a given enforcement action is a combination of the circumstances, source
response and state law. It is the goal and objective of the TNRCC to implement
a fair and equitable application of these laws. Although the commission appreciates
these comments, it is important to note that these issues are beyond the scope
of the standard permit issuance.
General Conditions
TACA appreciates the efforts of the TNRCC staff in developing a comprehensive
package for concrete batch plants and other related facilities. TACA and its
members realize that it is time to promote responsible environmental standards
relating to those facilities associated with the production of ready mix concrete.
They recognize that a few bad operators in the construction materials arena
have done undue damage to the reputation of its members and the ready mix
industry. They stated that they stand ready to continue working with the TNRCC
in establishing a standard permit that "raises the bar" of environmental standards.
Pioneer noted that the public image of ready mix and portable batch plants
is not always the best and, in some cases, sites are not maintained, resulting
in "quite a bit of dust." Pioneer and their associations throughout the state
commended the TNRCC for raising the bar to some degree with this process and
are willing to provide any additional information to assist in these goals.
In addition, the written comments by Pioneer noted appreciation for the TNRCC
efforts in developing a comprehensive proposal and the belief that the end
product of the cooperative efforts would be a standard permit that is protective
of public health and safety, as well as creating a better public image for
the concrete industry as a whole. Pioneer expressed support of heightened
environmental standards relating to this highly contentious industry.
The TNRCC appreciates the recognition from the commenters. The commission
agrees with these comments and is committed to ensuring that all facilities
protect the public health and welfare as well as establishing air emissions
control criteria which consists of BACT. This standard permit has been designed
to address both of these goals.
Requirement for Registration Fees
AGC (oral and written comments), Site (oral), and Pioneer (oral) raised
concerns over the proposed fee of the standard permit to require each application
to submit $450. According to the commenters, this fee requirement would be
extremely burdensome on the regulated community, and would place an economic
hardship on small businesses. In addition, the fee would be passed on to public
entities and private citizens in increased prices for concrete products. In
some instances, portable plants may move as often as every two weeks, creating
a significant burden on the company, and subsequently, their customers, as
well as potentially creating an unfair advantage to permanent facilities that
would only pay a one-time fee. In their oral comments, the AGC pointed out
that in the past, different state agencies have refrained from taxing or creating
costs when an individual is working for another state agency (Texas Department
of Transportation (TxDOT)) and that a change in this practice would be inconsistent
with the goals of the state of Texas. The AGC suggested that an annual fee
payment would be an acceptable alternative.
TACA commented that the proposed $450 standard permit fee should not be
"too onerous" for ready mix companies operating in Texas. Opponents to this
permit fee need to understand that this fee should be associated with operating
a facility in a responsible manner. TACA and its members understand that small
businesses may voice their concerns relating to the amount of the fee, however,
TACA represents a number of smaller concrete companies operating throughout
Texas. To date, each of these smaller producers has supported the $450 standard
permit fee as necessary to ensure a higher overall standard for the concrete
industry.
Pioneer stated that the proposed $450 standard permit fee should not be
"too onerous" for ready mix companies operating in Texas and that complainants
should not be bidding jobs with low profit margins or without enough capital
to run a property operated facility.
After careful consideration of these comments, the commission is issuing
the standard permit with a $450 fee for each registration which must complete
public notice. Even though the commission does not currently charge a fee
for the review of concrete batch plant permit by rule registrations under
Chapter 106, the public notification and the resulting comments and hearing
requests require a great deal of agency resources. This proposal requires
public notifications which are expected to result in a similar amount of staff
time spent reviewing and responding to comments and hearings requests, and
the fee is intended to recover staff expenses. The fee requirement has no
other justification other than recouping resource expenses. Finally, the requirement
as issued would exclude entities who are working exclusively on public works
projects from having to pay a fee each time they relocate.
Registration Review Times and Approvals
Site verbally discussed concerns over the registration and review process
by the TNRCC with regard to the amount of information and details required
as well as the amount of time a standard permit registration review process
might take. Any review process which needed more information or took longer
to review than the current permit by rule process would have a significant
negative impact on the responsiveness of the industry and product availability.
AGC (oral and written comments) discussed the history of development for
the concrete batch plant exemption from permitting and their involvement in
balancing the need to minimize the public exposure to nuisance dust and ensuring
that public works projects could occur in a timely manner and that portable
concrete batch plants not be impeded in their movements around the state.
The AGC stressed that, due to timing of public works projects, the industry
needs certainty in knowing that a plant can be located at a particular site
without the threat of public notification or contested case hearing to ensure
an accurate bid on the contract with the public entity. This is especially
important considering the millions of dollars in bids which have already been
let, but facilities have not yet registered or constructed. There was concern
raised that the standard permit process would jeopardize this level of certainty,
decrease the flexibility to move the plants as often as possible, and potentially
increase time and cost to the industry for these types of contracts. AGC also
raised concerns over the scope of standard permit reviews as compared to the
previous level of review for standard exemptions/permits by rule, particularly
with respect to review times and flexibility of issues.
Westward commented that, assuming public notice requirements remain, for
unopposed standard permit applications, the TNRCC should be required to comply
with the 45-day time period in §116.614(b) and public notice requirements
(newspaper text and signs) could be standardized to facilitate this process;
and for contested applications the total time, including contested case hearings,
should be limited to a maximum of 180 days.
Pioneer recommended that the 45-day review period of §116.116(b) should
apply to all CBP standard permit registrations which complete the public notice
comment period uncontested.
The commission agrees with the comments with regard to the need for certainty
of application contents and review time expectations. The standard permit
registration process should be considered as very similar to the current permit
by rule review and will not include subjective case-by-case reviews of BACT
or impacts, thus ensuring efficient processing of these applications and establishing
a level of certainty with regard to the required information to be submitted
by applicants. In addition, to further clarify understanding, the commission
has emphasized the requirements for start of construction (§116.115(2)(A)).
Finally, the commission has committed to a 45-day review period for all concrete
batch plant standard permit registrations without public notice. However,
due to the application-specific nature of the public participation statutes
and rules under 30 TAC Chapters 39, 50, 55 and 80, those applications which
are subject to public notice cannot be guaranteed to be completed in short
periods of time. The TNRCC rules establish notice requirements for applicants
and these rules allow applicants up to 70 days (30 days to publish under THSC, §382.056(a),
15-day comment period under §55.152, 30 days to submit confirmation of
proper newspaper notice, and 10 days to verify the file availability and sign
posting from the end of the comment period) from the day the TNRCC declares
the application administratively complete. If notice results in comments or
hearing requests, the entire public participation process must be completed
and may take several months to complete. The commission is committed to expediting
these reviews and completing these projects in the shortest time possible
and will continue to work on process streamlining as the standard permit is
implemented. Therefore the standard permit time lines are separated into two
categories, that of which are with and without public notice. When an application
is not subject to public notice, the TNRCC is committed to reviewing these
registrations within the time periods specified in §116.611(b), however,
no time limits are specified for those applications which must undergo notice
requirements. In any case, written approval must be obtained prior to beginning
construction.
Record keeping Requirements
Pioneer commented (verbally and in writing) that the production record
requirements were unclear as to how records should be kept. In particular,
the proposal was unclear as to where the records should be made available
(on-site or at a central company location) and for what period of time (hourly,
daily, monthly, etc.). The commenter proposed that the TNRCC consider production
records to be maintained on a monthly basis for two-year period.
Westward recommended that the standard permit be changed to require records
on an annual basis in accordance with one of the following periods: 1.) to
correspond with the operating year used by the operation; 2.) by the calendar
year; or 3.) by the TNRCC emissions inspection year. The commenter noted that
a 24-month rolling production period does not mirror operating practices in
the real world, not the TNRCC's operating nor budgeting cycle. If the 24-month
rolling calendar does not serve a purpose which protects human health and
safety or protection of the environment, then it should not be required.
TACA commented that the language regarding recordkeeping is slightly convoluted
and confusing to operators. TACA questions if these records are to be kept
on an hourly basis for a rolling 24-month period, hourly, or month. TACA supports
production records being kept on site on a monthly basis for a 24-month period.
TXI commented that the specifics for maintenance of on-site production
records need to be clarified. It is unclear whether the hourly average is
calculated according to the hours of operation and production for that day
or on a rolling 60-minute basis for the duration of daily operation. In order
to ensure consistency in records inspections and for operators to determine
compliance, a clearer understanding is necessary. Additionally, more specific
language is needed regarding when these records must be complied, such as
daily or monthly.
The commission agrees that the recordkeeping requirements should specifically
identify the agency's expectations for operators to demonstrate compliance.
Facilities must be able to keep records which confirm compliance with the
standard permit conditions, as required by §116.615(8), and must be retained
for at least two years following the date that the information is obtained.
Since hourly production limits are a major component of the concrete batch
plant standard permit, the standard permit records kept on site must demonstrate
continuous compliance with these limitations. To demonstrate compliance with
standard permit representations (§116.615(2)), the commission has clarified
that production records be compiled on an hourly basis. These records should
be kept for each clock hour, however, if the plant is equipped with computerized
production records, permit holders may present information on a rolling 60-minute
period. In addition, these records should be maintained on site for a rolling
24-month period or the occupation of a particular site, whichever is less.
Public Notification
Westward commented that the TNRCC should not require public notification
and opportunity for a contested case proceeding for standard permits as THSC,
Chapter 382 requires notice for concrete batch plant "exemptions" and does
not explicitly require notice for "standard permits." The commenter goes onto
say that it may be argued that the standard permit authorization replaces
the exemptions/permits-by- rule registration and that the "assumed legislative
intent" is to continue this public notice requirement, there is no statutory
or regulatory basis for this position. The transfer of this requirement then
becomes one of personal preference rather than strict application of law.
The commission disagrees with the comment and believes that the rules of
statutory construction require that all concrete batch plants must meet the
notice requirements of THSC, §382.056. Senate Bill 766 amended THSC, §382.058(a)
- (c), which specifically states that any concrete plant under a standard
permit must comply with THSC §382.056 notice requirements and, therefore,
paragraph (2) is required by law.
Filter and Conveying Systems Emissions Capture and Control Device Design
and Performance Standards
Pioneer (verbally and in writing) and Westward (verbally) commented that
the EPA Test Method nine ( TM 9) and a 5% opacity limitation would be more
appropriate than the methods proposed for determining compliance and ensuring
control of dust emissions. The proposed visible emission limit is not based
on technical or scientific criteria, does not require a trained or certified
visible emissions evaluator, and could result in false readings of non-compliance.
Further, Pioneer stated a strong belief that a 5% opacity using EPA TM 9 would
be more appropriate and realistic.
In lieu of establishing a TM 9, 5% limit, Westward verbally suggested that
the ten second period of time be consecutive and not cumulative over the five
minute period as a properly operating abatement system may have ten one-second
incidents of visible emissions and that a cumulative reading would give flawed
information on the proper performance status of the equipment and not be representative
of an actual air emission concern. In written comments, Westward proposed
the following alternatives: 1.) As confirmed by a certified visible emissions
evaluator with delegation from the TNRCC executive director, the visible emissions
from a control device shall not result in any single reading of visible emissions
for ten consecutive seconds or more in a five minute observation period; or
2.) Emissions from a control device shall be limited to 5% opacity which shall
be determined using TM 9 by a certified visible emissions evaluator with delegation
from the TNRCC executive director.
TACA comments that the visible emission requirements for filter systems,
mixer loading, conveying systems, and batch truck loading control exhausts
are extremely cumbersome and not based on scientific data. A properly operated
plant would be extremely fortunate to comply with no visible emissions over
the cumulative ten seconds of a five minute period. TACA strongly supports
a 5% opacity standard based on EPA TM 9. This method is more widely accepted
due to its scientific longevity and is better suited for visible emissions
testing.
The TNRCC concurs with the comments that the compliance method specified
in the standard permit should be based on an established scientific method.
In addition, the TNRCC's goal is to require a method which is feasible for
plant operators to use for compliance confirmations. After diligent research
and consideration, and in response to the comments, the TNRCC has modified
the standard permit to require EPA TM 22 as the compliance determination method
in the standard permit. This method does not require annual re-certification,
as with EPA TM 9, but only initial training or independent study of available
reference materials which is easily achievable by plant operators. The standard
permit limits visible emissions of up to 30 seconds in any six minute period
for the performance criteria using this EPA TM. Based on engineering judgement
and wide experience with these types of facilities, the TNRCC believes that
the 30 second period should allow for normal equipment operation, but ensure
proper abatement performance. While the original proposal allowed visible
emissions for only ten seconds out of any five minute period, which is 3.33%
of operation time, the issued standard permit allows visible emissions for
8.33% of the time, a more reasonable and flexible limitation. Finally, the
TNRCC has not required compliance determinations to be performed by a delegated
representative of the TNRCC executive director as both the THSC, Chapter 382,
Subchapter E, Authority of Local Governments, and the Texas Water Code, Chapter
7, Subchapter H, Suits by Others provide for local governments to enter properties
and enforce air quality standards and, therefore, enforcement proceedings
cannot be limited as requested.
Westward submitted written comments concerning the requirement to provide
lighting of abatement system exhausts during early morning or night operations.
The commenter states that this requirement would create a unique set of problems,
including the following: 1.) most pollution control device exhausts are elevated
above the control device and the plant and lighting of these areas will create
illumination problems; 2.) these lights would become a nuisance to neighbors
and, while light pollution is not under the purview of the TNRCC, it would
cause complications and affect public opinion and opposition to these facilities;
and 3.) for temporarily located plants on public works projects, the problems
are further compounded as road dust emissions generated from construction
activities during the early morning (when ground level air movement is low)
could easily be mistaken for emissions from abatement devices as the dust
rises through the beam of light, resulting in inappropriate violations.
TACA also raised strong concerns relating to the proposed requirements
for sufficient illumination during non-daylight hours. Many ready mix facilities
are located in residential areas and it is imperative that the proposed standard
permit be amended to make certain that the neighboring public is not adversely
affected by excessive lighting during the early morning hours.
TXI commented that the illumination requirements appears to exacerbate
the common citizen complaint that lighting in and around a concrete plant
property is a nuisance. Currently, many batch plant operators are currently
challenged to reduce the effects of lighting on their current neighbors. Any
additional illumination requirements are likely to increase neighbor complaints
and may conflict with local zoning ordinances that limit such lighting.
The TNRCC concurs with the concern that the standard permit performance
requirements should not adversely affect neighbors to concrete batch plants.
However, based on the controversial nature of these facilities, the concern
that continuous compliance be demonstrable, and historical problems with certain
activities at the plants, the TNRCC has included a modified compliance requirement
for lighting of abatement systems when facilities operate during non-daylight
hours. This illumination requirement is limited to the exhaust of the abatement
device vents on the cement and flyash storage silos only when being filled
during non-daylight hours. This activity occurs infrequently, and therefore
lighting should minimize any disturbance to neighbors .
Temporary Plant Truck Drop Point/ Mixer Dust Controls
AGC (oral and written comments) raised concerns over requiring filtration
systems for temporary plants which would supply concrete for a single project
and occupy a site for greater than 180 consecutive days and suggested that
this requirement be phased in over a five-year period.
Transit Mix commented that they agree that water fog rings should be an
acceptable control mechanism for temporary batch plants and that facilities
which are temporary should not be burdened with a high expense ($40,000) to
equip these plants with suction shrouds.
Pioneer (verbally and written) and Westward (orally) commented in an opposite
manner, noting a desire to "outlaw" water fog rings as a method of controlling
dust at these plants. It was noted that water fog rings historically create
a mess, do not give adequate control of dust during operation, and transfer
air emissions to water runoff issues. Pioneer orally remarked that there is
some room for improvement throughout the industry with regard to additional
control of dust from facilities around the state and commended the TNRCC for
"raising the bar to some degree". In writing, Pioneer also stated that the
use of fog rings at temporary facilities is bothersome to the neighboring
public and the general image of the ready mix industry.
TACA stated that a suction shroud which meets BACT should be in place on
all temporary batch plants. TACA stated that water fog rings do not work and
the allowance of water fog rings of any kind at a temporary plant is bothersome
to the neighboring public and the public image of the industry.
The TNRCC concurs with a majority of commenters to "raise the bar" and
establish tighter control measures on the most culpable source (per the modeled
impacts review) at these plants. After an extensive and critical review of
the dust control technologies, the TNRCC has concluded that water fog rings
should be allowed only in limited circumstances. Currently, water fog ring
technology is used rarely in the field and has a control efficiency of 85%,
as compared to 99% for a properly operated suction shroud/baghouse system.
However, since the difference in controlled emission releases is negligible
(approximately 0.1 tpy PM) and the retrofit cost of suction shroud/baghouse
systems can be significant ($25,000 to $50,000), the TNRCC will continue to
allow water fog ring use only for temporary plants occupying a site less than
180 days and if the production is equal to or less than 200 yd3/hr. Given
these limited circumstances, the TNRCC believes that the water fog ring provides
sufficient emission control to meet particulate regulations and health impacts
review. However, the TNRCC will continue to monitor the industry and may determine
to amend the standard permit at a later time to remove the option of control
by a water fog ring. The standard permit requirements do not allow for a phase-in
period for the use of suction shroud/baghouse controls for most plants as
the TNRCC is actively committed to establishing greater control requirements
with consideration given both to technical feasibility and economic reasonableness.
Temporary Plant Production Limits
AGC (oral and written comments) raised concerns over limiting production
for temporary plants as this limitation would result in prolonging projects
and lengthening the time batch plants would be located at a given site, thus
exposing the public to the potential nuisance emissions for a greater length
of time. Larger production plants that are capable of operating in an environmentally
more efficient manner would be excluded due to this production limitation.
Plants in this category would be forced to obtain a regular permit and lose
the opportunity to be free of public comment that is afforded to temporary
plant on public works projects under the standard permit. The AGC recommends
that the production limit for temporary plants be increased to 400 cubic yards
an hour.
Transit Mix commented that the 200 yd3/hr limit is unrealistic for plants
which support state highway projects as plants need to be capable of 300 yd3/hr
. TxDOT highway projects include a specified number of days to complete the
project and if not completed, the contractor will be fined daily. With these
constraints, plants must pour a certain number of yards per hour. A more realistic
limit for temporary plants should be the same as for permanent plants and
be 300 yd3/hr .
Sundt operates temporary concrete batch plants in Texas, most recently
at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport from 1996 to 1998. The plants used
on these projects batched in excess of 450 yd3/hr . These higher production
rates enable plants to overcome bad weather delays and ensured the opening
of the Austin airport on its scheduled opening date. Hourly batching restrictions
would have required multiple plants operated and maintained to meet the schedule,
this would have resulted in substantial additional cost to the owner, with
no significant improvement to the environment. Sundt requests that the proposal
be amended to allow for maximum utilization of sophisticated plant equipment.
The public is ultimately better served with substantially faster completion
of civil projects at a much lower cost. Hourly production rates for large,
sophisticated CBPs should not be the sole consideration in determining a best
course of action for air quality standards.
The TNRCC concurs with the comments that the commonly seen, larger facilities
should be able to meet the conditions of the standard permit. The TNRCC has
developed the standard permit to allow typical concrete batch plant facilities
to register via an abbreviated method, instead of obtaining a permit under
Chapter 116. The standard permit is not intended to cover all possible equipment
scenarios, plant layouts, or production rates, but only the majority of facilities
seen in the field. Since PM emission rates are directly proportional to the
amount of material handled, production rates were chosen as the most reasonable
tracking mechanism to confirm air emission estimates. Based on an extensive
review of historical applications, a survey of the industry, and input at
Focus Group Meetings, the TNRCC has determined that the most common production
rates for concrete batch plants range from 100 to 300 yd3/hr. Three concrete
batch plant companies reporting production rates on a survey indicated an
average production rate of 157 yd3/hr and a survey of 35 in-house applications
being processed by permit engineers resulted in an average production rate
of 176 yd3/hr. Additionally, industry representatives participating in Focus
Group meetings confirmed that a 200 yd3/hr production rate is a reasonable
worst case assumption for most plants in Texas with the exception for a central
mix style plant that could approach 300 yd3/hr. The standard permit was therefore
developed to cover the most common plant type, and includes production limits
up to 300 yd3/hr for both temporary and permanent plants. The limited number
of larger concrete plants are encouraged to obtain a case-by-case review permit
under Chapter 116.
Traffic Area Best Management Practice Requirements
TACA and Pioneer submitted written comments which strongly contend that
all roads and traffic areas for every plant in Texas, temporary or permanent,
should be required to be paved with a cohesive hard surface that is maintained
intact and clean.
Transit Mix concurs with the TNRCC proposal to not require paving of traffic
areas at temporary batch plants and believes that the dust controls provided
by watering, dust-suppressant chemicals, or tire chips should adequately suppress
road dust. In addition, temporary plants are frequently located on leased
property and property owners are not fond of having an area of that land paved.
To further justify this position, Transit Mix notes that the cost of paving
is an unnecessary burden ($30,000 to pave, $20,000 for removal) when other
mitigation techniques are available.
Observations and technical evaluation of available documentation show that,
if properly maintained, the Best Management Practices (BMP) proposed by the
TNRCC adequately control dust from traffic areas. BMP includes watering, dust-suppressant
chemicals, cleaning, or paving. Requiring all facilities to pave, regarding
of the duration of time at a particular site would be an unnecessary financial
burden on plant operators, and ultimately result in more waste to be disposed
in either landfills or by concrete recycling operations, especially for temporary
plants.
CSR raised concerns over the requirement to pave traffic areas at previously
grandfathered permanent batch plants with a cohesive hard surface to meet
dust control requirements. The sites discussed have ten or more acres, with
the batch plants located in the center of a property with traffic areas hundred
of yards long, resulting in a n excessive economic burden to plant owners
and operators and, in fact, punishes those who place plants well away from
property lines. This requirement would affect new plants as well, as the plant
owner/operators may be motivated to keep their plants closer to off-site roads
to minimize paving costs. CSR suggests that these requirements be subject
to a case-by-case review and, if a facility can demonstrate undue hardship,
exemptions or alternative control limitations be granted.
The TNRCC would like to clarify that the THSC does not mandate that grandfathered
facilities to obtain authorization by a standard permit. Additionally, paragraph
(1)(D) clearly states that this standard permit applies to new registrations
received after the effective date of the standard permit. If a previously
grandfathered facility is modified and requires authorization to obtain a
permit, but cannot meet the conditions of this standard permit, the owner/operators
are encouraged to apply for a permit under Chapter 116. A regular permit allows
for a case-by-case review of BMP for control of traffic and road dust which,
depending on circumstances, will or will not require paving of the traffic
areas.
Equipment, Traffic and Stockpile Distance Setbacks and Alternatives TXI
commented that the distance limitations apply to "stationary equipment and
stockpiles". However, there may be stationary equipment associated with plant
operations that is not associated with any health or environmental risk or
nuisance conditions. Such equipment may include ice block machines, water
tanks, etc. The standard permit should be modified to exempt these types of
equipment from the distance limitations.
The TNRCC concurs with some of these comments and has modified the standard
permit to specify that the distance limitations are applicable only to equipment
directly associated with the operation of the concrete batch plant.
AGC (oral and written comments) raised concerns over requiring at least
25 foot buffer distance for industrial traffic due to the operation of a concrete
batch plant as proposed. This limitation would severely limit availability
of acceptable sites, especially in urban areas. The AGC states their belief
that application of dust control on facilities and roads adequately addresses
any concerns over location of temporary plants and alleviates the need for
distance limitations.
CSR suggested that the distance requirements be subject to a case-by-case
review and, if a facility can demonstrate undue hardship, exemptions or alternative
control limitations be granted.
Pioneer and Westward (orally and in writing) commented that engineering
standards should be used instead of buffer distances required by the standard
permit conditions. While the buffer distances were recognized to provide additional
protection against dust nuisance, the benefit to a 25 to 50 foot distance
was considered to be minor. Instead options on alternative controls were recommended
to facilitate a variety of circumstances such as when facilities are required
to place plants in sites which are confined by size. The conditions of the
standard permit should allow for a plant to apply additional controls (high
walls, shrubs, etc.) in lieu of meeting distance requirements when these situations
occur. In the commenters experience, these controls would be better dust deterrent
than a short buffer distance.
Westward suggested modifications to the standard permit, including: "If
an owner/operator wishes to have traffic, stockpiles, or other activities
within the specified distance limitations, then the following approved alternatives
may be used in lieu of the meeting the distances: stockpiles must be contained
within a three-walled bunker which extends at least two feet above the top
of the stockpile" (this will provide an additional 50% control of stockpile
emissions and provide more active control than distance buffers); and "Roads
and other activities must be bordered by decorative screening in the form
of sound suppressive fencing or dense vegetative strips along all traffic
routes or work areas within the 25 to 50 foot specified buffer areas. These
borders shall be constructed to either TxDOT standards for this type of structure
or to a height of two feet greater than the activity or traffic in the area"
(TxDOT has design standards for noise and dust suppression systems associated
with various road traffic situations and these systems can greatly mitigate
noise 40 to 80%-- and dust minimizing air movement reduces the potential for
transporting dust). Other options include establishing a speed limit for truck
traffic, which has a much greater impact on the potential for emissions than
a minor buffer distance." According to the commenter, the addition of bunkers,
fencing or dense vegetation provides visual screening, plant beautification,
as well as providing superior control of air pollution - all long term benefits
to the plant and the community.
TXI noted that property availability and zoning cause many batch plants
to be located on tracts of land that are space prohibitive. Though an ideal
property may afford the room for the proposed distance limitations, it may
not always be possible to procure such a property for a particular project.
TXI feels that alternatives to a buffer zone should be addressed to give operators
the flexibility in setting up plant layout, while still protecting public
health and the environment and avoiding nuisance situations. Such alternatives
may include concrete-walled bunkers that are higher than aggregate stockpiles,
vegetated buffer zones, or other engineered controls. With appropriate design,
nuisance conditions should be averted with virtually no buffer zone to the
property line.
TACA agrees with distance limitations as proposed by the TNRCC, however,
they also believe that engineering standards should also be included in the
standard permit conditions. Examples of alternative controls could include
a concrete wall or continuous shrubbery which is two feet higher than the
stationary equipment and/or stockpiles, eliminating the need for a 25 foot
buffer.
The TNRCC concurs with most of the comments and has included alternatives
for roads and stockpiles for nuisance dust control similar to those proposed
by commenters in all applicable paragraphs of the standard permit. However,
no alternatives to setbacks for stationary equipment directly associated with
the operation of the concrete batch plant has been included since these emission
sources are culpable for the off-property impacts which were analyzed by the
TNRCC. These sources (silos, conveyors, material bins, etc.) were calculated
to have a greater quantity of emissions than those from the stockpile areas,
and thus contributed to a greater extent to the PM concentrations. If these
sources and facilities were located closer to property lines, they could cause
or contribute to a condition of air pollution. Owners and operators are reminded
that any facility may apply for a permit under Chapter 116 and provide a case-by-case
impacts analysis to demonstrate any other facility site layout meets all rules
and regulations.
Based on the comments, the standard permit has been modified to specify
alternatives for traffic areas and stockpiles. Although the commenters proposed
that the fencing meet TxDOT noise suppression standards, after additional
research, no clear written criteria for this proposal could be found for inclusion
in the standard permit. In addition, the TNRCC considered the option of vegetation
as an alternative, but it was determined that vegetation would not necessarily
grow fast enough or be sufficiently dense to completely cover the desired
area from the ground to a height above the dust sources. However, if some
vegetative buffer is represented which meets the conditions of the standard
permit it may be used. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the standard permit
registration process, an open-ended alternative to be reviewed case-by-case
is not appropriate. Facilities which cannot meet either the distance setbacks
or provide a barrier may apply for a permit under §116.111, which allows
for case-by-case reviews and dust control determinations. Therefore, the TNRCC
has instead included an option for fencing or other barriers of at least 12
feet in height in lieu of the setback distances for roads and traffic areas.
Based on observations and experience, the size of a dust plume will be about
twice the height of the vehicle generating the road dust. To achieve approximately
50% control of the dust plume, the height of the barrier should be at the
height of the plume center line. Based on the modeling, this height is about
12 feet. The TNRCC has also included the proposed alternative for stockpiles
to have a three-walled bunker with a height of at least two feet higher than
the stockpiles. These options should provide equal or better abatement of
traffic dust.
TRD-200005786
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 16, 2000
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed
Agreed Orders (AOs) pursuant to Texas Water Code (the Code), §7.075.
Section 7.075 requires that before the commission may approve the AOs, the
Commission shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comments
on the proposed AOs. Section 7.075 requires that notice of the opportunity
to comment must be published in the
Texas Register
no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment
period closes, which in this case is
September 25,
2000
. Section 7.075 also requires that the Commission promptly consider
any written comments received and that the Commission may withdraw or withhold
approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that the
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements
of the statutes and rules within the TNRCC's Orders and permits issued pursuant
to the TNRCC's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed
AO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to
written comments.
A copy of each of the proposed AOs is available for public inspection at
both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building
A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable Regional
Office listed as follows. Comments about the AOs should be sent to the attorney
designated for the AO at the TNRCC's Central Office at P.O. Box 13087, MC
175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be
received
by 5:00 p.m. on September 25, 2000
. Comments may also be sent by facsimile
machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The TNRCC attorneys are available
to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers;
however, §7.075 provides that comments on the AOs should be submitted
to the TNRCC in
writing
.
(1) Arete Real Estate and Development Company, Incorporated dba Port Adventure;
DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0564-PWS-E; TNRCC IDENTIFICATION (ID) NUMBER: 2280031;
LOCATION: ten miles west of Onalaska on Highway 356, Trinity County, Texas;
TYPE OF FACILITY: public water system; RULES VIOLATED: §290.106(a), (e)(2)
and the Code, §341.033(d), by failing to collect and submit water samples
for bacteriological analysis for June and July 1998 and failing to provide
public notice for the bacteriological sampling; PENALTY: $750; STAFF ATTORNEY:
Scott McDonald, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6005; REGIONAL OFFICE:
3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 892-2119.
(2) COMPANY: Schenectady International Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 1997-1072-
IHW-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 30763; LOCATION: 702 Farm-to-Market Road 523, Freeport,
Brazoria County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: chemical manufacture; RULES VIOLATED: §335.221(a)(11)
and 40 Code of Federal (CFR) Regulations, §266.103(c)(1)(i), by failing
to control the waste feed rate to Boiler B-503; §335.221(a)(13) and 40
CFR §266.103(g)(l)(i) and (2), by failing to attain the required combustion
temperature prior to feeding waste to Boiler B-503; and §335.221(8) and
40 CFR 265.143(c)(7), by failing to provide a letter of credit in place that
equals the current closure cost estimate for boiler B-503; PENALTY: $4,000;
STAFF ATTORNEY: Booker Harrison, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-4113;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713)
767-3500.
TRD-200005682
Paul C. Sarahan
Director, Litigation Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 14, 2000
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed
Agreed Orders (AOs) pursuant to Texas Water Code (the Code), §7.075,
which requires that the TNRCC may not approve these AOs unless the public
has been provided an opportunity to submit written comments. Section 7.075
requires that notice of the proposed orders and of the opportunity to comment
must be published in the
Texas Register
no
later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period
closes, which in this case is
September 25, 2000
.
Section 7.075 also requires that the TNRCC promptly consider any written comments
received and that the TNRCC may withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses
facts or considerations that indicate the proposed AO is inappropriate, improper,
inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Code, the Texas Health
and Safety Code (THSC), and/or the Texas Clean Air Act (the Act). Additional
notice is not required if changes to an AO are made in response to written
comments.
A copy of each of the proposed AOs is available for public inspection at
both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building
C, 1st Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-1864 and at the applicable Regional
Office listed as follows. Written comments about these AOs should be sent
to the enforcement coordinator designated for each AO at the TNRCC's Central
Office at P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be
received by 5:00 p.m. on September 25, 2000
. Written comments may also
be sent by facsimile machine to the enforcement coordinator at (512) 239-2550.
The TNRCC enforcement coordinators are available to discuss the AOs and/or
the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, §7.075 provides
that comments on the AOs should be submitted to the TNRCC in
writing
.
(1) COMPANY: Aero-Marine Engineering, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0388-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number JA-0057-J; LOCATION: Bryson, Jack County, Texas;
TYPE OF FACILITY: air conditioner coil coating; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1)
and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing to certify compliance with the Title
V general operating Permit No. O-01106; PENALTY: $2,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Kara Dudash, (915) 698-9674; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene,
Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.
(2) COMPANY: Maria Beltran dba 1017 Caf‚; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0418-PWS-E;
IDENTIFIER: Public Water Supply (PWS) Number 2140030; LOCATION: San Isidro,
Starr County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED:
30 TAC §290.106(a) and (e)(2), by failing to collect, submit, and provide
public notice of the failure to collect and submit routine monthly bacteriological
samples; PENALTY: $1,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Subhash Jain, (512) 239-5867;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 1804 West Jefferson Avenue, Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247,
(956) 425-6010.
(3) COMPANY: City of Cactus; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0485-MSW-E; IDENTIFIER:
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Registration Number 40031; LOCATION: Cactus, Moore
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: municipal solid waste; RULE VIOLATED: 30
TAC §330.285 and §330.286, by failing to establish financial assurance
coverage for the City's Type V MSW transfer station; PENALTY: $2,700; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Bill Davis, (512) 239-6793; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3918 Canyon Drive,
Amarillo, Texas 79109-4933, (806) 353-9251.
(4) COMPANY: Coronado Water, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0917-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER:
PWS Number 0590009; LOCATION: Hereford, Deaf Smith County, Texas; TYPE OF
FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F)
and (3)(N), by failing to obtain sanitary easements, locate a livestock pen
more than 500 feet away from a public water source, locate a groundwater source
so there is no danger of pollution from insanitary surroundings, and provide
flow meters; 30 TAC §290.46(b), (f)(1)(A), and (n), by failing to collect
and submit raw water samples, maintain the chlorinator and a chlorine residual
of 0.2 milligrams per liter, and prepare a distribution map of the water system;
30 TAC §290.43(c)(9) and (d)(2), by failing to provide pressure tanks
that conform with American Water Works Association standards and provide a
pressure relief device on all pressure tanks; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C)(iii),
by failing to provide a water storage capacity of 200 gallons per connection;
and 30 TAC §290.106(a) and (e)(2), by failing to collect and submit the
appropriate number of water samples for bacteriological analysis and provide
public notification of the failure to sample; PENALTY: $600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Julia McMasters, (512) 239-5839; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3918 Canyon Drive, Amarillo,
Texas 79109-4933, (806) 353-9251.
(5) COMPANY: Council Creek Village, Inc. dba Council Creek Creek Village
and South Council Creek Number 2 and Jones-Owen Company dba South Silver Creek
I, II, III; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0242-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Numbers 0270014,
0270080, and 0270041; LOCATION: Burnet, Burnet County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY:
public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.44(a)(4) and (c), by
failing to install water distribution lines below the frost level and install
properly-sized distribution water lines; 30 TAC §290.42(j), by failing
to submit plans and specifications; 30 TAC §290.46(j)(3), (m), and (w),
by failing to keep on file and make available for review, copies of customer
service inspection certifications, initiate a program to facilitate cleanliness
and improve the general appearance of all plant facilities, and provide a
legible sign at each production, treatment, and storage facility; 30 TAC §290.45(c)(1)(B)(i),
by failing to provide a well capacity of 0.6 gallons per minute per connection;
30 TAC §290.39(j), by failing to submit written notification of changes
or modifications to the existing water system; and 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(a),
by failing to provide well completion data; PENALTY: $5,525; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Jaime Garza, (512) 239-1406; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite
150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.
(6) COMPANY: City of Dell City; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0324-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER:
PWS Number 1150001 and Water Quality Permit Number 0010866-001 (Expired);
LOCATION: Dell City, Hudspeth County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water
supply and wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(d) and
(i), by failing to show daily pumpages on monthly reports and adopt a plumbing
ordinance; and 30 TAC §305.125(1) and (2), and the Code, §26.121,
by failing to apply for a permit renewal and continuing to operate; PENALTY:
$2,575; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Cervantes, (915) 834-4940; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915)
834-4949.
(7) COMPANY: Dynegy, Inc. dba Dynegy Midstream Services, LP; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000-0406-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Numbers WC-0017-V, PE-0190-V, CY-0019-H,
and GA-0011-C; LOCATION: near Wickett, Ward, Pecos, Crane and Gaines Counties,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas processing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(2)
and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing to submit an annual compliance certification;
and 30 TAC §122.145(2)(B) and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing to
submit a deviation report; PENALTY: $8,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Dan Landenberger,
(915) 570-1359; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3300 North A Street, Building 4, Suite 107,
Midland, Texas 79705-5404, (915) 570-1359.
(8) COMPANY: Steve Laughlin dba Floore's Country Store; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000-0332- PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0150347; LOCATION: Helotes, Bexar
County, Texas; TYPE; OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.106(a),
(b)(1) and (5), and (e)(2), and the Code, §341.033(d), by failing to
submit routine water samples for bacteriological analysis, submit repeat water
samples for bacteriological analysis following a total coliform-positive sample,
submit five additional routine water samples for bacteriological analysis,
and provide public notification of the coliform monitoring violations; and
30 TAC §290.51 and the Code, §341.041, by failing to pay public
health service fees; PENALTY: $1,563; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Shawn Stewart,
(512) 239-6684; REGIONAL OFFICE: 140 Heimer Road, Suite 360, San Antonio,
Texas 78232-5042, (210) 490-3096.
(9) COMPANY: Delores Macrae dba Glenshores Water Company; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000-0535-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0180030; LOCATION: Clifton, Bosque
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.120(e)(2),
by failing to conduct reduced monitoring tap sampling for lead and copper;
PENALTY: $313; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Bill Davis, (512) 239-6793; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.
(10) COMPANY: Gary Richter dba Hillside Mobile Home Park; DOCKET NUMBER:
1999-1218-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0710050; LOCATION: Canutillo, El Paso
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §291.101(a)
and the Code, §13.242(a), by failing to obtain a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity; 30 TAC §290.39(g), by failing to submit written notification
of changes or additions to the existing system; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(A),
(K), and (N), by failing to submit well completion data, seal the wellhead
with a gasket or a pliable crack-resistant caulking compound, and install
a flow meter; 30 TAC §290.46(f)(2)(B), by failing to conduct weekly chlorine
residual tests; 30 TAC §290.42(i), by failing to use direct additives
and chemicals for the treatment of water supplied by public water systems;
30 TAC §290.113, by exceeding the maximum contaminant level for sulfate;
30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C), by failing to provide a pressure tank capacity
of 20 gallons per connection; and 30 TAC §290.43(c) and (d)(9), by failing
to provide a ground storage tank which meets the American Water Works Association
standards and failing to ensure no more than three pressure tanks were installed
at any one site; PENALTY: $600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Elvia Maske, (512)
239-0789; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206,
(915) 834-4949.
(11) COMPANY: Inman Christian Center dba Inman Residential Treatment Center;
DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0536-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0150418; LOCATION:
San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE
VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.120(e)(2), by failing to conduct reduced monitoring
tap sampling for lead and copper; PENALTY: $313; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Bill Davis, (512) 239-6793; REGIONAL OFFICE: 140 Heimer Road, Suite 360, San
Antonio, Texas 78232-5042, (210) 490-3096.
(12) COMPANY: ISP Technologies, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0189-IHW-E;
IDENTIFIER: Solid Waste Registration Number 30037 and Permit Numbers WDW-34
and WDW- 113; LOCATION: Texas City, Galveston County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY:
commercial production of chemical intermediates and products; RULE VIOLATED:
30 TAC §335.4 and the Code, §26.121, by failing to prevent the injection
of listed hazardous waste into a non-hazardous underground injection control
system; PENALTY: $8,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Catherine Sherman, (713)
767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486,
(713) 767-3500.
(13) COMPANY: Laboratory Tops, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0401-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number WK-0171-T; LOCATION: Taylor, Williamson County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: countertop manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.100(a)
and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing to obtain an air quality permit
or satisfy the conditions for an exempt facility; PENALTY: $800; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Larry King, (512) 339-2929; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend
Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.
(14) COMPANY: Bettye Singletary dba Longhorn Ranch Motel; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000- 0171-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 0220032; LOCATION: Study Butte, Brewster
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.106(a)(1)
and the Code, §341.033(d), by failing to collect and submit water samples
for bacteriological analysis; and 30 TAC §290.103(5), by failing to provide
public notification of the bacteriological sampling violations; PENALTY: $1,200;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Clint Pruett, (512) 239-2042; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401
East Franklin, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.
(15) COMPANY: Mobil Producing Texas and New Mexico Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000- 0628-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number KE-0007-J; LOCATION: near
Jayton, Kent County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: water injection station; RULE
VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1) and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing
to certify compliance with Title V Permit O-00207; PENALTY: $4,000; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Kara Dudash, (915) 698-9674; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial
Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.
(16) COMPANY: Quality Electric Steel Castings, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0591-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HG-0599-P; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: steel foundry; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a)(1)
and the Act, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by allegedly operating
a thermal sand reclaimer system without a permit; PENALTY: $1,250; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Sheila Smith, (512) 239-1670; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue,
Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(17) COMPANY: RK Petroleum Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0409-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number MF-0117-C; LOCATION: Tarzan, Martin County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: oil and gas production; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1)
and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing to submit annual compliance certifications;
PENALTY: $4,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Dan Landenberger, (915) 570-1359;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 3300 North A Street, Building 4, Suite 107, Midland, Texas
79705-5404, (915) 570-1359.
(18) COMPANY: Archer Daniels Midland dba Southern Cotton Oil Mill Company;
DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0219-IHW-E; IDENTIFIER: Industrial Hazardous Waste Facility
Identification Number 38951; LOCATION: Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: cottonseed oil mill; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §335.62, by failing
to perform hazardous waste determinations; 30 TAC §335.474, by failing
to prepare a Source Reduction and Waste Minimization Plan; 30 TAC §335.4
and the Code, §26.121, by failing to properly handle, store, process,
or dispose of industrial solid waste; and 30 TAC §335.6(b), by failing
to provide current notification as to the facility's routinely generated waste
streams, active waste management units and closure of waste management units;
PENALTY: $8,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Gary Shipp, (806) 796-7092; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 4630 50th Street, Suite 600, Lubbock, Texas 79414-3520, (806) 796-7092.
(19) COMPANY: Charlie F. Supak dba Highway 21 Septic Systems; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000-0368-OSI-E; IDENTIFIER: On-Site Sewage Facility Installer Identification
Number 4683; LOCATION: Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: on-site
sewage; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §285.58(a)(11), by failing to call for
the required inspection from the permitting authority; PENALTY: $200; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Erika Fair, (512) 239-6673; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend
Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.
(20) COMPANY: Union Oil Company of California; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0408-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Numbers AB-0015-Q and GA-0135-G; LOCATION: Andrews
and Seminole, Andrews and Gaines Counties, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural
gas processing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(2) and the Act, §382.085(b),
by failing to submit annual compliance certifications; PENALTY: $800; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Dan Landenberger, (915) 570-1359; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3300 North
A Street, Building 4, Suite 107, Midland, Texas 79705-5404, (915) 570-1359.
(21) COMPANY: Mr. Joe Watson dba Watson Used Cars; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0646-
AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HF-0185-L; LOCATION: Silsbee, Hardin
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: used car sales; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.20(c)(1)
and the Act, §382.085(b), by failing to equip a motor vehicle with a
catalytic converter; PENALTY: $300; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Susan Kelly,
(409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont,
Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.
TRD-200005760
Paul Sarahan
Director, Litigation Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 15, 2000
APPLICATION. Regional Land Management Services, LTD., P.O. Box 333, Laredo,
Texas 78042 has applied to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) for a permit for a Type I municipal solid waste landfill which will
authorize the disposal of municipal solid waste, construction-demolition waste,
and special waste. The proposed facility will be located south of State Highway
359, approximately 11 miles east of Loop 20, Webb County, Texas. This application
was submitted to the TNRCC on July 3, 2000. The permit application is available
for viewing and copying at the Laredo Public Library, 1120 East Calton Road,
Laredo, Texas 78041, telephone number (956) 795-2400. The TNRCC executive
director has determined the application is administratively complete and will
conduct a technical review of the application. After completion of the technical
review, the TNRCC will issue a Notice of Application and Preliminary Decision.
MAILING LISTS. You may ask to be placed on a mailing list to obtain additional
information on this application by sending a request to the Office of the
Chief Clerk, at the address below. You may also ask to be on a county- wide
mailing list to receive public notices for TNRCC permits in the county.
PUBLIC COMMENT / PUBLIC MEETING. You may submit public comments on this
application. The TNRCC will hold a public meeting on this application. Information
concerning this meeting will be given in another public notice. The purpose
of a public meeting is to provide the opportunity to submit comments or to
ask questions about the application. A public meeting is not a contested case
hearing. Written public comments must be submitted to the Office of the Chief
Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
ADDITIONAL NOTICE. After technical review of the application is complete,
the executive director may prepare a draft permit and will issue a preliminary
decision on the application. Notice of the Application and Preliminary Decision
will be published and mailed to those who are on the county-wide mailing list
or the mailing list for this application. That notice will contain the final
deadline for submitting public comments.
OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING. After the deadline for public
comments, the executive director will consider the comments and prepare a
response to all relevant and material, or significant public comments. The
response to comments, along with the executive director's decision on the
application, will be mailed to everyone who submitted public comments or who
is on the mailing list for this application. If comments are received, the
mailing will also provide instructions for requesting reconsideration of the
executive director's decision and for requesting a contested case hearing.
A contested case hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in
state district court. A contested case hearing will only be granted based
on disputed issues of fact that are relevant and material to the Commission's
decision on the application. Further, the Commission will only grant a hearing
on issues that were raised during the public comment period and not withdrawn.
INFORMATION. If you need more information about this permit application
or the permitting process, please call the TNRCC Office of Public Assistance,
Toll Free, at 1-800-687-4040. General information about the TNRCC can be found
at our web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us. Further information may also be
obtained from Regional Land Management Services, LTD. at the address stated
above or by calling Mr. Brent W. Ryan, Attorney at Law at (512) 327-8111.
TRD-200005785
LaDonna Castañuela
Chief Clerk
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 16, 2000
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) will conduct
public hearings to receive testimony regarding revisions to 30 TAC Chapters
101, 110, 114, 115, and 117, and to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) under
the requirements of the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas
Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, §51.102,
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning
SIPs. The revisions concern the attainment demonstration for the Houston/Galveston
(HGA) ozone nonattainment area and the emission reduction strategy for central
and eastern Texas.
The commission has approved soliciting public input on the proposed revisions
to the SIP for central and eastern Texas. The commission strategy is designed
to reduce nitrogen oxide (NO
x
) emissions by more
than 75% in the eight-county HGA ozone nonattainment area.
Because Texas cities are affected by air pollution from other parts of
the state, the commission has also taken a regional approach to reducing ozone.
These proposed revisions will result in NO
x
emission
reductions in that portion of the state, designated as central and eastern
Texas along and east of Interstate 37 from Corpus Christi to San Antonio,
and from there along and east of Interstate 35 north to the Oklahoma border.
About 80% of Texans reside in the central and eastern Texas area, which includes
the HGA, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment areas.
The proposed SIP revisions include various control strategies. Revisions
to the air quality plan for the HGA area include a more effective vehicle
emissions testing program expanded to eight counties, a 90% reduction in NO
Three statewide rules have also been proposed as part of this air quality
plan: requirements for cleaner diesel fuel for on-road vehicles; emission
standards for non-road, large spark-ignition engines; and revisions to the
emissions banking and trading rules.
In addition, the following requirements apply specifically in the central
and eastern Texas area: cleaner diesel fuel for non-road vehicles; low sulfur
gasoline; and requirements for new residential and commercial air conditioners.
Public hearings on these proposed revisions will be held at the following
times and locations: September 18, 2000, 10:00 a.m., Lone Star Convention
Center, 9055 Airport Road (FM 1484), Conroe; September 18, 2000, 7:00 p.m.,
Lake Jackson Civic Center, 333 Highway 332 East, Lake Jackson; September 19,
2000, 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., George Brown Convention Center, 1001 Avenida
de Las Americas, Houston; September 20, 2000, 9:00 a.m., VFW Hall, 6202 George
Bush Drive, Katy; September 20, 2000, 6:00 p.m., East Harris County Community
Center, 7340 Spencer, Pasadena; September 21, 2000, 10:00 a.m., Southeast
Texas Regional Airport Media Room, 6000 Airline Drive, Beaumont; September
21, 2000, 2:00 p.m., Amarillo City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 509 East
7th Avenue, Amarillo; September 21, 2000, 6:00 p.m., Charles T. Doyle Convention
Center, 21st Street at Phoenix Lane, Texas City; September 22, 2000, 10:00
a.m., Dayton High School, 2nd Floor Lecture Room, 3200 North Cleveland Street,
Dayton; September 22, 2000, 11:00 a.m., El Paso City Council Chambers, 2 Civic
Center Plaza, 2nd Floor, El Paso; September 22, 2000, 2:00 p.m., North Central
Texas Council of Governments, 2nd Floor Board Room, 616 Six Flags Drive, Suite
200, Arlington; September 25, 2000, 10:00 a.m., Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, 12100 North I-35, Building E, Room 201S, Austin; and September
25, 2000, 2:00 p.m., Port of Corpus Christi, 1st Floor Conference Room, 222
Power Street, Corpus Christi.
The hearings are structured for the receipt of oral or written comments
by interested persons. Registration will begin one hour prior to each hearing.
Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration.
A four-minute time limit will be established at each hearing to assure that
enough time is allowed for every interested person to speak. Open discussion
will not occur during each hearing; however, agency staff members will be
available to discuss the proposal one hour before each hearing, and will answer
questions before and after each hearing.
Written comments may be submitted to Heather Evans, Office of Environmental
Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 206, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087;
faxed to (512) 239-4808; or emailed to
siprules@tnrcc.state.tx.us
. The public comment period will close at 5:00 p.m. on September 25,
2000.
For further information on the proposed revisions, please contact Bill
Jordan at (512) 239-2583. Copies of the proposed rules and SIP revisions can
be obtained from the commission's Web Site at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hgasip.html
.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact the agency at
(512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.
TRD-200005623
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 11, 2000
In accordance with the requirements of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001,
Subchapter B, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or
commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning
new sections of 30 TAC Chapter 311, Subchapters A, B, and F.
The proposed revisions to these subchapters will allow for the discharge
of storm water runoff and certain other non-storm water runoff into the Lakes
Travis, Austin, Inks, Buchanan, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Marble Falls Water
Quality Areas, if authorized by a Texas pollutant discharge elimination system
(TPDES) permit.
A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on September 11,
2000, at 2:00 p.m. at the TNRCC complex in Building F, Room 2210, located
at 12015 Park 35 Circle. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of
oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral
statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open
discussion during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available
to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions
before and after the hearing.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Office of
Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests
should be made as far in advance as possible.
Comments may be submitted to Joyce Spencer, MC 205, TNRCC, Office of Environmental
Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087,
or by fax to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number
2000-010-311-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., September 25, 2000.
For further information, please contact Mary Ambrose, Policy and Regulations
Division, (512) 239-4813.
TRD-200005703
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 14, 2000
Notice is given that EBCO LAND DEVELOPMENT, LTD., P.O. Box 659, Rye, Texas
77369, submitted Application No. 5694 on July 1, 1998. Information needed
to complete processing the application was received on July 26, 2000, and
the application was declared administratively complete on August 2, 2000.
The Executive Director recommends that public notice of the application be
given pursuant to 30 TAC §295.152. The applicant seeks authorization
to construct a dam and reservoir on Fish Creek, tributary of Lake Creek, tributary
of the San Jacinto River, San Jacinto River Basin. The proposed lake will
have a surface area of 43 acres and impound 108 acre-feet of water and will
be an amenity in a residential development in Montgomery County, Texas. Station
4+30 on the centerline of the dam will be at Latitude 30.309°N, Longitude
95.588°W also described as bearing S 88°W, 1060 feet from the northeast
corner of the Thomas V. Mortimer Survey, Abstract No. 383, approximately 7
miles southwest of Conroe, Texas. Applicant has indicated that the reservoir
will be maintained at the normal operating level using ground water.
Written public comments and requests for a public meeting should be submitted
to the Office of Chief Clerk, at the address provided in the information section
below, within 30 days of the date of newspaper publication of the notice.
A public meeting is intended for the taking of public comment, and is not
a contested case hearing. A public meeting will be held if the Executive Director
determines that there is a significant degree of public interest in the application.
The TNRCC may grant a contested case hearing on this application if a written
hearing request is filed within 30 days from the date of newspaper publication
of this notice. The Executive Director may approve the application unless
a written request for a contested case hearing is filed within 30 days after
newspaper publication of this notice. To request a contested case hearing,
you must submit the following: (1) your name (or for a group or association,
an official representative), mailing address, daytime phone number, and fax
number, if any; (2) applicant's name and permit number; (3) the statement
"[I/we] request a contested case hearing;" (4) a brief and specific description
of how you would be affected by the application in a way not common to the
general public; and (5) the location and distance of your property relative
to the proposed activity. You may also submit proposed conditions to the requested
extension of time which would satisfy your concerns. Requests for a contested
case hearing must be submitted in writing to the Office of the Chief Clerk
at the address provided in the information section below. If a hearing request
is filed, the Executive Director will not grant the application and will forward
it and hearing request to the TNRCC Commissioners for their consideration
at a scheduled Commission meeting.
Written hearing requests, public comments or requests for a public meeting
should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O.
Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. For information concerning the hearing
process, please contact the Public Interest Counsel, MC 103, the same address.
For additional information, individual members of the general public may contact
the Office of Public Assistance at 1-800-687-4040. General information regarding
the TNRCC can be found at our web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us.
BEXAR METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, applicant, 2047 W. Malone, San Antonio,
Texas 78225, seeks an amendment to Certificate of Adjudication No. 19-1966,
as amended, pursuant to §11.122, Texas Water Code, and Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission Rules 30 TAC §§295.1, et seq. Certificate
of Adjudication No. 19-1966 authorized the owner, with a time priority of
August 9, 1911, to maintain a dam and reservoir on the San Antonio River,
to impound therein not to exceed 34 acre-feet of water and to divert and use
not to exceed 481 acre-feet of water per annum from a point on the reservoir
at a maximum rate of 1200 gallons per minute for irrigation of 240 acres of
land out of a 322.946 acre tract in the Jose de la Garza Grant, Abstract No.
3, Bexar County, Texas. The certificate, as amended, authorizes Bexar Metropolitan
Water District to use the 481 acre-feet of water per annum for municipal purposes
within Bexar Metropolitan Water District's service area in Bexar County, Texas
in lieu of the authorization to use the water for irrigation purposes. The
applicant seeks authorization to amend Certificate of Adjudication No. 19-1966,
as amended, to allow use of the 481 acre feet of water per annum now authorized
for municipal purposes, for municipal, industrial, recreation and irrigation
purposes in Bexar County, Texas. The diversion point authorized by the District's
Certificate of Adjudication No. 19-1966, as amended, is also authorized by
Certificate of Adjudication No. 19-2019, as amended, this notice is being
sent to the Blue Wing Club, owner of the amended certificate.
Written public comments and requests for a public meeting should be submitted
to the Office of the Chief Clerk, at the address provided in the information
section below by August 30, 2000. A public meeting is intended for the taking
of public comment, and is not a contested case hearing. A public meeting will
be held if the Executive Director determines that there is a significant degree
of public interest in the application.
The TNRCC may grant a contested case hearing on this application if a written
hearing request is filed by August 30, 2000. The Executive Director can consider
an approval of the application unless a written request for a contested case
hearing is filed by August 30, 2000. To request a contested case hearing,
you must submit the following: (1) your name (or for a group or association,
an official representative), mailing address, daytime phone number, and fax
number, if any: (2) applicant's name and permit number; (3) the statement
"[I/we] request a contested case hearing;" and (4) a brief and specific description
of how you would be affected by the application in a way not common to the
general public. You may also submit any proposed conditions to the requested
amendment which would satisfy your concerns. Requests for a contested case
hearing must be submitted in writing to the TNRCC Office of the Chief Clerk
at the address provided in the information section below. If a hearing request
is filed, the Executive Director will not issue the requested amendment and
may forward the application and hearing request to the TNRCC Commissioners
for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting.
Written hearing requests, public comments or requests for a public meeting
should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O.
Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. For information concerning the hearing
process, please contact the Public Interest Counsel, MC 103 at the same address.
For additional information, individual members of the general public may contact
the Office of Public Assistance at 1-800-687-4040. General information regarding
the TNRCC can be found at our web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us.
TRD-200005784
LaDonna Castañuela
Chief Clerk
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 16, 2000
The State Office Administrative Hearing issued a Proposal for Decision
and Order to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on August
14, 2000. Executive Director of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Petitioner v. Hilltop Estates WSC, dba Hilltop Estates Water Supply, Respondent;
SOAH Docket No. 582-00-0639; TNRCC Docket No. 1999-0494-PWS-E. In the matter
to be considered by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on
a date and time to be determined by the Chief Clerk's Office in Room 201S
of Building E, 12118 N. Interstate 35, Austin, Texas. This posting is Notice
of Opportunity to Comment on the Proposal for Decision and Order. The comment
period will end 30 days from date of publication. Written public comments
should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC-105 TNRCC P.O. Box
13087. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Doug Kitts,
Chief Clerk's Office, (512) 239-3317.
TRD-200005783
Douglas A. Kitts
Agenda Coordinator
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 16, 2000
Legal Notice
The Panhandle Regional Planning Commission (PRPC) is issuing a Request
for Proposals to secure a contractor to manage and operate Texas Workforce
Centers and deliver services associated with Workforce Investment Act, Job
Training Partnership Act-National Reserve Account, Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families-Employment Services (CHOICES), Food Stamp Employment, and Training
and Welfare-to-Work programs in the 26 counties of the Texas Panhandle Workforce
Development Area.
Contract award will be based primarily on prior experience, demonstrated
effectiveness, and cost competitiveness. Proposers must be willing to provide
services on a cost reimbursement basis. Funds will be available to pay authorized
costs for an initial contract period starting no later than November 1, 2000.
Contract renewal for three subsequent one-year periods will be contingent
upon acceptable performance.
Entities interested in submitting a proposal are encouraged to attend a
Proposers Conference at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 22, 2000, in the PRPC
Third Floor Conference Room, 415 West Eighth Avenue, Amarillo, Texas. Sealed
proposals must be submitted by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2000, for
public opening immediately thereafter. A copy of the Request for Proposals
may be obtained by contacting PRPC's Workforce Development Director at (806)
372-3381, or (800) 477-4562.
TRD-200005555
Tom Dressler
Director, Workforce Development
Panhandle Regional Planning Commission
Filed: August 9, 2000
Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
On August 10, 2000, TelePacific Communications filed an application with
the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to amend its service provider
certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate Number
60329. Applicant intends to reflect transfer/control in connection with a
financing transaction.
The Application: Application of TelePacific Communications for an Amendment
to its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number
22903.
Persons with questions about this docket, or who wish to intervene or otherwise
participate in these proceedings should make appropriate filings or comments
to the Public Utility Commission of Texas at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas
78711-3326 no later than August 30, 2000. You may contact the commission's
Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech- impaired
individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512)
936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 22903.
TRD-200005721
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2000
On August 10, 2000, Taylor Communications Group, Inc. filed an application
with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to amend its service
provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate
Number 60050. Applicant intends to remove the resale-only restriction.
The Application: Application of Taylor Communications Group, Inc. for an
Amendment to its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket
Number 22904.
Persons with questions about this docket, or who wish to intervene or otherwise
participate in these proceedings should make appropriate filings or comments
to the Public Utility Commission of Texas at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas
78711-3326 no later than August 30, 2000. You may contact the commission's
Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech- impaired
individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512)
936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 22904.
TRD-200005720
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2000
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on July 27, 2000, pursuant to P.U.C.
Substantive Rule §26.171 for approval to implement minor rate changes.
Tariff Title and Number: Application of Nortex Communications To Implement
Minor Rate Change Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.171. Tariff
Number 22840.
The Application: Nortex Communications (Nortex), formerly Muenster Telephone
Corporation of Texas, seeks approval to implement minor rate changes to its
calling number and calling name ID business rate and increase its returned
check fee. Nortex estimates the proposed rate changes will result in an increase
of $4,194 in intrastate gross annual revenues for the first year of service.
The company proposes an effective date of December 1, 2000.
Subscribers of Nortex have a right to petition the commission for review
of this proposed rate change by filing a protest with the commission. The
protest must be signed by a minimum of 5.0%, or 1,500 of the affected local
service customers, and must be received by the commission no later than October
31, 2000.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before October 31, 2000. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please reference
Tariff Number 22840.
TRD-200005686
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 14, 2000
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on August 7, 2000, pursuant to P.U.C.
Substantive Rule §26.171 for approval to implement a new optional service
offering.
Tariff Title and Number: Application of Brazoria Telephone Company For
Approval to Offer a New Service Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.171.
Tariff Number 22888.
The Application: Brazoria Telephone Company (Brazoria) seeks approval to
offer Centrex as a new optional service that will be available in all of the
company's exchanges. Brazoria estimates the proposed new service offering
will result in an increase of $502. in intrastate gross annual revenues for
the first year of service. The company proposes an effective date of November
6, 2000.
Subscribers of Brazoria have a right to petition the commission for review
of the proposed rate change by filing a protest with the commission. The protest
must be signed by a minimum of 5.0%, or 1,500 of the affected local service
customers, and must be received by the commission no later than September
6, 2000. The 5.0% minimum limitation equals 329 customers.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326
or call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 on
or before September 6, 2000. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with
text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. Please
reference Tariff Number 22888.
TRD-200005685
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 14, 2000
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of a petition on July 5, 2000, for expanded local calling
service (ELCS), pursuant to Chapter 55, Subchapter C of the Public Utility
Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application follows.
Project Title and Number: Petition of the Oenaville for Expanded Local
Calling Service, Project Number 22757.
The petitioners in the Oenaville exchange request ELCS to the exchanges
of Marlin, Rogers, and Zabcikville.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326 or
call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120 no later
than September 8, 2000. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200005722
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2000
On August 3, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Sage Telecom,
Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for
approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i)
of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 22878. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
22878. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 5, 2000, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number
22878.
TRD-200005589
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 11, 2000
On August 7, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and AT&T Communications
of Texas, LP, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application
for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i)
of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 22890. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
22890. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 5, 2000, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number
22890.
TRD-200005590
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 11, 2000
On August 8, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and TXOL Internet,
collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval
of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i) of
the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104, 110
Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 22894. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
22894. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 5, 2000, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number
22894.
TRD-200005591
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 11, 2000
On August 8, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and CCCTX, Inc.
doing business as Connect!, collectively referred to as applicants, filed
a joint application for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection
agreement under §252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Public Law Number 104-104, 110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered
sections of 15 and 47 United States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory
Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998) (PURA).
The joint application has been designated Docket Number 22895. The joint application
and the underlying interconnection agreement are available for public inspection
at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
22895. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 5, 2000, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number
22895.
TRD-200005592
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 11, 2000
On August 10, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and HBC TexasTel,
Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for
approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i)
of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 22900. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
22900. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 12, 2000, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number
22900.
TRD-200005766
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2000
On August 10, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Dialtone Depot,
Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for
approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i)
of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 22901. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
22901. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 12, 2000, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Office of Customer Protection at (512) 936-7120. Hearing
and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the
commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number
22901.
TRD-200005765
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2000
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) will hold a workshop
regarding possible amendments to the commission's Procedural Rules, Chapter
22, scattered sections throughout Subchapters A - O, on Tuesday, September
12, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. in Hearing Room Gee, located on the 7th floor of the
William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701.
Project Number 22870,
Rulemaking to Amend Procedural
Rules to Establish and/or Clarify Procedures regarding Confidential Material,
Late Intervention, Motions for Reconsideration of Interim Orders Issued by
the Commission, Appeal of Interim Orders, Motions for Rehearing and Representative
Appearances; and to Clarify and Correct References to the General Counsel,
and Other Statutes, Rules, and Divisions within the Commission
, has
been established for this proceeding. No later than August 25, 2000, staff
will make available in Central Records and on the Project Number 22870 web
site at www.puc.state.tx.us a draft of changes under consideration for discussion
at the workshop.
Questions concerning the workshop or this notice should be referred to
Roni Dempsey, Rules Coordinator, at (512) 936-7308 or roni.dempsey@puc.state.tx.us.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200005723
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2000
Notice of Outside Counsel Contract Award
Stephen F. Austin State University furnishes this notice of outside counsel
contract award pursuant to a Request for Proposals published according to
procedures promulgated by the Office of the Attorney General. Outside counsel
will file a patent on behalf of the University, both in the U.S. and potentially
worldwide. The Request for Proposals was filed in the March 10, 2000, issue
of the
Texas Register
, Volume 25 Number 10
TexReg Pages 1913-2222.
The contract was awarded to Alan R. Thiele of Jenkens & Gilchrist,
1400 Frost Bank Tower, 100 West Houston Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205,
for an estimated value of $30,000.00 plus the possibility of worldwide patent
costs.
The contract period involves all work surrounding the utility patent application
during the 1999-2000 fiscal year and beyond. The ending date cannot be determined
at this time.
No documents, films, recording, or reports of intangible results will be
required to be presented by the outside counsel. Services are provided on
an as-needed basis. This outside counsel contract must be approved by the
Attorney General.
For further information, please call (936) 468-4305.
TRD-200005585
R. Yvette Clark
General Counsel
Stephen F. Austin State University
Filed: August 11, 2000
Request for Qualifications Maintenance Engineering Management Services
Notice of Invitation. The North Texas Tollway Authority (the NTTA), a regional
tollway authority and a political subdivision of the State of Texas, intends
to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) to enter into an agreement or
agreements with a qualified engineering firm or firms pursuant to Chapter
366 of the Texas Transportation Code and Chapter 2254 of the Texas Government
Code to provide professional Maintenance Engineering Management Services.
To be considered, potential proposers must submit a Letter of Request,
requesting a copy of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), which letter must
also contain the name of the proposer, a contact person, and an address to
which the RFQ may be sent. The NTTA will send only one copy of the RFQ to
each proposer.
Deadline. A Letter of Request notifying the NTTA of a request for an RFQ
will be accepted by fax at (214) 528-4826, or by mail or hand delivery to:
North Texas Tollway Authority, 5900 W. Plano Parkway, P.O. Box 260729, Plano,
Texas 75026, Attn: Ms. Nancy Greer.
Letters of Request will be received until 1:00 p.m. on September 1, 2000.
Agency Contact. Any requests for additional information regarding this
notice of invitation should be sent, in writing, to Mr. Mark Bouma, P.E.,
Director of Engineering, at the above address or fax number.
TRD-200005558
Katharine D. Nees
Deputy Executive Director
North Texas Tollway Authority
Filed: August 9, 2000
Consultant Proposal Request
The University of Texas at Austin requests, pursuant to the provisions
of the Government Code, Chapter 2254.029, the submission of proposals leading
to the award of a contract for Consulting Services. The University's objective
is to seek assistance with the development of an intercollegiate athletics
Long Range Strategic Plan for the Men's Athletics Department and the Women's
Athletics Department.
An award for the services specified herein will be made following a procedure
using competitive sealed proposals. Proposals will be opened publicly to
identify the names of the RESPONDENTS, but will be afforded security sufficient
to preclude disclosure of the contents of the proposal, including prices
or other information, prior to award. After opening, an award may be made
on the basis of the proposals initially submitted, without discussion, clarification,
or modification, or on the basis of negotiation with any of the RESPONDENTS
or, at UNIVERSITY'S sole option and discretion, UNIVERSITY may discuss or
negotiate all elements of the proposal with selected RESPONDENTS which represent
a competitive range of proposals. For purposes of negotiation, a competitive
range of acceptable or potentially acceptable proposals may be established
comprising the highest rated proposal(s). After the submission of a proposal
but before making an award, UNIVERSITY may permit the offeror to revise the
proposal in order to obtain the best final offer. UNIVERSITY may not disclose
any information derived from the proposals submitted from competing offers
in conducting such discussions. UNIVERSITY will provide each offeror with
an equal opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. Further action
on proposals not included in the competitive range will be deferred pending
an award, but UNIVERSITY reserves the right to include additional proposals
in the competitive range if deemed in the best interest of UNIVERSITY. UNIVERSITY
reserves the right to award a Contract for all or any portion of the requirements
proposed by reason of this request, award multiple Contracts, or to reject
any and all proposals if deemed to be in the best interests of UNIVERSITY
and to re-solicit for proposals, or to reject any and all proposals if deemed
to be in the best interests of UNIVERSITY and to temporarily or permanently
abandon the procurement. If UNIVERSITY awards a contract, it will award the
contract to the offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to UNIVERSITY,
considering price and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP. The contract
file must state in writing the basis upon which the award is made. Interested
parties may contact Floyd Self at The University of Texas at Austin Purchasing
Office for a copy of the RFP document by calling (512) 471-4266. An original
and ten (10) copies of the proposal must be submitted by the Proposal submission
deadline of 2 P.M., September 25, 2000.
TRD-200005791
Francie A. Frederick
Executive Secretary to the Board
The University of Texas System
Filed: August 16, 2000
The University of Texas at Austin requests, pursuant to the provisions
of the Government Code; Chapter 2254.029, the submission of proposals leading
to the award of a contract for Consulting Services. The University's objective
is to create an operations template and proof-of-concept business plan around
the identification and realization of knowledge-based e-businesses that serve
the University's educational, research and community service missions.
An award for the services specified herein will be made following a procedure
using competitive sealed proposals. Proposals will be opened publicly to identify
the names of the RESPONDENTS, but will be afforded security sufficient to
preclude disclosure of the contents of the proposal, including prices or other
information, prior to awards. After opening, an award may be made on the basis
of the proposals initially submitted, without discussion, clarification, or
discretion. UNIVERSITY may discuss or negotiate all elements of the proposal
with selected RESPONDENTS which represent a competitive range of proposals.
For purposes of negotiation, a competitive range of acceptable or potentially
acceptable proposals may be established comprising the highest rated proposal(s).
After the submission of a proposal but before making an award, UNIVERSITY
may permit the offeror to revise the proposal in order to obtain the best
final offer. UNIVERSITY may not disclose any information derived from the
proposals submitted from competing offers in conducting such discussions.
UNIVERSITY will provide each offeror with an equal opportunity for discussion
and revision of proposals. Further action on proposals not included in the
competitive range will be deferred pending an award, but UNIVERSITY reserves
the right to include additional proposals in the competitive range if deemed
in the best interest of UNIVERSITY. UNIVERSITY reserves the right to award
a Contract for all or any portion of the requirements proposed by reason of
this request, award multiple Contracts, or to reject any and all proposals
if deemed to be in the best interest of UNIVERSITY and to re-solicit for proposals,
or to reject any and all proposals if deemed to be in the best interests of
UNIVERSITY and to temporarily or permanently abandon the procurement. If UNIVERSITY
awards a contract, it will award the contract to the offeror whose proposal
is the most advantageous to UNIVERSITY, [considering the evaluation factors
set forth in this RFP.] The contract file must state in writing the basis
upon which the award is made.
Interested parties may contact Floyd Self at The University of Texas at
Austin Purchasing Office for a copy of the RFP document by calling (512) 471-4266
or by email at: fself@mail.utexas.edu An original and six (6) copies of the
proposal must be submitted by the Proposal submission deadline of September
18, 2000.
TRD-200005794
Francie Frederick
Executive Secretary to the Board
The University of Texas System
Filed: August 16, 2000
Request for Proposals for Water Research
Pursuant to 31 Texas Administrative Code §355.3, the Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB) requests the submission of water research proposals leading to
the possible award of contracts for Groundwater Availability Models for the
Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer and parts of the Gulf Coast and Ogallala aquifers in
Texas. Guidelines for water research proposals, which include an application
form and more detailed research topic information, will be supplied by the
TWDB.
Description of Research Objectives: During the 76th legislative session,
the Texas Legislature approved initial funding for the Groundwater Availability
Modeling (GAM) program. The purpose of the GAM program is to provide reliable
and timely information on groundwater availability to the citizens of Texas
to ensure adequate supplies or recognize inadequate supplies over a 50-year
planning period. Numerical groundwater flow models of the major aquifers in
Texas will be used to make this assessment of groundwater availability. The
expectation is that GAM will (1) include substantial stakeholder input; (2)
result in standardized, thoroughly-documented, and publicly available numerical
groundwater flow models and support data; and (3) provide predictions of groundwater
availability through 2050 based on current projections of groundwater demands
during drought-of-record conditions. GAM will provide the tools to evaluate
water-management strategies in regional water plans and groundwater conservation
district management plans.
In support of the GAM effort, the TWDB is requesting proposals for the
development of numerical groundwater availability models for (1) the Carrizo-Wilcox
aquifer, (2) the coastal bend area of the Gulf Coast aquifer, and (3) the
southern part of the Ogallala aquifer. The Carrizo-Wilcox shall be modeled
in three parts (three separate models): one for the northeastern part of the
aquifer, one for the central part of the aquifer, and one for the southwestern
part of the aquifer. The model for the Coastal Bend area of the Gulf Coast
aquifer and the model for the Ogallala aquifers shall each be single models.
Separate proposals for each of the five models are expected.
Details on the modeling projects and project requirements are available
from the TWDB. The TWDB Web site includes (1) copies of the attachments, (2)
a list of review criteria, and (3) some supporting material (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/assistance
/financial/fin_research/research.htm).
The following issues need to be addressed in the proposal:
* communication between the contractor and the technical advisory group
for the model, regional water planning groups, and groundwater conservation
districts;
* conceptual model of recharge and how recharge will be modeled;
* how surface-water/groundwater interaction will be modeled;
* how hydraulic properties will be distributed;
* hydrostratigraphy for the model;
* Approach for modeling the down dip boundary (if applicable);
* approach for calibrating and gaging the verification of the model;
* approach for handling dewatered cells;
* how effects on environmental resources will be gaged; and
* how the project will benefit state-wide water planning and groundwater
districts.
In addition, we expect potential contractors to indicate their abilities
in:
* general hydrogeology,
* hydrogeology of the modeled aquifer,
* numerical groundwater flow modeling,
* geographical information systems,
* communicating with the public,
* technology transfer,
* producing high-quality reports, and
* meeting deadlines.
The research proposal description shall not be more than 10 pages in length.
On September 6, 2000, in Room 111, William B. Travis building, 1701 North
Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, we will hold an information session to address
questions about the request for proposals.
Description of Funding Consideration. Up to $1.3 million has been initially
authorized for water research assistance from the TWDB's Research and Planning
Fund for this research for FY 01. A total of $1.6 million in funds is anticipated
to be appropriated by the 77th Legislature for FY 02. Thus the total anticipated
cost of this program is $2.9 million. Following the receipt and evaluation
of all applications, the TWDB may adjust the amount of funding initially authorized
for water research. Oral presentations may be required as part of proposal
review. However, invitation for oral presentation is not an indication of
probable selection. Up to 100 percent funding may be provided to individual
applicants; however, applicants are encouraged to contribute matching funds
or services, and funding will not include reimbursement for indirect expenses
incurred by political subdivisions of the state or other state and federal
agencies. In the event that acceptable proposals are not submitted, the TWDB
retains the right to not award funds for the contracts.
Deadline, Review Criteria, and Contact Person for Additional Information.
Ten double-sided copies of a complete water research application form, including
the required attachments, must be filed with the TWDB prior to 5:00 PM, September
25, 2000. Proposals must be directed either in person to Ms. Phyllis Thomas,
Texas Water Development Board, Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress
Avenue, Austin, Texas; or by mail to Ms. Phyllis Thomas, Texas Water Development
Board, P.O. Box 13231-Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-3231. Applications
will be evaluated according to 31 Texas Administrative Code §355.5 and
the proposal rating form included in the TWDB's Guidelines for Water Research
Grants. Research shall not duplicate work planned or underway by state agencies.
All potential applicants must contact the TWDB to obtain these guidelines.
Requests for information, the TWDB's rules covering the Research and Planning
Fund, detailed evaluation criteria, more detailed research topic information,
and the guidelines may be directed to Ms. Phyllis Thomas at the preceding
address or by calling (512) 463-7926. Technical questions should be directed
to Dr. Robert Mace, (512) 936-0861.
TRD-200005787
Suzanne Schwartz
General Counsel
Texas Water Development Board
Filed: August 16, 2000
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Texas Credit Union Department
Notice of Final Action Taken
Texas Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Texas Education Agency
Notice of Correction: Deadline for Receipt of Proposals in Request for Proposals Concerning Texas Permanent School Fund Investment Management Services: Domestic Small/Mid Cap Growth Style
Notice of Correction: Deadline for Receipt of Proposals in Request for Proposals Concerning Texas Permanent School Fund Investment Management Services: Domestic Small/Mid Cap Value Style
Commission on State Emergency Communications
Golden Crescent Workforce Development Board
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Texas Department of Health
Texas Department of Insurance
Notice
Notice of Applications by Small Employer Carriers to be Risk-Assuming Carriers
Notice of Call for Issues Related to 2000 Biennial Title Hearing
Notice of Open Meeting
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Agreed Orders of Administrative Enforcement Actions
Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Settlement Agreements of Administrative Enforcement Actions
Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain a Municipal Solid Waste Permit
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 311
Notice of Water Rights Application
Proposal for Decision
Panhandle Regional Planning Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
Notice of Application Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.171
Notice of Application Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.171
Notice of Petition for Expanded Local Calling Service
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Workshop on Amendments to the Procedural Rules
Stephen F. Austin State University
North Texas Tollway Authority
The University of Texas System
Consultant Proposal Request
Texas Water Development Board
North Texas Workforce Development Board