Part 1.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Chapter 3.
OIL AND GAS DIVISION
16 TAC §3.26
The Railroad Commission of Texas withdraws its proposed amendment
to §3.26, regarding separating devices, tanks, and surface commingling
of oil, published in the October 22, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 9134), and simultaneously proposes other
amendments to the same rule, §3.26.
The proposed amendment reduces the regulatory burden on oil and gas wells
and reduce operating costs for industry by reducing well testing requirements.
The Commission simultaneously withdraws the original proposal to review
and readopt §3.26, published in the October 22, 1999, issue of the
The proposed amendment to §3.26 published on October 22, 1999, amended
subsection (b)(3)(A) by deleting the current scheme of three testing intervals
for commingled wells, with each minimum interval based on the daily production
rate of the commingled wells, and replacing it with a formula that would have
allowed testing of commingled wells at the same interval as the most frequent
periodic well tests for non-commingled wells in the field proposed for commingling.
This proposal would have automatically allowed some wells to be tested only
annually, thus providing savings to operators who would otherwise have been
required to test semi-annually or, in some instances, quarterly. If adopted
by the Commission, the implementation of this proposal would require a significant
expense of computer programming resources. The Commission has crafted an alternative
amendment to subsection (b)(3)(A) that utilizes existing computer programs
and conserves programming resources. The alternative proposal will still allow
many operators to reduce operating costs by reducing the frequency of well
testing of commingled wells while insuring the protection of the correlative
rights of the working and royalty interest owners.
As proposed here, subsection (b)(3)(A) would be amended to eliminate the
currently-prescribed three intervals of testing with a requirement for semi-annual
testing. As in the previous proposal, subsection (b)(3)(B) would be amended
to eliminate the requirement that operators obtain the written consent of
all royalty and working interest owners before implementing less frequent
testing. Under this proposal, subsection (b)(3)(B) would be amended to permit
operators to utilize annual testing upon written application demonstrating
to the Commission that annual testing will not harm the correlative rights
of the working or royalty interest owners of the commingled wells. This subparagraph
retains the wording in the current version that prohibits allocation of commingled
production based on well tests conducted less frequently than annually.
Rita E. Percival, Oil and Gas Division planner, has determined that there
will be no fiscal implications for state or local government for each year
of the first five years the rule as amended will be in effect. Rather than
there being a cost of compliance with the proposed amendments for the small
business, micro business, or individual producer, there is likely to be a
cost savings as a result of reducing the frequency of well tests for some
commingled wells, and by reducing the burden of the showing necessary to secure
Commission approval for testing at a less-frequent interval than semi-annually.
Operators will continue to have the option of testing more often than semi-annually.
Mark Tittel, Hearings Examiner, Office of General Counsel, has determined
that for each year of the first five years the section is in effect, the public
benefit anticipated as a result of adopting the amendment will be the economic
benefit to operators associated with reduced reporting to the Commission and
reduced expense in well-testing. Reduced operating costs may enable operators
to continue producing hydrocarbons that otherwise would not be produced due
to unfavorable economic conditions, thus providing the public with lower cost
oil and gas.
Comments may be submitted to Mark Tittel, Hearings Examiner, Office of
General Counsel, Railroad Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, Texas
78711-2967, or via electronic mail to Mark.Tittel@rrc.state.tx.us. Because
the Commission recently published proposed amendments to §3.26 dealing
with the frequency of well testing for commingled wells, and has had helpful
written and oral comments regarding this issue, comments on this proposal
will be accepted for 14 days after publication in the
Texas Register
. Comments should refer to the docket number of this
rulemaking proceeding: 20-0223891. For further information, call Mark Tittel
at (512) 463-6923.
The amendment is proposed under the Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051,
81.052, 85.042, 85.046, 85.053, 85.054, 85.201, 85.202, 86.011, 86.012, 86.041,
and 86.042, which authorize the Commission to adopt rules for the following
purposes: to govern and regulate persons and their operations under the jurisdiction
of the Commission; to distribute, prorate and apportion allowable production;
to adjust correlative rights and opportunities; to determine the daily allowable
production for each well; to effectuate the provisions and purposes of the
Natural Resources Code; and to conserve and prevent waste of oil and gas.
Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051, 81.052, 85.042, 85.046,
85.053, 85.054, 85.201, 85.202, 86.011, 86.012, 86.041, and 86.042, are affected
by the proposed amendment.
Issued in Austin, Texas on February 8, 2000.
§3.26. Separating Devices, Tanks, and Surface Commingling of Oil.
(a)
(No change.)
(b)
In order to prevent waste, to promote conservation or
to protect correlative rights, the commission may approve surface commingling
of oil, gas, or oil and gas production from two or more tracts of land producing
from the same commission-designated reservoir or from one or more tracts of
land producing from different commission-designated reservoirs as follows:
(1)-(2)
(No change.)
(3)
Reasonable allocation required. The applicant must
demonstrate to the Commission or its designee that the proposed commingling
of hydrocarbons will not harm the correlative rights of the working or royalty
interest owners of any of the wells to be commingled. The method of allocation
of production to individual interests must accurately attribute to each interest
its fair share of aggregated production.
(A)
In the absence of contrary information, such as indications
of material fluctuations in the monthly production volume of a well proposed
for commingling, the Commission will presume that allocation based on the
daily production rate for each well as determined and reported to the Commission
by
semi-annual
[
[
For applications proposing
to commingle production from wells which each have a daily production rate
of 100 mcf of gas or less and four barrels or less of oil or condensate, the
production rate for each well shall be measured by well tests conducted annually;]
[
For applications proposing
to commingle production from wells which each have a daily production rate
of 250 mcf of gas or less and less than 10 barrels of oil or condensate, the
production rate for each well shall be measured by well tests conducted semi-annually;
and]
[
For applications proposing
to commingle production from one or more wells having a daily production rate
of more than 250 mcf of gas or 10 or more barrels of oil or condensate, the
production rate for each well shall be measured by well tests conducted quarterly.]
(B)
Operators may test commingled wells annually after
approval by the Commission or the commission's delegate of the operator's
written request demonstrating that annual testing will not harm the correlative
rights of the working or royalty interest owners of the commingled wells.
[
(C)
Nothing in this section prohibits allocations based on
more frequent well tests than the
semi-annual well test
[
(D)
Allocations may be based on a method other than periodic
well tests if the Commission or its designee determines that the alternative
allocation method will insure a reasonable allocation of production as required
by this paragraph.
(4)
(No change.)
(c)-(d)
(No change.)
Filed with the Office
of the Secretary of State, on February 8, 2000.
TRD-200000964
Mary Ross McDonald
Deputy General Counsel
Railroad Commission of Texas
Earliest possible date of adoption: March 26, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1295
16 TAC §3.106
The Railroad Commission of Texas withdraws its proposed new §3.106,
relating to sour gas pipeline facility construction permits, published in
the August 13, 1999, issue of the
Texas Register
(24 TexReg 6167), and simultaneously proposes new §3.106, relating
to sour gas pipeline facility construction permits.
This version of new §3.106 proposed here incorporates changes based
on comments the commission received on the previously published proposal.
The commission believes that interested persons would be assisted in reviewing
some of the comments about the previously published version, along with the
commission's responses and explanations of the changes that have been incorporated
into this proposal.
Proposed new §3.106 establishes procedures for the required permit
for construction of a sour gas pipeline facility. The proposed new rule defines
terms; requires a permit to construct a sour gas pipeline facility and identifies
those sour gas pipelines which will be exempted from the new rule; explains
the permit application process; states those items which will be required
for approval of the permit; establishes guidelines for filing protests; provides
for hearings in certain circumstances; and establishes deadlines for processing
applications.
The proposed new section implements House Bill 3194, 75th Legislature,
Regular Session, which enacted Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6053-4, now codified
at Texas Utilities Code, §§121.451 - 121.454. House Bill 3194 requires
an operator to obtain a commission permit before beginning construction of
a sour gas pipeline facility.
Two comments expressed general opposition to the previously proposed rule,
both observing that existing regulation through §3.36 of this title,
relating to oil, gas, or geothermal resource operation in hydrogen sulfide
areas, is adequate to protect human health and the environment. Both comments
questioned whether the commission has the authority to adopt procedural rules
to implement House Bill 3194 and questioned the need for this additional regulation.
One of these comments suggested that, if the commission feels a rule is needed,
it adopt the statute verbatim.
In response, the commission notes first that the legislature enacted House
Bill 3194 which requires the commission to issue sour gas pipeline facility
construction permits. Regardless of the merits of §3.36 of this title,
the commission is compelled to undertake the permitting activities prescribed
by House Bill 3194. The commission further notes that there has been a legislative
session in the interim between original enactment of House Bill 3194 and adoption
of this rule. No efforts to amend or repeal House Bill 3194 were undertaken
during this intervening legislative session.
The commission appreciates the concerns about unneeded regulation. However,
the commission believes that this rule is necessary and appropriate to ensure
that operators and the public are informed about the commission's interpretation
of House Bill 3194. While House Bill 3194 is primarily a procedural statute,
several controversies about its interpretation have arisen during the course
of this rulemaking. For example, some initially felt that House Bill 3194
would subject all pipelines in the state, not just those subject to the federal
pipeline safety program, to pipeline safety standards. The commission does
not interpret the statute to impose pipeline safety regulations in situations
where they were not previously applicable. Similarly, a great deal of controversy
exists as to whether this rule mandates submission of a complete contingency
plan, if required by §3.36 of this title, prior to permit issuance. The
commission believes it is not only appropriate but necessary to provide both
industry and the public with this rule to ensure that both groups are adequately
informed about the commission's interpretation of and the procedures it will
follow in applying House Bill 3194, facilitating fair and uniform administration
of that enactment.
Finally, the commission observes that this rule was proposed under Texas
Utilities Code, §§121.201 - 121.205, and Texas Natural Resources
Code, §§117.001 - 117.101, which authorize the commission to adopt
safety standards and practices applicable to the transportation of gas and
hazardous liquids and all gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities in
Texas. In addition, under Texas Natural Resources Code, §81.051, the
commission has jurisdiction over all persons owning or operating pipelines
in Texas. Texas Natural Resources Code, §81.052, authorizes the commission
to adopt all necessary rules for governing and regulating persons and their
operations under the jurisdiction of the commission as set forth in §81.051.
These statutes provide sufficient authority for adoption of this rule. Proposed
new §3.106 was not changed from the original version in response to these
comments.
Acknowledging that it would be more appropriate to direct the comment to
the legislature, one comment expressed the opinion that House Bill 3194 is
too broad and should not apply to facilities located in strictly unpopulated
rural areas. Standard industry practice is to install pipe measuring greater
than six inches to control the amount of pressure through the gathering system.
Use of larger sized pipe does not necessarily mean that larger volumes of
gas will be transported. The radius of exposure is calculated using both volume
and hydrogen sulfide concentration and not line pressure. The commission appreciates
the acknowledgment that these comments relate to legislative matters outside
the commission's authority to address. Proposed new §3.106 was not changed
from the original version in response to these comments.
One comment disagreed with the statement that there would be no fiscal
implications for local governments as a result of enforcing or administering
the proposed section, stating that local governments are likely to be affected
because ad valorem taxes are impacted by delays in construction due to the
duration of the permitting process. This comment noted two recent experiences
with the commission in obtaining approval of extensions to existing gathering
systems using eight-inch pipe for the extensions. The choice to use eight-inch
line was to decrease pressure in lines and not move larger volume of gas.
The comment states that it took nearly six months to obtain the necessary
permit in each case.
The commission acknowledges that this rule could, in some cases, delay
the commencement of pipeline construction and, ultimately, the production
and transportation of natural gas and oil containing some amount of sour gas.
However, these delays will have only a transient fiscal impact on local governments.
Again, proposed new §3.106 was not changed from the original version
in response to these comments.
This comment also noted that additional economic costs due to the proposed
new section will vary. The permitting process will require the operator to
incur additional expense if a hearing is held as well as loss of production
income during the pendency of the proceeding. The comment recommended that
the hearing process for issuance of a permit be expedited to ensure that delays
of six months and longer do not occur. The commission acknowledges the desire
on the part of industry to expedite the hearing process to avoid delays in
production operations. The commission has made and will continue to make every
effort to ensure that permit applications are processed as expeditiously as
possible while still meeting the mandates of House Bill 3194. As of the end
of July 1999, the commission had received 22 applications for sour gas pipeline
facility permits. Three of these applications were withdrawn, five took from
four to six weeks to process, eight took from 10 to 12 weeks to process, five
took from 16 to 18 weeks to process, and one took 32 weeks to process. Longer
processing times generally have been associated with permit applications that
were incomplete when filed.
One comment recommended that in §3.106(a)(1) the term "affected person"
be defined to include the owner or occupant of property as of the date of
publication of notice, not the final day to file protests, in order to avoid
attempts to gain standing through a quick purchase of property following public
notice. The commission does not believe such limitations are necessary. Instances
in which an individual would acquire property for the sole purpose of becoming
an affected person are likely to be rare. The commission believes it appropriate
to ensure that a person who has a contingent right to ownership or occupancy-such
as a contract to buy a piece of property-as of the date of publication which
is finalized prior to the protest deadline has the right to protest an application.
Proposed new §3.106 was not changed from the original version in response
to this comment.
In response to a comment, the commission has changed the term "area of
exposure" in subsection (a)(4) of the version originally published to "area
of influence" in this version to avoid confusion with §3.36. The commission
also agrees with a comment recommending that paragraphs (C) and (D) of the
definition of "construction of a facility" in subsection (a)(5) be combined
into one paragraph to avoid having to repermit a pipeline whenever an inconsequential
equipment change is made. The commission has revised the definition of "construction
of a facility" to provide that it does not include repair, maintenance, and
enhancement activities that do not result in an increase in the area of influence
of a sour gas pipeline facility.
Two comments objected to the proposed definition of "nominal pipe size"
in subsection (a)(7). One comment indicated that "nominal pipe size" is a
defined industry term that does not need to be defined in the rule. The other
comment noted that the industry convention for pipe sizes 14 inches and greater
is the approximate outer diameter, and the industry convention for pipe sizes
less than 14 inches is the approximate inner diameter; therefore the proposed
definition is incorrect. The commission believes that, while this term is
based on an industry standard, it should be defined for convenience of members
of the public who are unfamiliar with industry terminology. For clarity, the
commission has revised the definition of this term to delete the statement
that "nominal pipe size" refers to the outer diameter.
One comment recommended that the definition of the term "person" in subsection
(a)(8) be revised by adding trustees, receivers, assignees, and their personal
representatives. The commission disagrees. The term "person" is defined in
the proposed rule the same as the term is defined in House Bill 3194. Proposed
new §3.106 was not changed from the original version in response to this
comment.
The commission agrees with one comment recommending that the term "radii
of exposure" be deleted because it is not used in the rule, and with another
comment suggesting that the term "radius or radii of exposure" in subsection
(a)(9) be replaced with "radius at 100 ppm" to avoid confusion with the more
broadly defined term "radius of exposure" in §3.36 of this title. In
this version of proposed new §3.106, the commission has added subsection
(a)(12) to define the term "100 ppm radius" as the substitute for the term
"radius or radii of exposure."
One comment recommended minor clarifying modifications to the definition
of "sour gas pipeline facility" in subsection (a)(10) to add "gas having"
between "contains" and "a concentration" and to substitute "is located outside
the tract of production" for "leaves the tract of production." The commission
concurs with the second recommendation and has revised this version of proposed
new §3.106 accordingly. The commission declines to make the first suggested
change because this rule applies to an oil pipeline if hydrogen sulfide will
be liberated in sufficient amounts upon release.
One comment objected to the definition of "tract of production" in subsection
(a)(11) on the basis that it is not sufficient to capture the entire lease
from which oil, gas, or other minerals are produced. It is the commission's
intention to limit sour gas pipeline facility permits to that portion of the
pipeline leaving the lease from which oil, gas, or other minerals are produced.
The commission has therefore revised this definition in this version of proposed
new §3.106 to accurately articulate the commission's intent.
One comment requested clarification regarding responsibility for obtaining
a permit for an extension that ties into someone else's line. House Bill 3194
provides that a person may not construct a sour gas pipeline facility without
a permit. Therefore, the person constructing the line is required to obtain
the required permit. In this proposal, the provisions of subsection (b) have
been revised to clarify this point.
One comment recommended that subsection (b)(1)(C) be revised to provide
that all pipeline preconstruction notices be routed through the commission's
Oil and Gas Division rather than the Gas Services Division. The commission
disagrees. Preconstruction notices for all pipelines subject to the commission's
pipeline safety program go through the Pipeline and LP-Gas Safety Section
of the Gas Services Division. The commission does not see a need to change
this system for sour gas pipeline facilities. Such a change would lead to
unnecessary confusion and an increased potential for lost or misplaced notices.
Proposed new §3.106 was not changed from the original version in response
to this comment, other than to change the name of the Pipeline Safety Section,
which was recently merged with the LP-Gas Section.
One comment recommended that the rule be revised to provide that an applicant
can obtain a docket number prior to filing an application, and two comments
suggested elimination of the requirement that all correspondence regarding
an application include the docket number assigned to that application. The
commission agrees; not many sour gas pipeline facility applications are filed.
Correspondence related to a particular application can be adequately tracked
without inclusion of a docket number. In this version of proposed new §3.106,
these suggested changes have been made.
Four comments objected to the requirement set out in subsection (d)(4)
of the published version of proposed new §3.106 that a complete contingency
plan be submitted with the application if such a plan is required under §3.36.
These comments expressed disagreement with the view that the statute requires
submission of a complete contingency plan prior to issuance of a sour gas
pipeline facility permit, and recommended that the rule require filing of
only a draft or conceptual contingency plan with the application.
The more specific concerns of these comments centered on two areas, the
first being pipeline routes. One comment noted that pipelines are frequently
rerouted during construction to avoid obstructions and sensitive areas such
as archaeological sites. The portion of a contingency plan that denotes the
pipeline route cannot be effectively completed until construction has been
accomplished because of the possibility of route changes. The second area
of concern relates to the fact that most contingency plans require a list
of names and phone numbers of residents within the area of influence of a
release. These comments observed that it creates unnecessary and duplicative
effort on the part of the applicant to provide this list of names and phone
numbers of residents with the application because the list will have to be
updated after completion of pipeline construction and before transportation
of sour gas commences.
The commission generally agrees that some accommodation is needed for pipeline
rerouting during construction. The commission also agrees that requiring a
complete list of the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of residents
within the area of influence with the application imposes a burdensome and
duplicative requirement on the applicant. Initial comments on this point offered
insufficient detail about what elements would be encompassed within the framework
of a "draft" or "conceptual" contingency plan; however, one supplemental comment
indicated that a "conceptual" contingency plan would include a plat of the
area of influence showing residential areas, schools, hospitals, business
areas, public roads, or other similar areas where the public might reasonably
be expected within the area of influence; procedures for alerting the public
and public safety personnel of the existence of an emergency; procedures for
requesting assistance and for follow-up action to remove the public from an
area of influence; a generic call list (without names, addresses, or phone
numbers) for emergency response and support personnel; provisions for advance
briefing of the public; evacuation routes; an explanation of the manner in
which the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of residents within the
area of influence would be compiled prior to commencement of operations, if
required; and a description of a reaction-type emergency response plan if
the operator proposes to utilize a reaction-type plan.
Supplemental comments also expressed the view that the commission need
not be provided with a plat denoting all buildings within the area of influence
prior to issuance of a permit under this rule, based on the belief that there
was a particularly significant burden associated with preparing such a plat
if the final pipeline route was not known. Having accurate information about
the nature of the buildings located within the area of influence (for example,
schools, nursing homes, and hospitals) is critical to the commission's determination
of the adequacy of a contingency plan. Nevertheless, the commission has determined
that there are other methods for providing this information that would not
be as burdensome for the applicant.
To address the specific concerns about pipeline routing and the list of
names, telephone numbers, and addresses of residents within the area of influence,
the commission has included a definition of "preliminary contingency plan"
in subsection (a)(9) of this version of proposed new §3.106, and has
amended the provision in subsection (d) regarding elements of a complete application
to allow filing of a preliminary contingency plan as an alternative to filing
a complete contingency plan. As defined for purposes of this version of the
proposed new rule, a preliminary contingency plan includes all elements required
for a contingency plan under §3.36, with three exceptions. First, the
plan need not include the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all residents
within the area of influence, even if otherwise required, provided the preliminary
plan includes a detailed explanation of the method by which the names, addresses
and phone numbers of such residents will be compiled. Second, the preliminary
plan need not include the final pipeline route provided that the area of influence
as noticed in public notice encompasses the total area of influence associated
with all possible pipeline routes proposed by the applicant. In this way,
individuals who could potentially be affected persons in the event of pipeline
rerouting would have notice of such possibility. Prior to commencement of
pipeline operations, the final contingency plan, including the final route
and list of names, addresses, and phone numbers of residents, if required,
must be submitted as required under §3.36. Third, the requirement for
filing a plat detailing the area of influence may be met by filing one of
three things: the detailed plat required by §3.36(c)(9)(H); a plat on
which the information required by §3.36(c)(9)(H) is provided by identifying
residential, business, and industrial areas with an estimate of the number
of people that may be within any such areas; or one or more aerial photographs
covering the area and providing the information required under §3.36(c)(9)(H).
In this version of proposed new §3.106, the definition of "affected
persons" in subsection (a)(1) has been revised to include all persons who
could own or occupy property located within the area of influence encompassed
by all contemplated pipeline routes if the final route is not known at the
time of application and notice. In addition, provisions of the rule regarding
persons with standing to protest an application, found in subsection (g),
have been revised to provide that the owner or occupant of real property encompassed
by the area of influence as denoted in the application has standing to protest.
The commission notes that the definition of "preliminary contingency plan"
is largely consistent with supplemental comments regarding elements of a "conceptual"
contingency plan. The primary difference appears to be that the "conceptual"
contingency plan would not include the names, addresses, and phone numbers
for emergency response and support personnel (
see
§3.36(c)(9)(G)) nor would it include the names and telephone
numbers of the responsible parties for each of the possibly occupied public
areas (
see
§3.36(c)(9)(J)). The commission
does not find a substantial burden associated with compiling these phone lists
and updating them immediately prior to commencement of operations.
Four comments requested that the proof of notice requirements for proposed
rule be revised to be consistent with standards contained in other commission
rules, specifically, that the rule provide that proof of notice to the county
clerk be demonstrated by a return receipt. One of these comments indicated
that proof of newspaper publication should be made in the same manner. Other
comments objected to the requirement that the full page of the newspaper in
which public notice is published be submitted as proof of publication.
The commission agrees with the recommendation that proof of notice to the
county clerk be made by return receipt and has incorporated this suggestion
in this version of proposed new §3.106. The commission does not agree
that a return receipt will demonstrate publication of notice. The commission
generally disagrees with commenters who object to providing the full page
of the newspaper in which public notice is published. The rule requires that
public notice be published in the portion of the paper containing news items
of state and local interest. It is necessary to view the entire page on which
publication is made in order to determine whether this standard has been met.
Based on oral comments from interested persons, however, it appears that
the real concern about proof of publication of notice has to do with the elements
of a complete application rather than any burden associated with providing
the full page of the paper in which notice is published. These commenters
are concerned that staff will delay its review of an application until it
is "complete"; requiring the full newspaper page as part of the application
will delay completion of staff review. The commission appreciates this concern
and, in this version of proposed new §3.106, has revised the elements
of a complete application to delete proof of publication and to add a new
subsection (e)(2) that requires an applicant to provide proof of publication
be made before an application may be granted.
One comment recommended that the rule provide that publication of notice
not be required where all affected persons have waived notice, noting that
landowners and occupants in an area where a pipeline is located are or should
be aware of the gas content of the pipeline. If sour gas is in the pipeline,
the law requires that operators post signs so indicating. When the landowners/occupants
are presented with a proposed pipeline easement, they are put on notice that
pipeline will be located under the property and should be aware of its contents.
At this time the protest or refusal to grant easement by the landlord would
take place. Because the landowner executes the pipeline easement, he or she
would not object to construction of a sour gas pipeline. This comment further
opined that incorporating provisions allowing for waivers of notice from landowners
and occupants would streamline the permitting process and reduce economic
impact on the applicant and local government. If waivers were obtained from
all affected persons, the 30-day waiting period for protests would be waived
and the application could move forward, shortening the time for obtaining
a permit considerably so that an unprotested application would not take six
months to process. The comment also noted that House Bill 3194 provides that
the commission may issue an order without holding a hearing.
With respect to notice requirements, the commission points out that, while
House Bill 3194 allows issuance of a permit without a hearing, it does not
provide for waivers of notice. Further, in the absence of published notice,
there is no mechanism for a potentially affected person who did not receive
individual notice or waive notice to become informed about a proposed sour
gas pipeline facility. Notice requirements in this version of proposed new §3.106
have not been changed from those in the originally published version.
Agreeing with comments that the required public notice text should be set
off by quotes or other markings to better segregate it from the text of the
rule, that the term "north arrow" be substituted for "compass" in the notice
text, and that the standard for the notice be revised to require that it be
sufficient for a person to reasonably ascertain whether an owned or occupied
property is within the area of influence, the commission has incorporated
these suggested changes in subsection (f)(3) and (4).
One comment recommended that staff be required to notify an applicant of
a complete or deficient application both verbally and in writing in order
for the applicant to know as early as possible (via telephone call) if an
application is deficient and subsequently to have that deficiency notice in
writing. To meet the need for timely information, the commission has revised
subsection (h) in this version of proposed new §3.106 to provide that
notice of application completeness or deficiencies will be provided in written
form by mail, unless the applicant submits with the application a written
request that notices of application completeness or deficiencies be provided
by electronic mail to a specified electronic mail address, in which case such
notices shall be provided by electronic mail. These alternatives should provide
sufficiently timely information to applicants and also allow the commission
to keep track of communications between staff and applicants regarding a specific
permit application.
One comment stated that the rule should set out and define clearly the
conditions required for the commission's designee to recommend that a permit
be "conditionally" granted or denied. The commission agrees and has revised
this provision to specify that a permit may be granted subject to any and
all conditions required to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The comment also recommended that the rule should define "designee" for these
purposes and should contain definitions consistent with §3.36 definitions.
In response, the commission notes that the authority to perform certain duties
under the rule will be delegated by the commission at the time of rule adoption
by separate document. In addition, the commission has attempted to ensure
consistency of definitions in this rule and §3.36 by changing, in this
version of proposed new §3.106, the definitions of certain key terms
in order to better distinguish the requirements of this rule from the more
general provisions of §3.36.
One commenter proposed that the rule set up a more efficient process and
time frame for obtaining a permit for a sour gas pipeline facility or an extension
thereto if no hearing is requested, but did not offer any specific suggestions
about how to make the process more efficient or reduce the time frame for
processing permit applications. Another comment recommended that the rule
specify that staff's recommendation on an application be provided to a hearings
examiner and that the hearings examiner be required to present that application,
if unprotested, to the commission at the next available conference. The commission
understands that the intent of this comment is to tighten the time lines for
commission action on an application, and appreciates the desire for prompt
action on an application; however, the specific change recommended in the
comment does not provide the commission with sufficient flexibility to address
staffing contingencies or to allow adequate review by personnel responsible
for presenting the application to the commission. The commission notes that
as originally proposed, subsection (j)(4) provided that the commission shall
issue its order on an application not later than the 60th day after staff
prepares its written recommendation in accordance with subsection (h)(2) and
(4). In many cases, the staff will not need the full 60 days provided for
issuance of a commission order on a matter not involving a hearing. To meet
the concerns expressed in these comments, subsection (j)(4) of proposed new §3.106
provides that the commission's order shall be issued as soon as practicable
but not later than the 60th day after staff prepares its written recommendation.
Charles Ross, Deputy Director, Oil and Gas Division, has determined that
for each year of the first five years the proposed new §3.106 is in effect
there will be fiscal implications for state government as a result of enforcing
or administering the proposed new section. It is not possible to determine
in advance that the commission will or will not be required to conduct a hearing
on an application for a sour gas pipeline facility permit or, if it does,
what the fiscal impact on state government would be. However, should a hearing
be required, the commission will use current staff and will not hire additional
personnel for that purpose. For each year of the first five years the proposed
new section is in effect there will be no fiscal implications for local governments
as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed section.
Mr. Ross has also determined that the public benefit anticipated as a result
of enforcing the proposed new section will be improved compliance with statutory
permitting requirements, a consistent opportunity for affected persons to
have information about proposed sour gas pipeline facilities before they are
constructed, and an opportunity for an administrative hearing if an affected
person files a protest or if an unprotested application is denied. There are
anticipated additional economic costs to small businesses, to micro businesses,
and to individuals as a result of the proposed new section, but it is not
possible to determine the amount or the impact of that cost.
All persons planning to construct a sour gas pipeline facility will be
required to comply, at a minimum, with the requirement to publish notice of
the proposed facility; the cost will vary depending on the location and the
number of the counties in which notice is published. Some additional cost
may be incurred due to the short, but calculable, delay built into the application
process by House Bill 3194. Applicants will be required to wait at least 30
days from the date notice is first published to learn if there is a protest,
in which case a hearing is mandatory. Even in the absence of a protest, if
the commission's designee declines to recommend approval of the application,
the applicant may either amend the application to cure the defects or may
request a hearing on the application as filed. The public benefit anticipated
as a result of the proposed new section is greater flexibility for the commission
in carrying out its mandate to ensure the safe operations of pipeline facilities
in the State of Texas.
Comments on the proposed new rule should be submitted to Mary ("Polly")
Ross McDonald, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Railroad
Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 12967, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-2967.
Comments will be accepted for 14 days following publication in the
Texas Register
. For additional information call Ms. McDonald at (512)
463-7033 or Mr. Ross at (512) 463-6829.
The commission proposes the new section under Texas Utilities
Code, §§121.201 - 121.205, and Texas Natural Resources Code, §§117.001
- 117.101, which authorize the commission to adopt safety standards and practices
applicable to the transportation of gas and hazardous liquids and all gas
and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities within Texas to the maximum degree
permissible under, and to take any other requisite action in accordance with,
49 U.S.C. §60101,
et seq.
(West 1998);
Texas Natural Resources Code, §81.051, which gives the commission jurisdiction
over all oil and gas wells and pipelines in Texas, over persons owning or
engaged in drilling or operating oil or gas wells in Texas, and over persons
owning or operating pipelines in Texas, and 81.052, which authorizes the commission
to adopt all necessary rules for governing and regulating persons and their
operations under the jurisdiction of the commission; and Texas Utilities Code, §§121.451
- 121.454, which codifies the provisions of Texas Civil Statutes, Articles
6053-4, enacted by House Bill 3194, 75th Legislature, Regular Session, 1997.
Texas Utilities Code, §§121.201 - 121.205 and 121.451 - 121.454,
and Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051 - 81.052 and 117.001
- 117.101, are affected by the new section.
Issued in Austin, Texas on February 8, 2000.
§3.106. Sour Gas Pipeline Facility Construction Permit.
(a)
Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
(1)
Affected person -- The owner or occupant of real property
located in the area of influence of the proposed route of a sour gas pipeline
facility. If the final proposed route of the pipeline is unknown at the time
of application, then an affected person is any person who owns or occupies
real property located within the area of influence associated with any possible
pipeline route identified by the applicant. For purposes of this definition,
the owner shall be the owner of record as of the final day to protest an application.
The occupant shall be the occupant as of the final day to protest an application.
(2)
Applicant -- A person who has filed an application
for a permit to construct a sour gas pipeline facility, or a representative
of that person.
(3)
Application -- Application for a Permit to Construct
a Sour Gas Pipeline Facility, and all required attachments.
(4)
Area of influence -- Area along a sour gas pipeline
facility represented by all possible areas of exposure using the 100 ppm radius.
(5)
Construction of a facility -- Any activity conducted
during the initial construction of a pipeline including the removal of earth,
vegetation, or obstructions along the proposed pipeline right-of-way. The
term does not include:
(A)
surveying or acquiring the right-of-way;
(B)
clearing the right-of-way with the consent of the owner;
(C)
repairing or maintaining an existing sour gas pipeline
facility; or
(D)
installing valves or meters or other devices or fabrications
on an existing pipeline if such devices or fabrication do not result in an
increase in the area of influence.
(6)
Extension of a sour gas pipeline facility --
An addition to an operating sour gas pipeline facility regardless of ownership
of the addition.
(7)
Nominal pipe size -- The industry convention for
naming pipe. Six inch nominal size pipe corresponds to pipe with an approximate
inner diameter of six inches. The actual inner diameter varies based on the
wall thickness of the pipe.
(8)
Person -- An individual, partnership, firm, corporation,
joint venture, trust, association, or any other business entity, a state agency
or institution, county, municipality, school district, or other governmental
subdivision.
(9)
Preliminary contingency plan -- A contingency plan
containing all of the elements required for a contingency plan under §3.36
of this title (relating to oil, gas, or geothermal resource operation in hydrogen
sulfide areas), except that:
(A)
the plan need not contain the list of names and telephone
numbers of residents within the area of influence if required under §3.36(c)(9)(I)
of this section. In lieu of this list of names and telephone numbers, the
plan shall contain a detailed explanation of the manner in which the names
and telephone numbers of residents within the area of influence will be compiled
prior to commencement of operations;
(B)
the plat detailing the area of influence may be:
(i)
the detailed plat required under §3.36(c)(9)(H);
(ii)
a plat containing the information required under §3.36(c)(9)(H),
that identifies residential, business, and industrial areas with an estimate
of the number of people that may be within any such areas; or
(iii)
one or more aerial photographs covering the area and
providing the information required under §3.36(c)(9)(H); and
(C)
a fixed pipeline route need not be specified in the preliminary
plan provided the preliminary plan identifies the boundaries of the area within
which the pipeline will be constructed and provided that all public notices
of the application required under this section note such boundaries and identify
the potential area of influence as the total area encompassed by the area
of influence associated with all possible pipeline routes.
(10)
Sour gas pipeline facility -- A pipeline and
ancillary equipment that:
(A)
contains a concentration of 100 parts per million or more
of hydrogen sulfide;
(B)
is located outside the tract of production; and
(C)
is subject to the requirements of §3.36 of this title.
(11)
Tract of production -- The surface area which
overlies the area encompassed by a mineral lease or unit from which oil, gas,
or other minerals are produced if such area is treated by the Oil and Gas
Division of the commission as a single tract.
(12)
100 ppm radius -- The 100 parts per million radius
of exposure as calculated in §3.36(c)(1)-(3) of this title (relating
to oil, gas, or geothermal resource operation in hydrogen sulfide areas) for
the sour gas pipeline facility.
(b)
Permit Required; Exceptions. No person may commence construction
of a facility within this State without a permit if the facility is initially
used as a sour gas pipeline facility except for the following:
(1)
an extension of an existing sour gas pipeline facility
that at the time of construction of the extension is in compliance with §3.36
of this title, (relating to oil, gas, or geothermal resource operation in
a hydrogen sulfide area) if:
(A)
the extension is not longer than five miles;
(B)
the nominal pipe size is not larger than six inches; and
(C)
the operator causes to be delivered to the Pipeline and
LP-Gas Safety Section, Gas Services Division, written notice of construction
of the extension not later than 24 hours before the start of construction;
(2)
a new gathering system that operates at a working
pressure of less than 50 pounds per square inch gauge;
(3)
an extension of a gathering system which operates
at a working pressure of less than 50 pounds per square inch gauge;
(4)
an interstate gas pipeline facility, as defined by
49 U.S.C. §60101, that is used for the transportation of sour gas; or
(5)
replacement of all or part of a sour gas pipeline
facility if the area of influence of the replaced portion of the facility
does not increase so as to include a public area, as defined in §3.36(b)(5)
of this title, not included in the area of influence of the portion of the
replaced sour gas pipeline facility.
(c)
Filing and Assignment of Docket Number. Upon filing of
an application with the Oil and Gas Division, staff will assign a docket number
to the application and will notify the applicant of the assigned docket number.
Staff will also assign and provide a docket number to a person who submits
a notice of intent to file an application.
(d)
Application. A complete application consists of:
(1)
a properly completed application Form PS-79, with the
original signature, in ink, of the applicant;
(2)
if applicant desires notification under subsection
(h)(1) by electronic mail, a written request for electronic mail notification
and the applicant's electronic mail address;
(3)
a plat which meets the requirements of subsection
(f)(4) of this section and identifies the boundaries of surveys and blocks
or sections as appropriate within the area of influence;
(4)
a copy of the applicant's Application for Permit
to Operate a Pipeline, Form T-4, if applicable, including all attachments;
and
(5)
a copy of the completed application for a Statewide
Rule 36 Certificate of Compliance, Form H-9, including any attachment required
under §3.36 of this title. A preliminary contingency plan may be filed
in lieu of a contingency plan if required under §3.36 of this title.
(e)
Notice.
(1)
For each county that contains all or part of the proposed
route of a sour gas pipeline facility, the applicant shall:
(A)
cause to be delivered to the county clerk no later than
the first date of publication in that county a copy of the items described
in subsection (d)(1)-(3) of this section;
(B)
publish notice of its application in a newspaper of general
circulation in each county that contains all or a portion of the route of
the proposed sour gas pipeline. Such notice shall meet the requirements of
subsection (f) of this section and be published in a section of the newspaper
containing news items of state or local interest.
(2)
Final action may not be taken on any application
under this section until proof of notice, evidenced as follows, is provided:
(A)
a return receipt from each county clerk with whom an application
form and plat is required to be filed pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection;
and
(B)
the full page or pages of the newspaper containing the
published notice required under paragraph (2) of this subsection including
the name of the paper, the date the notice was published, and the page number.
(f)
The published notice of application shall be at least
three inches by five inches in size, exclusive of the plat, and shall contain
the following:
(1)
the name, business address, and telephone number of the
applicant and of the applicant's authorized representative, if any;
(2)
a description of the geographic location of the sour
gas pipeline facility and the area of influence, to the extent not clearly
identified in the plat required to be published in subsection (f)(4) of this
section;
(3)
the following statement, completed as appropriate:
"This proposed pipeline facility will transport sour gas that contains 100
parts per million, or more, of hydrogen sulfide. A copy of application forms
and a map showing the location of the pipeline is available for public inspection
at the offices of the (insert County name) County Clerk, located at the following
address: (insert address of County Clerk). Any owner or occupant of land located
within the area of influence of the proposed sour gas pipeline facility desiring
to protest this application can do so by mailing or otherwise delivering a
letter referring to the application (by docket number if available) and stating
their desire to protest to: Docket Services, Office of General Counsel, Railroad
Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, Texas 78711-2967. Protests shall
be in writing received by Docket Services not later than (specify 30th day
after the first date notice of the application is to be published). The letter
shall include the name, address, and telephone number of every person on whose
behalf the protest is filed and shall state the reasons each such person believes
that he or she is the owner or occupant of property within the area of influence
of the proposed pipeline facility. It is recommended that a copy of this notice
be included with the letter."; and
(4)
a plat identifying:
(A)
the location of the pipeline facility;
(B)
area of influence;
(C)
north arrow;
(D)
scale;
(E)
geographic subdivisions appropriate for the scale; and
(F)
by inset or otherwise, landmarks or other features such
as roads and highways in relation to the proposed route of the sour gas pipeline
facility. These landmarks or other features shall be of sufficient detail
to allow a person to reasonably ascertain whether an owned or occupied property
that is within the area of influence of the proposed sour gas pipeline facility.
Examples of acceptable plats are included in this subsection.
Figure 1: 16 TAC §3.106(f)(4)(F)
Figure 2: 16 TAC §3.106(f)(4)(F)
(g)
Protests. Affected persons have standing to file a protest
to an application. In the event the final proposed pipeline route is not known
at the time of application, any person who owns or occupies real property
located within the area of influence identified in the application shall have
standing to file a protest to an application. All such protests shall:
(1)
be in writing and filed at the commission no later than
the 30th day after the notice is published in a newspaper in the county in
which the person filing the protest owns or occupies real property;
(2)
state the name, address, and telephone number of
every person on whose behalf the protest is being filed; and
(3)
include a statement of the facts on which the person
filing the protest relies to conclude that each person on whose behalf the
protest is being filed is an affected person, as defined in subsection (a)(1)
of this section.
(h)
Division Review.
(1)
Within 14 days of receipt of the application, the commission's
designee will provide notice to the applicant that the application is either
complete and accepted for filing, or incomplete and specify the additional
information required for acceptance. Such notice shall be provided in writing
by mail or by electronic mail if the applicant submits with the application
a written request that communications regarding application completeness or
deficiencies be communicated by electronic mail and provides an accurate electronic
mail address. The application shall be completed within 30 days of notification
that the application is incomplete or such longer time as may be requested
by the applicant, in writing, and approved by the commission's designee. If
the application is not completed within the specified time period, the commission's
designee shall send notice of intent to deny the application to the applicant.
Within ten days of issuance of a notice of intent to deny the application
for failure to complete the application, the applicant may request a hearing
on the application as it exists at that time. If a request for hearing is
not filed within ten days of issuance of a notice of intent to deny the application
for failure to complete the application, the application shall be dismissed
without prejudice by the commission's designee.
(2)
The commission's designee shall make a written recommendation
as to whether the materials to be used in and method of construction and operation
of a proposed sour gas pipeline facility comply with the rules and safety
standards of the commission if the application is not protested, by the latter
of the 14th day after the end of the 30-day protest period or the 14th day
after the day notice of a complete application is issued.
(3)
If, pursuant to subsection (i) of this section, a
hearing is held, the staff may introduce evidence relating to the materials
to be used in and method of construction and operation of a proposed sour
gas pipeline facility.
(4)
In determining whether or not the materials to be
used in and method of construction and operation of a proposed sour gas pipeline
facility comply with the rules and safety standards of the commission, relevant
provisions of §3.36 and §3.65 of this title (relating to oil, gas,
or geothermal resource operation in hydrogen sulfide areas, and pipeline permits
required, respectively) shall be considered. If applicable, §§7.70
- 7.73 of this title (relating to natural gas pipeline safety rules) and §§7.80
- 7.87 of this title (relating to hazardous liquids pipeline safety rules)
shall also be considered.
(5)
If no affected person files a protest with the commission
by the 30th day after the date notice of application was published, the commission's
designee shall either make a written recommendation that the permit be issued,
that the permit be granted subject to specific conditions required to ensure
compliance with applicable laws and regulations, or that the permit be denied.
If the commission's designee recommends that the permit be conditionally granted
or be denied, the reasons for such recommendation shall be explained. If the
commission's designee recommends that the application be conditionally granted
or be denied, the applicant shall have a right to a hearing upon written request
received no later than 15 days after the date of issuance of notice of conditional
grant or denial.
(i)
Hearing.
(1)
A hearing shall be convened to consider an application
for a sour gas pipeline construction permit if:
(A)
a protest is timely filed by an affected person;
(B)
a request is timely filed by the applicant; or
(C)
the commission so elects on its own motion.
(2)
The Office of General Counsel shall assign an
examiner who shall conduct a hearing in accordance with the procedural requirements
of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001 (the Administrative Procedure Act),
and Chapter 1 of this title (relating to the general rules of practice and
procedure).
(3)
The commission shall convene a hearing not later
than the 60th day after a protest is filed, the applicant submits a request
for hearing, or the commission gives notice of intent to convene a hearing
on its own motion. If the application is not complete as of the date the request
for hearing is filed or notice of hearing issued, the 60-day time period for
convening a hearing shall not begin to run until such time as notice of a
complete application is issued unless the hearing is held pursuant to the
provisions of subsection (h)(1). If the hearing is held pursuant to the provisions
of subsection (h)(1), the hearing will be held within 60 days of receipt of
a request for hearing.
(4)
In any hearing convened to consider an application,
the applicant has the burden of showing that the materials to be used in and
method of construction and operation comply with the applicable rules and
safety standards adopted by the commission.
(j)
Order.
(1)
An order approving an application shall include a finding
that the materials to be used in and method of construction and operation
of the facility comply with the applicable rules and safety standards adopted
by the commission. If an application meets all the requirements of §3.65
of this title, relating to pipeline permits required, including the requirements
of §3.36 of this title, relating to oil, gas, or geothermal resource
operation in hydrogen sulfide areas, the order may approve the certificate
of compliance (Form H-9) or grant the pipeline permit or both. The order shall
also grant the permit required under §3.65 of this title (Statewide Rule
70, relating to pipeline permits required).
(2)
An order denying an application shall state the reason
or reasons for the denial.
(3)
In the case of an application for which a hearing
is conducted, the commission will render a decision not later than the 60th
day after the date on which the hearing is finally closed.
(4)
If no hearing is held on an application, the commission
will render a decision as soon as practicable but not later than the 60th
day after the staff prepares its written recommendation in accordance with
subsection (h)(2) and (4).
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority
to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State, on February 10, 2000.
TRD-200001062
Mary Ross McDonald
Deputy General Counsel
Railroad Commission of Texas
Earliest possible date of adoption: March 26, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1295
Chapter 65.
BOILER DIVISION
16 TAC §65.80
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation proposes
an amendment to §65.80 concerning the Boiler Division program.
The amendment to §65.80 proposes to raise the inspection fees for
heating boilers for those without a manhole from $80 to $85 and those with
a manhole from $110 to $115. The fee rate stated herein was set by the Texas
Department of Licensing and Regulation Commission, and not mandated by the
Legislature. The Department is required to structure fees for each statute
to pay for its own regulation and the fees currently in place are below the
amount to cover costs. Without the increase it could adversely affect the
administration and enforcement of the Boiler Division program.
George Ferrie, Director, Code Review and Inspection, has determined that
for the first five-year period the section is in effect there will be fiscal
implications for state or local government at $5.00 per inspection per year
if such inspection is required.
Mr. Ferrie also has determined that for each year of the first five years
the section is in effect the public at large benefits because the boiler inspection
program will be financed through inspection fees. The anticipated economic
effect on small businesses and persons who are required to comply with this
section as proposed will be $5.00 per inspection per year.
Comments on the proposal may be submitted to George Ferrie, Director, Code
Review and Inspection, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, P.O.
Box 12157, Austin, Texas, 78711 or facsimile (512) 463-1376, or electronically:
george.ferrie@license.state.tx.us. The deadline for comments is 30 days after
publication in the
Texas Register
.
The amendment is proposed under Texas Health and Safety Code
Annotated, Chapter 755 (Vernon 1999) which authorizes the Texas Department
of Licensing and Regulation to promulgate and enforce a code of rules and
take all action necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose
of the Code.
The amendment affects Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, Chapter 755
(Vernon 1999) and the Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 51 (Vernon 1999).
§65.80.Fees.
(a)
Certificate/inspection fees.
(1)
Inspection by authorized inspector. The owner or operator
or his/her agent shall make a $45 payment for the certificate of operation
fee.
(2)
Inspection by deputy inspector. The owner or operator
shall make payment of the appropriate fee as shown below.
(A)
The inspection fees for all boilers other than heating
boilers shall be $115.
(B)
The inspection fees for heating boilers shall be:
(i)
those without a manhole--
$85
[
(ii)
those with a manhole--
$115
[
(3)
All fees must be paid in full to the Texas
Department of Licensing and Regulation, P. O. Box 12157, Austin, Texas 78711
before a certificate of operation will be issued.
(b)-(e)
(No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State, on February 14, 2000.
TRD-200001084
William H. Kuntz, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Earliest possible date of adoption: March 26, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7348
16 TAC §68.80
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation proposes
amendments to §68.80 concerning the Architectural Barriers program.
The amendment to §68.80 proposes to increase the fees for reviews,
inspections, plan reviews, and contract provider fees as shown on the proposed
fee schedule by increasing the review fees in increments of $100 and the inspection
fees are increased in increments of $100 - $250. The contract provider project
filing fee has been increased from $50 to $75. When the estimated construction
cost is less than $50,000 and a review, inspection or both are requested the
plan review fee is increased from $75 to $200 and the inspection fee is increased
from $85 to $200. Two new fees have been proposed. The Technical Deviations-Built
condition fee is proposed at $200 for each item and a replacement certificate
fee is proposed at $25 each.
The fee rate stated herein was set by the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation Commission, and not mandated by the Legislature. The Department
is required to structure fees for each statute to pay for its own regulation
and the fees currently in place are below the amount required by the Department
to cover costs. The justification for adding the new fees is to provide the
required administration of the statute to enable citizens with disabilities
access to buildings. Without the increase it could adversely affect the administration
and enforcement of the Architectural Barriers program.
George Ferrie, Director of Code Review and Inspections, has determined
that for each year of the first five years the section is in effect there
may be some fiscal implications for state and local government. The fiscal
implications would result from the increase in fees in instances where the
government entity pays these fees rather than the design professional.
Mr. Ferrie has also determined that for each year of the first five years
the section is in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing
the section will be greater access to buildings for citizens with disabilities.
There may be some cost of compliance for small businesses or individuals as
the result of fee increases ranging from $100 to $250 for reviews, inspections,
variances, plan reviews, and contract provider fees.
Comments on the proposal may be submitted to George Ferrie, Director of
Code Review and Inspections, P.O. Box 12157, Austin, Texas, 78711 or facsimile
(512) 463-1376 or electronically: george.ferrie@license.state.tx.us. The deadline
for comments is 30 days after publication in the
Texas Register
.
The amendments are proposed under Texas Revised Civil Statutes
Annotated, article 9102 (Vernon 1999) which authorizes the Texas Commission
of Licensing and Regulation to promulgate and enforce a code of rules and
take all action necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose
of the Act.
The amendment affects Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated, article 9102
(Vernon 1999) and the Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 51 (Vernon 1999).
§68.80.Fees.
(a)
(No change.)
(b)
Fee Schedule:
Figure: 16 TAC §68.80(b)
(c)
When the estimated construction cost is less than $50,000
and a review, inspection or both are requested, a
$200
[
(d)-(g)
(No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State, on February 8, 2000.
TRD-200000979
William H. Kuntz, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Earliest possible date of adoption: March 26, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7348
periodic
] well tests [
conducted
at the intervals provided in this section
] will accurately attribute
to each interest its fair share of production without harm to correlative
rights. As used in this section, "daily production rate" for a well means
the 24 hour production rate determined by the most recent well test conducted
and reported to the commission in accordance with Statewide Rules 28, 52,
53, and 55 (§§3.28, 3.52, 3.53, and 3.55 of this title (relating
to Potential and Deliverability of Gas Wells Go Be Ascertained and Reported,
Oil Well Allowable Production, Well Status Reports Required, and Reports of
Gas Wells Commingling Liquid Hydrocarbons before Metering)).
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
An applicant may test less frequently than the applicable minimum
frequencies set out in subparagraph (A)(ii) and (iii) of this paragraph with
the written consent of all royalty and working interest owners.
] Allocation
of commingled production shall not be based on well tests conducted less frequently
than annually.
minimums
] set out in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. Additional
tests used for allocation do not have to be filed with the commission but
must be available for inspection at the request of the commission, working
interest owners or royalty interest owners.
Part 4.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION
$80
];
and
$110
].
Chapter 68.
ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS
$75
] plan review fee and an
$200
[
$85
] inspection
fee shall be paid.
Chapter 75.
AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION CONTRACTOR LICENSE LAW