TITLE in-addition

Texas Bond Review Board

Biweekly Report of the 2001 Private Activity Bond Allocation Program

The information that follows is a report of the 2001 Private Activity Bond Allocation Program for the period of April 28, 2001 through May 11, 2001.

Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $325,809,688 subceiling for qualified mortgage bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $112,841,994.50

Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $143,356,262 subceiling for state-voted issue bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $143,356,262

Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $97,742,906 subceiling for qualified small issue bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $94,742,906

Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $215,034,394 subceiling for residential rental project bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $17,239,394

Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $136,840,069 subceiling for student loans bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $31,840,069

Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $384,455,431 subceiling for all other issue bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $23,855,431

Total amount of the $1,303,238,750 state ceiling remaining unreserved under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $421,849,056.50

Following is a comprehensive listing of applications, which have received a Certificate of Reservation pursuant to the Act from April 28, 2001 through May 11, 2001:

1) Issuer: Austin HFC

User: TWC Housing, LLC

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Blunn Creek Apts.

Amount: $15,000,000

2) Issuer: TDHCA

User: Quebec One Apartments LP

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Quebec One Apts.

Amount: $11,500,000

3) Issuer: Houston HFC

User: MV2000, Ltd

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Maxey Village Apts.

Amount: $8,800,000

4) Issuer: Hillsboro IDC

User: L. B. Foster Co.

Description: Small Issue IDB

Amount: $2,000,000

5) Issuer: Harris County IDC

User: Deer Park Refining LP

Description: All Other Issue--Deer Park, Texas

Amount: $25,000,000

Following is a comprehensive listing of applications, which have issued and delivered the bonds and received a Certificate of Allocation pursuant to the Act from April 28, 2001 through May 11, 2001:

1) Issuer: Housing Option, Inc.

User: Roseland Fellowship, LP

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Roseland Gardens

Amount: $6,425,000

2) Issuer: Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority

User: Republic Waste Services of Texas Ltd

Description: All Other Issue--League City, Texas

Amount: $3,500,000

3) Issuer: Colorado River Municipal Water District

User: Republic Waste Services of Texas Ltd

Description: All Other Issue--Odessa, Texas

Amount: $4,000,000

4) Issuer: Trinity River Authority

User: Community Waste Disposal, Inc.

Description: All Other Issue--Dallas, Texas

Amount: $20,000,000

5) Issuer: Port Arthur Navigation District IDC

User: Air Products and Chemical, Inc.

Description: All Other Issue--Port Arthur, Texas

Amount: $25,000,000

6) Issuer: Calhoun County Navigation District

User: Formosa Plastics Corp.

Description: All Other Issue--Point Comfort, Texas

Amount: $25,000,000

7) Issuer: Houston HFC

User: Houston Bellfort Pines Apts.

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bellfort Pines Apts.

Amount: $10,000,000

8) Issuer: Panhandle-Plains Higher Education Authority, Inc.

User: Eligible Borrowers

Description: Student Loan Bonds

Amount: $35,000,000

9) Issuer: Montgomery County HFC

User: Montgomery Trace Apts.

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Montgomery Trace Apts.

Amount: $7,500,000

10) Issuer: TDHCA

User: Knollwood Villas

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Knollwood Villas

Amount: $13,750,000

11) Issuer: TDHCA

User: Texas Bluffview Housing

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bluffview Senior Apts.

Amount: $10,700,000

12) Issuer: Brazos River Harbor Navigation District of Brazoria County, Texas

User: The Dow Chemical Co.

Description: All Other Issue--Freeport, Texas

Amount: $25,000,000

13) Issuer: North Central Texas HFC

User: One Bent Tree Ltd

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bent Tree Town Homes

Amount: $12,400,000

14) Issuer: North Central Texas HFC

User: Ranch View Ltd

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Ranch View Town Homes

Amount: $12,000,000

15) Issuer: North Central Texas HFC

User: Silverton Ltd

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Silverton Town Homes

Amount: $12,400,000

16) Issuer: Harris County IDC

User: L. Bentley Sanford Investments

Description: Small Issue IDB

Amount: $3,000,000

17) Issuer: South Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.

User: Eligible Borrowers

Description: Student Loan Bonds

Amount: $35,000,000

18) Issuer: Brazos River Harbor Navigation District of Brazoria County, Texas

User: BASF Corp.

Description: All Other Issue--Freeport, Texas

Amount: $25,000,000

Following is a comprehensive listing of applications, which were either withdrawn or cancelled pursuant to the Act from April 28, 2001 through May 11, 2001:

1) Issuer: TDHCA

User: Texas Bluffview Villas

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bluffview Villas

Amount: $14,100,000

2) Issuer: TDHCA

User: Mesquite Affordable Housing

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Oakwood Village

Amount: $10,600,000

3) Issuer: Bexar County HFC

User: MAGI Management

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Swan's Landing

Amount: $8,700,000

4) Issuer: Port Arthur Navigation District IDC

User: The Premcor Refining Group Inc.

Description: All Other Issue--Port Arthur, Texas

Amount: $25,000,000

5) Issuer: Travis County HFC

User: Stonebridge Park

Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Stonebridge Apts.

Amount: $15,000,000

For a more comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the 2001 Private Activity Bond Allocation Program, please visit the website (www.brb.state.tx.us). If you have any questions or comments, please contact Steve Alvarez, Program Administrator, at (512) 475-4803 or via email at alvarez@brb.state.tx.us.

TRD-200103007

Steve Alvarez

Program Administrator

Texas Bond Review Board

Filed: May 29, 2001


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. As required by federal law, the public is given an opportunity to comment on the consistency of proposed activities in the coastal zone undertaken or authorized by federal agencies. Pursuant to 31 TAC §§506.25, 506.32, and 506.41, the public comment period for these activities extends 30 days from the date published on the Coastal Coordination Council web site. Requests for federal consistency review were received for the following project(s) during the period of May 3, 2001, through May 25, 2001. The public comment period for these projects will close at 5:00 p.m. on June 11, 2001.

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS

Applicant: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Location: The project is located in Dana Cove, West Galveston Bay, near Pirates Cove, Galveston County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Lake Como, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 309169; Northing: 323339. CCC Project No.: 01-0135-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to create a continuous marsh island directly behind the easternmost geotube (Geotube E) using material that was to be deposited to create 20, 130-foot diameter marsh islands under the original permit. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Vopak Terminal Deer Park, Inc.; Location: The project is located on the Houston Ship Channel at 2759 Battleground Road, Deer Park, Harris County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled La Porte, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 297266; Northing: 329475. CCC Project No.: 01-0148-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to increase the current dredge depth of -43 feet MLT to -46 feet MLT to allow access of deep-draft vessels. The proposed work will be done via hydraulic dredge and will yield approximately 104,000 cubic yards of material. The dredged material will be placed in San Jacinto Marsh, Lost Lake, Peggy Lake or Alexander Island, as ordered by the Port of Houston Authority. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Applicant: Terramar Beach Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Location: The project is located on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the southeast end of Terramar Road, approximately 14 miles southwest of the southern end of the Galveston Seawall on Galveston Island in Galveston County, Texas. The project extends in both directions from the beach access road. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Sea Isle, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting 299923; Northing: 3223890. CCC Project No.: 01-0155-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to place 26,000 cubic yards of beach-quality sand seaward of the established vegetation to restore shoreline eroded by a tropical storm. The beach placement area (PA) would be approximately 2,850 feet long by 40 feet to 80 feet wide (5.23 acres) with a landward height limit of 4 feet. The sand source for this proposal will be obtained by maintenance dredging within existing bayside channels located pursuant to Department of the Army (DOA) determinations and permits: Spanish Grant (D-11062), Sea Isle (application D-12158, under evaluation), Isla del Sol (D-11223), and Terramar (DOA Permit 11899(05)) subdivisions on Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. Sand would be placed in an upland dredged material placement area, dewatered, and then trucked to the proposed beach PA. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Mr. M. J. Braxton; Location: The project site is located approximately 15 miles west of Port Arthur and 1 mile north of State Highway 73, between the entrance road to the Port Arthur Country Club and Taylors Bayou, in Jefferson County, Texas. The Neches River Cypress Swamp Preserve is located east of State Highway 69 and west of the Neches River, in north Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. CCC Project No.: 01-0162-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant wishes to amend a previously authorized canal 75 feet to the west; to fill wetlands for homes instead of excavating for a canal; and to relocate a proposed wastewater treatment plant. This will cause an increase of 0.97 acres of impact. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Glynn D. Morgan; Location: The project is located adjacent to Sabine Lake, at Lot Number 11 of the Lafitte's Landing Subdivision, Phase II, on Pleasure Island, in Jefferson County, Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Port Arthur South, Texas-Louisiana. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 409000; Northing 329600. CCC Project No.: 01-0163-F1; Description of Proposed Action: This is a revision to #00-086-F1. The applicant wishes to modify the original permit to retain 0.11 acres of fill instead of the original 0.31 acres of fill placed in wetlands without a permit. The applicant also wishes to modify the original request to delete the 2,381-square-foot concrete walkway and pull the fill material back 20 feet. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.; Location: The project is located at the junction of the La Quinta Channel and Jewel Fulton Canal in Ingleside, San Patricio County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Port Ingleside, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14, Easting: 674000; Northing 3082000. CCC Project No.: 01-0165-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to construct a marine fabrication yard used to build large offshore drilling rigs. The project includes dredging, bulkheading, and filling of the project site to allow deep-draft vessel access to the site and a lay-down or work area on the applicant's property. The project includes 54.4 acres of dredging of a combination of shallow and deep water areas, filling of approximately 9.3 acres of jurisdictional areas (including wetlands, shallow and deep water habitats), and constructing approximately 3,600 feet of bulkhead along the La Quinta channel shoreline, and 1,600 feet of bulkhead along the Fulton Canal shoreline. The project also includes a trestle, or dock facility, used to load and unload equipment at the site. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Cowboy Pipeline Service Company; Location: The project is located in the western portion of Galveston Bay, Galveston County, Texas. The project originates in the Upper San Jacinto Bay, Texas, and Bayport, Texas, areas and terminates in Texas City, Texas, and traverses Harris, Chambers, and Galveston counties, Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled La Porte, Bacliff, League City, Texas City, and Virginia Point, Texas. Approximate center of pipeline UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 311953; Northing 3271195. CCC Project No.: 01-0166-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install two 10.75-inch pipelines. The first pipeline would originate from Millenium Petro Chemicals in La Porte, Texas, and terminate at Sterling Chemicals. The second pipeline would originate at Celanese Chemical Bayport Terminal in Houston, Texas, join the first pipeline in Galveston Bay near a point due east of Seabrook, and share the same trench until terminating at Valero Refining Company.

Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Bermuda Beach Improvement Committee; Location: The project is located on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the southeast end of Bermuda Beach Drive, approximately 4 miles southwest of the southwestern end of the Galveston Seawall, on Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. The project extends in both directions from the beach access road. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Lake Como, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 312908; Northing 3232485. CCC Project No.: 01-0168-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to place 28,500 cubic yards of beach-quality sand seaward of the established vegetation to restore erosion resulting from a tropical storm. The beach placement area (PA) would be approximately 3,100 feet long by 40 feet to 80 feet wide (5.7 acres) with a landward height limit of 4 feet. The sand for this proposal will be obtained by maintenance dredging within existing bayside channels located pursuant to the following Department of the Army (DOA) determinations and permits: Spanish Grant (D-11062), Sea Isle (application D-12158, under evaluation), Isla del Sol (D-11223), and Terramar (DOA Permit 11899(05)) subdivisions on Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. Sand would be placed in an upland dredged material placement area, dewatered, and then trucked to the proposed beach PA. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Spanish Grant Civic Association; Location: The project is located on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the southeast end of Spanish Grant Boulevard approximately 2 miles southwest of the southern end of the Galveston Seawall, on Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Lake Como, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 314289; Northing: 3233339. CCC Project No.: 01-0169-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to place 16,000 cubic yards of beach-quality sand seaward of the established vegetation to restore erosion resulting from a tropical storm. The beach placement area (PA) would be approximately 1,720 feet long by 40 feet to 80 feet wide (3.1 acres) with a landward height limit of 4 feet. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Trans Texas Gas Corporation; Location: The project is located in wetlands in the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), approximately 4 to 4.5 miles south of the intersection of the refuge road and FM 1985, in Anahuac, Chambers County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled High Island, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 360800; Northing: 3277400. CCC Project No.: 01-0173-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant is proposing to fill approximately 2.6 acres of wetlands to construct two well pads, each 300 by 300 feet, for the purpose of exploration and development of oil and gas. Existing roads will be used to access both pads. Well pad 8/9 will require filling approximately 1.2 acres of wetlands, and well pad 10 will require filling of approximately 1.4 acres of wetlands, for a total of 2.6 acres of wetlands. To compensate for unavoidable impacts, the applicant proposes to restore 15.5 acres of wetland by removing an abandoned canal system and enhancing freshwater conditions in an a additional 500 acres located adjacent and north of two large reservoirs of the East Unit of Anahuac NWR west of Onion Bayou. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Vintage Petroleum; Location: The project site is located in Trinity Bay, Chambers County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Umbrella Point, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 328611; Northing: 3279549. CCC Project No.: 01-0174-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install a drilling barge, a 270-foot-long by 100-foot-wide shell pad, a 4.5-inch diameter flowline, and appurtenant structures in State Tract 57 under Oil Field Development Permit 09161(16). The proposed shell pad will be installed in State Tract 57 for the purpose of drilling and producing Well No. 1. The proposed 4.5-inch diameter flowline will be 150 feet long, originating from Well No. 1 in State Tract 57, and terminating at the proposed 50-foot platform in State Tract 57. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Matagorda County Palacios Seawall Commission; Location: The project site is located in Tres Palacios Bay on South Bay Boulevard, Matagorda County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Palacios, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 772120; Northing: 3177440. CCC Project No.: 01-0175-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to reconstruct a public access fishing pier called "Pavilion Pier" and to reconfigure the T-head on the pier. The purpose of the project is to rebuild the end of the pier, which is in disrepair, and to accommodate patrons in wheelchairs. The existing pier is 26,085 square feet, and the reconstructed pier would be 27,130 square feet, for an increase of 1,045 square feet. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Applicant: Pirates Landing Fishing Pier; Location: The project is located at 202 North Garcia Street in Port Isabel, Cameron County, Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Port Isabel, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 679500; Northing: 28855. CCC Project No.: 01-0176-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to amend permit 19334(02) to add dock and mooring structures to an existing fishing pier in the Laguna Madre. The purpose of the dock is to provide an area for boaters to tie up small boats while they purchase bait or visit the restaurant. The proposed wooden dock would be 4 feet wide by 60 feet long and would be located perpendicular to the south side of the existing pier. The applicant also proposes to construct three mooring structures to the west of the proposed dock. The structures would be located approximately 24 feet from the proposed dock and consist of one single-pile and two 3-pile clusters. The water depth at the proposed dock would be -9.5 feet mean high tide. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Applicant: Department of the Navy; Location: The project site is located within a 10-mile (16-km) commute of the Corpus Christi Naval Airstation in Ingleside, Texas. CCC Project No.: 01-0177-F2; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to build military housing for trainees and their families. It will be compliant with local, state and federal environmental laws, codes and regulations. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Location: The project is located in the Gulf of Mexico. CCC Project No.: 01-0180-F2; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to institute a 31-year rebuilding plan for red snapper with 5-year interim management goals. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 307 of the Coastal Management Act of 1972, as amended.

Applicant: DSND-Horizon, LLC; Location: The project is located on the right descending bank of the Sabine-Neches Waterway, above Sabine Lake. The site is approximately one-half mile downstream of the intersection of the Neches River, Sabine-Neches Waterway, and Intracostal Canal (USACE Station 540 + 00), at 8200 Yacht Club Road, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled West of Greens Bayou, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 416844; Northing: 3314111. CCC Project No.: 01-0184-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to revise their proposed Amendment (01) to Department of the Army (DA) Permit 21750. DA Permit 21750 authorized the construction of a 428-foot finger dock and mooring area, including breasting structures, mooring structures, and associated access structures. It also authorized the initial dredging of a 145,000-square foot area (approximately 115,00 cubic yards), and maintenance dredging after the facility was constructed, with dredged materials to be placed on an upland portion of the permittee's property or in Corps of Engineers Disposal Areas 13, 14, 15, or 16. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Port of Corpus Christi; Location: The project is located near the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on the south shoreline of Harbor Island, approximately 0.4 miles west of State Highway 361 Ferry Landing, in Port Aransas, Nueces County, Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Port Aransas, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 689500; Northing: 3081200. CCC Project No.: 01-0185-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to hydraulically and/or mechanically maintenance dredge up to 4,000 cubic yards of sand from a boat basin authorized by Department of the Army Permit 16344, and to use the sand as fill for shoreline protection activities. Two options are being proposed to protect an 800-foot-long section of shoreline south of an existing, leveed, dredged material placement area (PA), and west of an industrial harbor. The first proposed option is placement of a 12-foot-wide by 5-foot-high geotube, which would be filled and backfilled with sand dredged from the boat basin. The second proposed option is construction of a rock revetment over sand dredged from the boat basin. Approximately 0.2 acre of shallow, unvegetated waters would be filled. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct a 500-foot-long by 68 (maximum)-foot-wide groin extending from an existing bulkhead to within approximately 500 feet of the edge of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The project purpose is to stabilize the high-energy shoreline to protect harbor facilities and the PA levee. The project is targeted by the Texas General Land Office for funding under the recently passed Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act (CEPRA). Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Applicant: Orange County Airport Location: The project is located at 2520 South Highway 87, two miles southeast of Orange, in Orange County County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Beaumont East, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 422000; Northing: 3327000. CCC Project No.: 01-0186-F1 Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to fill and/or grade approximately 6 acres of wetland habitat for the purpose of extending an existing runway and parallel taxiway. A total of 4.2 acres of wetlands will be filled to provide surface for the runway. The remaining 1.8 acres will be cleared of all vegetation as per Federal Aviation guidelines. The applicant proposes to construct lateral drainage ditches and a 300-foot-long runway safety area at the end of the proposed runway. Approximately 2,248 cubic yards of material will be placed into 4.2 acres of wetlands for the proposed runway construction. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists primarily of soft rush (Juncus effusus), vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), Souther carpet grass (Axonopus affinis), erect coinleaf (Centella erecta), and Southern dewberry (Rubus trivalis). To compensate for direct impacts to 4.2 acres of wetland habitat, and indirect impacts to an addition 1.8 acres of wetlands, the applicant proposes to purchase 18 acre-credits from the Texas Department of Transportation Blue Elbow Swamp Mitigation Bank. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Main Energy, Inc.; Location: The project is located in the Matagorda Bay in State Tract 194 and State Tract 199, approximately 10.5 miles southwest of Palacios, Matagorda County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Carancahua Pass, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 765861.61; Northing: 3162794.93 at the beginning point and Zone 14; Easting: 764701.20; Northing: 3162619.71 at the end point. CCC Project No.: 01-0187-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to lay, bury and maintain a 2-1/2 inch flowline from the existing producing well #1 in State Tract 199 to the existing production facilities in State Tract 194. The total length of the flowline will be 3,848.30 feet. The flowline will be buried a minimum of 3 feet deep. Approximately 900 cubic yards of mud and silt will be displaced in the process. The purpose of the project is to transfer production of oil and or gas from the producing well to the production facilities. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Main Energy, Inc.; Location: The project is located in Matagorda Bay in State Tract 295, State Tract 304 N/2 and State Tract 303 S/2, approximately 8 miles southwest of Palacios, Matagorda County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Carancahua, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 766517.16; Northing: 31666786.04 at the beginning point and Zone 14; Easting: 768085.16; Northing: 3168540.55 at the end point. CCC Project No.: 01-0188-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to lay, bury and maintain a 2-1/2 inch flowline from the existing producing well in State Tract 295 to the existing production facilities in State Tract 303. The total length of the flowline will be 3,245.49 feet. The flowline will be buried a minimum of 3 feet deep. Approximately 1,810 cubic yards of mud and silt will be displaced in the process. The purpose of the project is to transfer production of oil and/or gas from the producing well to the production facilities. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Davis Petroleum Corporation; Location: The project is located in the Gulf of Mexico, near Padre Island, south of Corpus Christi, Texas. The project area includes State Tract 922S-925S, and 928S. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Crane Island, S.W., Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 67600; Northing: 3047000. CCC Project No.: 01-0189-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install, operate, and maintain structures and equipment necessary for oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation activities within the state tracts listed above. Such activities include installation of typical marine barges and keyways, production structures with attendant facilities, and flowlines. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Orange County Water Control and Improvement District, #1; Location: The project is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10, from Ten Mile Bayou, crossing Ross Ridge, to an existing ditch ending at the Sewage Disposal Plant, in Vidor, Orange County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Pine Forest, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 398516; Northing: 3340689. CCC Project No.: 01-0190-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to excavate a channel approximately 5,300 linear feet in length to 15 feet deep with a 30-foot bottom width, and a 75-foot top width. The excavation will impact an area of 397,500 square feet. A volume of 29.2 cubic yards per linear foot will be cast on the south side of the ditch creating a 13-foot-high levee with a roadway. The excavation of the ditch will require the use of a dragline, clamshell and bulldozer. The levee base will measure approximately 89 feet wide by 5,300 linear feet long. An area of 471,000 square feet will be impacted by the levee. The proposed project will impact an estimated 20 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The purpose of the proposed project is to construct an outfall ditch from Ten Mile Bayou east to an existing drainage ditch to provide an effluent canal for the local drainage in Vidor and to provide the wastewater treatment plant effluent through the adjacent marsh area to an outlet into Ten Mile Bayou. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: Charles Gremminger; Location: The project is located on San Antonio Bay at Lots 38 and 39, Block B of the Swanpoint Subdivision. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Seadrift, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 725079; Northing: 3141899. CCC Project No.: 01-0191-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to construct a 325-foot-long by 4-foot-wide pier with a 10-foot-long by 30-foot-wide L-head and a 25-foot-long by 4-foot-wide wing pier. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Applicant: Vintage Petroleum, Inc.; Location: The project is located in State Tract 64, in Trinity Bay, Chambers County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Umbrella Point, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 327500; Northing: 3278700. CCC Project No.: 01-0193-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to drill their No. 1 well in State Tract 64. A total of ten 10-pile clusters, 80 feet in diameter, would be installed to support a 230-foot-long by 60-foot-wide drilling barge. If fill material is necessary, the pad size and height would depend on bottom conditions. To accommodate the drilling barge, approximately 4,800 cubic yards of shell, crushed rock, or washed gravel would be needed. Water depth at the proposed fill site is approximately -16 feet mean low water. These activities would be performed under Oilfield Development Permit 90161(16). Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Applicant: St. Mary Energy Company; Location: The project is located southeast of the town of Seadrift, Calhoun County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Seadrift, Texas and Mosquito Point, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 728167; Northing: 3141045. CCC Project No.: 01-0196-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install, operate, and maintain two well pads and attendant structures and equipment necessary for oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation activities, with attendant facilities and flowlines. The project would result in the temporary impact of 5.315 acres of wetlands, and the permanent impact of 2.6 acres of wetlands. The applicant will use board roads as temporary access roads, and replace these roads with permanent roads if the exploration operations are successful. The applicant would remove the temporary drilling structures and reduce the footprint of the wells. The applicant proposes to restore and revegetate these areas of temporary impact. In addition, the applicant proposes to compensate for the permanent loss of wetlands by in-lieu fee mitigation. The applicant would supply funds to the Nature Conservancy to purchase 26 acres of salt marsh wetlands near the project area. This property has been identified a potential critical habitat for whooping cranes. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

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. Diane P. Garcia, Council Secretary, Coastal Coordination Council, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Room 617, Austin, Texas 78701-1495, or diane.garcia@glo.state.tx.us. Comments should be sent to Ms. Garcia at the above address or by fax at (512) 475-0680.

TRD-200103033

Larry R. Soward

Chief Clerk, General Land Office

Coastal Coordination Council

Filed: May 30, 2001


Comptroller of Public Accounts

Notice of Award

Notice of Award: Pursuant to Chapters 403, 2305 and 2156, and Sections 2156.121 and 2156.122, Texas Government Code, the Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) announces this notice of contract award.

The notice of request for proposals (RFP #116b) was published in the November 17, 2000, issue of the Texas Register (25 TexReg 11556).

The contractor will assist Comptroller in designing and installing small scale (2kW) solar energy systems in selected Texas Independent School Districts.

The contract was awarded to: CSGServices, Inc., 1515 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 210, Austin, Texas 78746. The total amount is not to exceed $200,000.00. The term of the contract is May 15, 2001 through May 15, 2002.

TRD-200102981

Pamela Ponder

Deputy General Counsel for Contracts

Comptroller of Public Accounts

Filed: May 25, 2001


Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

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 Sections 303.003, 303.005, 303.008, 303.009, 304.003, and 346.101. Tex. Fin. Code.

The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.003 and 303.009 for the period of 06/04/01 - 06/10/01 is 18% for Consumer 1 /Agricultural/Commercial2 /credit thru $250,000.

The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.003 and 303.009 for the period of 06/04/01 - 06/10/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.

The monthly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.005 and 303.009 3 for the period of 06/01/01 - 06/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The monthly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.005 and 303.009 for the period of 06/01/01 - 06/30/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.

The standard quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The standard quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.

The retail credit card quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.009 1 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The lender credit card quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 346.101 Tex. Fin. Code 1 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The standard annual rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 4 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The standard annual rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.

The retail credit card annual rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.009 1 for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The judgment ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 304.003 for the period of 06/01/01 - 06/30/01 is 10% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.

The judgment ceiling as prescribed Sec. 304.003 for the period of 06/01/01 - 06/30/01 is 10% for Commercial over $250,000.

1 Credit for personal, family or household use.

2 Credit for business, commercial, investment or other similar purpose.

3 For variable rate commercial transactions only.

4 Only for open-end credit as defined in Sec. 301.002(14), Tex. Fin. Code.

TRD-200103028

Leslie L. Pettijohn

Commissioner

Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Filed: May 30, 2001


Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Notice to Bidders

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice invites bids for a project which consists of the removal of the existing roof system, insulation and, membrane, and installation of new insulation, and 4-ply asphalt and gravel roof systems. Include all labor and materials, services, equipment, and appliances required in conjunction with the re-roofing of the ER & Chapel Buildings at the Gatesville unit, Riverside location, 1401 States School Rd, Gatesville, Texas 76599. The work includes roofing construction as further shown in the Contract Documents prepared by Amtech Roofing Consultants Inc.

The successful bidder will be required to meet the following requirements and submit evidence within five days after receiving notice of intent to award from the Owner:

A. Contractor must have a minimum of five years consecutive years of experience as a Roofing Contractor and provide references for at least three projects that have been completed of a dollar value and complexity equal to or greater than the proposed project.

B. Contractor must be bondable and insurable at the levels required.

All Bid Proposals must be accompanied by a Bid Bond in the amount of 5.0% of greatest amount bid. Performance and Payment Bonds in the amount of 100% of the contract amount will be required upon award of a contract. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and to waive any informality or irregularity.

Bid Documents can be purchased from the Architect/Engineer at a cost of $30 (non-refundable) per set, inclusive of mailing/delivery costs, or they may be viewed at various plan rooms. Payment checks for documents should be made payable to the Architect/Engineer : Bob Alford, R. A., Amtech Roofing Consultants, Inc. ,3300 South Gessner, Suite 245, Houston, Texas 77063; Phone: (713) 266-4829; Fax: (713) 266-4977.

A Pre-Bid conference will be held at 2 PM on June 6, 2001, at the Gatesville Unit, Gatesville Unit Conference Center, Gatesville Texas, followed by a site-visit. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY.

Bids will be publicly opened and read at 2 PM on June 13, 2001, in the Purchases and Leases Conference Room, located at, Two Financial Plaza, Suite 525, Huntsville, Texas 77340.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice requires the Contractor to make a good faith effort to include Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB's) in at least 57.2% of the total value of this construction contract award. Attention is called to the fact that not less than the minimum wage rates prescribed in the Special Conditions must be paid on these projects.

TRD-200102976

Carl Reynolds

General Counsel

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Filed: May 25, 2001


Notice to Bidders

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice invites bids for the construction of Visitation Canopy (Awning) at Houston, Texas. The project consists of a custom built steel canopy (awning) of approximately 3000 square feet with a minimum height of 14 feet. Roof material specified is MBCI or equal 26 gauge steel M-panel, white in color, and trim material is 26 gauge steel angle trim, white in color. Structural components include 10" galvanized steel C-channel x 2-1/2" x 14 gauge galvanized steel and 12" C-channel x 12 gauge galvanized with columns of 5" x 5" x .188 galvanized steel . Columns must go through concrete floor and are to be set in concrete base at the existing Kegans State Jail Unit, 707 Top Street, Houston, Texas 77210. The work includes structural and concrete as further shown in the Contract Documents.

The successful bidder will be required to meet the following requirements and submit evidence within five days after receiving notice of intent to award from the Owner:

A. Contractor must have worked in his trade for five consecutive years and have completed at least three projects of a dollar value and complexity equal to or greater than the proposed project.

B. Contractor must be bondable and insurable at the levels required.

C. Must provide references from at least three similar projects.

All Bid Proposals must be accompanied by a Bid Bond in the amount of 5.0% of greatest amount bid. Performance and Payment Bonds in the amount of 100% of the contract amount will be required upon award of a contract. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and to waive any informality or irregularity.

Bid Documents can be obtained from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at no charge from: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Purchasing & Leases Department Contracts Branch, Two Financial Plaza, Suite 525, Huntsville Texas 77340; (936) 437-7136; (936) 437-7009 FAX, Attn: Gene Warzecha, Contract Administrator.

A Site Visit will be held at 10:30 AM on May 30, 2001, at the Kegans State Jail, 707 Top Street, Houston, Texas.

Bids will be publicly opened and read at 2 PM on June 13, 2001, in the Contracts Branch Conference Room at Two Financial Plaza, Suite 525, Huntsville, Texas 77340.

TRD-200102977

Carl Reynolds

General Counsel

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Filed: May 25, 2001


East Texas Council of Governments

Request for Proposals to Provide Training to Currently Employed Workers

This Request for Proposals to interested vendors is filed under the provisions of Government Code 2254.

Notice is given that the East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) as the administrative entity for the local Workforce Development Board is soliciting proposals for current worker training. The Achieving Performance Excellence (APEX) Grant seeks to provide resources to businesses and educators in order to develop current worker training for the purpose of allowing workers to: obtain skills certification, enhance earnings potential, and secure career advancement opportunities.

Interested parties should contact: Daniel Pippin, Regional Planner, ETCOG (903) 984-8641. If Mr. Pippin is unavailable, you may speak with Gary Allen, Section Chief-Planning and Board Support. Requests for the Request for Proposals should be sent to: East Texas Council of Governments, 3800 Stone Road, Kilgore, Texas, 75662, Attention: Wendell Holcombe, Fax: (903) 983-1440

Proposals will not be released prior to May 30, 2001. The closing date for the receipt of responses to the Request for Proposals is 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time, July 6, 2001.

The ETCOG Executive Committee, who will be responsible for the contract award, will review the responses.

TRD-200103036

Glynn Knight

Executive Director

East Texas Council of Governments

Filed: May 30, 2001


General Services Commission

Notice of Contract Airline Fares Request for Proposal

The General Services Commission (GSC) announces Amendment #1 to Request for Proposal (RFP) for Contract Airline Fares (RFP #11-0501AF) to be provided to the State of Texas pursuant to the Texas Government Code, §2171.052. Any contract which results from this RFP shall be for the term of September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2002.

Pre-proposal Conference: Amendment #1 reflects needed revisions that were identified at the pre-proposal conference held May 14, 2001, and written questions received by May 16, 2001. A summary of the questions and clarification requests is also available.

Submission of Response to the RFP: Responses to the RFP shall be submitted to and received by the GSC Bid Services Department on or before 3:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time, on June 7, 2001, and shall be delivered or sent to: The General Services Commission, Attention: Bid Services, RFP #11-0501AF, 1711 San Jacinto Boulevard, Room 180, Austin, Texas 78701, or P.O. Box 13047, Austin, Texas 78711-3047.

Copies of RFP: If you are interested in receiving a copy of the RFP and Amendment #1, contact Ms. Gerry Pavelka, Program Director, at (512) 463-3435 to request a copy.

TRD-200102884

Cynthia J. Hill

General Counsel

General Services Commission

Filed: May 23, 2001


Texas Department of Health

Designation of El Centro del Barrio Children's Shelter as a Site Serving Medically Underserved Populations

The Texas Department of Health (department) is required under the Occupations Code §157.052 to designate sites serving medically underserved populations. In addition, the department is required to publish notice of such designations in the Texas Register and to provide an opportunity for public comment on the designations.

Accordingly, the department has designated the following as a site serving medically underserved populations: EL Centro del Barrio Children's Shelter of San Antonio (Infants Shelter), 2219 Babcock, San Antonio, Texas 78229. The designation is based on proven eligibility as a site serving a disproportionate number of clients eligible for federal, state, or locally funded health care programs.

Oral and written comments on this designation may be directed to Bruce Gunn, Ph.D., Director, Health Professions Resource Center, Office of Policy and Planning, Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756; telephone (512) 458-7261. Comments will be accepted for 30 days from the publication date of this notice.

TRD-200103025

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: May 30, 2001


Designation of Oak Tree Family Clinic as a Site Serving Medically Underserved Populations

The Texas Department of Health (department) is required under the Occupations Code §157.052 to designate sites serving medically underserved populations. In addition, the department is required to publish notice of such designations in the Texas Register and to provide an opportunity for public comment on the designations.

Accordingly, the department has designated the following as a site serving medically underserved populations: Oak Tree Family Clinic (Substance Abuse Testing, LLP), 3512 Texas Boulevard, Texarkana, Texas 75503. The designation is based on proven eligibility as a site serving a disproportionate number of clients eligible for federal, state, or locally funded health care programs.

Oral and written comments on this designation may be directed to Bruce Gunn, Ph.D., Director, Health Professions Resource Center, Office of Policy and Planning, Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756; telephone (512) 458-7261. Comments will be accepted for 30 days from the publication date of this notice.

TRD-200103026

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: May 30, 2001


Notice of Amendment to the Radioactive Material License of Nuclear Sources & Services, Inc., dba NSSI/Sources & Services, Inc.

Notice is hereby given by the Texas Department of Health (department), Bureau of Radiation Control that it has amended Radioactive Material License Number L01811 issued to Nuclear Sources & Services, Inc., doing business as NSSI/Sources & Services, Inc., located at 5711 Etheridge in Houston, Texas. Amendment number 44 removes the authorization for sealed sources from the license.

The department has determined that the amendment of the license, 25 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 289, and the documentation submitted by the licensee provide reasonable assurance that the licensee's radioactive waste facility is sited, designed, operated, and will be decommissioned and closed in accordance with the requirements of 25 TAC, Chapter 289; the amendment of the license will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public or the environment; and the activity represented by the amendment of the license will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

This notice affords the opportunity for a public hearing upon written request within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice by a person affected as required by Texas Health and Safety Code, §401.116 and as set out in 25 TAC, §289.205(f). A "person affected" is defined as a person who demonstrates that the person has suffered or will suffer actual injury or economic damage and, if the person is not a local government, is (a) a resident of a county, or a county adjacent to a county, in which the radioactive material is or will be located; or (b) doing business or has a legal interest in land in the county or adjacent county.

A person affected may request a hearing by writing Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3189. Any request for a hearing must contain the name and address of the person who considers himself affected by this action, identify the subject license, specify the reasons why the person considers himself affected, and state the relief sought. If the person is represented by an agent, the name and address of the agent must be stated. Should no request for a public hearing be timely filed, the agency action will be final.

A public hearing, if requested, shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 401, the Administrative Procedure Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001), the formal hearing procedures of the department (25 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), §1.21 et seq.) and the procedures of the State Office of Administrative Hearings (1 TAC, Chapter 155).

A copy of the license amendment and supporting materials are available for public inspection and copying at the office of the Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health, Exchange Building, 8407 Wall Street, Austin, Texas, telephone (512) 834-6688, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday (except holidays). Information relative to inspection and copying the documents may be obtained by contacting Chrissie Toungate, Custodian of Records, Bureau of Radiation Control.

TRD-200103027

Susan K. Steeg

General Counsel

Texas Department of Health

Filed: May 30, 2001


Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Cancellation of Public Hearing

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) are canceling the joint public hearing on proposed payment rates for the following programs operated by DHS: nursing facilities, swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities. The hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2001, in conference room 5501 of the Brown-Heatly Building. Notice of the hearing appeared in the June 1, 2001, issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 3968).

Only the public hearing on proposed payment rates for nursing facilities, swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities is being canceled. The other three public hearings included in the original notice in the June 1, 2001, issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 3968) will be conducted as originally scheduled.

If there are any questions concerning this cancellation, contact Tony Arreola, DHS, MC W-425, P.O. Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030, (512) 438-4817.

TRD-200103023

Marina Henderson

Executive Deputy Commissioner

Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Filed: May 30, 2001


Planning Forum and Public Hearing

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), in collaboration with the Health and Human Services agencies and the East Texas Council of Governments, will conduct one of a series of statewide public hearings to receive public comment on the development of the Health and Human Services Coordinated Strategic Plan and to fulfill statutory local planning requirements. The public hearing is required under §531.022(d)(4), Government Code, and §531.036, Government Code, and is intended to produce the following outcomes:

(1) Increase local involvement and participation in the planning process.

(2) Provide feedback to local communities on statewide and regional progress made on health and human services goals and strategic priorities since the community forums in 1999.

(3) Solicit input from the communities on the effectiveness of current health and human services efforts.

(4) Update regional demographic information and needs profiles.

(5) Assess local capacity to address the strategic priorities.

(6) Foster grass roots support for/build community coalitions to improve health and human service delivery in the area.

A public hearing and community planning forum will be conducted in Tyler, Texas, at the Marvin United Methodist Church, 300 West Erwin Street, Tyler, Texas, on June 26 and 27, 2001. The planning forum is intended to provide the opportunity for public input and participation. Agency clients and consumers of health and human services, advocates, consumer advisors, local state agency representatives, local governmental and non-governmental representatives, service providers and other interested parties are encouraged to participate.

The Health and Human Services Agencies will conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on June 26, 2001, beginning at 6:30 p.m., with registration beginning at 6:00 p.m. Testimony and comments should focus on regional needs and suggestions for the most effective ways to deliver and coordinate services funded by the state. Written comments may be submitted to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission until 5:00 p.m., Central Time, on July 3, 2001. Please address written comments to the attention of Colleen Edwards at HHSC, 4900 North Lamar Boulevard, 4th Floor, Austin, Texas 78751, fax (512) 424-6590 or email: colleen.edwards@hhsc.state.tx.us.

The planning forum will be held on June 27, 2001, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Central Time, with registration beginning at 9:30 a.m. The morning session will provide break-out group activities for members of the community to discuss specific strategic priorities that significantly impact the Tyler area, such as children's medical and insurance needs, access to long-term care services and "successful aging", health and human services transportation issues, access to service information and referral, issues related to children and adolescents, and any major issue arising out of the June 26, 2001, public hearing.

AGENDA

Public Hearing--June 26, 2001

I. Registration for public testimony (6:00 p.m.)

II. Welcome and demographic presentation (6:30 p.m.)

III. Public Comment (7:00 p.m. - 8:20 p.m.)

Community Planning Forum--June 27, 2001

Morning Session

I. Registration (9:30 a.m.)

II. Welcome and overview (10:00 a.m.)

III. Breakout Groups (10:30)

Lunch--not provided (11:45 - 1:00)

Afternoon Session

I. Reports from Breakout Groups (1:00 p.m.)

II. Closing (1:45 p.m.)

Persons with disabilities who wish to attend the hearing and require auxiliary aids or services should contact Patti Hinds at (903) 533-5365 or email: patti.hinds@tdh.state.tx.us, by June 20, 2001, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

TRD-200103038

Marina S. Henderson

Executive Deputy Commissioner

Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Filed: May 30, 2001


Planning Forum and Public Hearing

The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), in collaboration with the Health and Human Services agencies and the North Central Texas Area Agency on Aging, will conduct one of a series of statewide public hearings to receive public comment on the development of the Health and Human Services Coordinated Strategic Plan and to fulfill statutory local planning requirements. The public hearing is required under §531.022(d)(4), Government Code, and §531.036, Government Code, and is intended to produce the following outcomes: (1) Increase local involvement and participation in the planning process. (2) Provide feedback to local communities on statewide and regional progress made on health and human services goals and strategic priorities since the community forums in 1999. (3) Solicit input from the communities on the effectiveness of current health and human services efforts. (4) Update regional demographic information and needs profiles. (5) Assess local capacity to address the strategic priorities. (6) Foster grass roots support for/build community coalitions to improve health and human service delivery in the area.

A community planning forum and public hearing will be conducted in Arlington, Texas on June 26, 2001 at the First Methodist Church of Arlington, 313 North Center, Arlington, Texas. Agency clients and consumers of health and human services, advocates, consumer advisors, local state agency representatives, local governmental and non-governmental representatives, service providers and other interested parties are encouraged to participate.

The planning forum will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Central Time. The morning session will provide state and regional progress reports, local needs assessments and demographic information. Break-out group activities will be conducted for members of the community to discuss specific strategic priorities that significantly impact the Metroplex region, such as children's medical and insurance needs, long-term care access, information and referral, diabetes, business process improvements, supported employment, successful aging, mental health services and involvement of faith-based community in service delivery.

A public hearing to receive public comment will begin at 2:00 p.m. Testimony and comments should focus on regional needs and suggestions for the most effective ways to deliver and coordinate services funded by the state. Written comments may be submitted to the Health and Human Services Commission until 5:00 p.m., Central Time, on July 5, 2001. Please address written comments to the attention of Colleen Edwards at HHSC, 4900 North Lamar Blvd., 4th Floor, Austin, Texas 78751, Fax (512) 424-6590 or Email: colleen.edwards@hhsc.state.tx.us.

AGENDA

Morning Session (8:30 - 12:30)

I. Welcome and hearing overview (8:30)

II. Presentation by HHSC state representative (9:00)

III. Local presentations on local progress, needs assessments and demographics (9:15)

IV. Breakout Groups (10:45)

Afternoon Session (2:00 - 3:35 p.m.)

I. Public Comment (2:00)

II. Final thoughts (3:30)

Persons with disabilities who wish to attend the hearing and require auxiliary aids or services should contact Doni Van Ryswyk at 817-695-9193, by June 18, 2001 so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

TRD-200103039

Marina S. Henderson

Executive Deputy Commissioner

Health and Human Services Commission

Filed: May 30, 2001


Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Request for Proposals for Bond Counsel

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (the "Board") solicits responses to this Request for Proposal ("RFP") from law firms interested in providing bond counsel services to the Board for the period September 1, 2001 to August 31, 2003.

Proposals from HUB certified firms are encouraged. State agencies are required to make a good faith effort to assist Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in receiving contract awards issued by the State of Texas. The goal of this program is to promote fair and competitive business opportunities for all businesses contracting with the state. HUB certified firms are defined as for-profit business entities that are certified by the Texas General Services Commission.

Non-HUB firms are encouraged, in the event they are selected as bond counsel, to consider entering into a partnership arrangement with a HUB firm. If the selected firm chooses to enter into such an arrangement, both the selected firm and the HUB firm would be parties to the contract as Co-Counsel. The selected firm would function as the managing partner making all decisions on division of work between the two firms and would be the contact to the Board on all matters.

FORM OF RESPONSE

A. Scope of Services

Responses to this RFP should be based upon performance of the following tasks:

(1) Regarding bond issues, the firm will:

(a) assist the Board in obtaining approval of the issue by the Bond Review Board and represent the Board at hearings of the Bond Review Board;

(b) prepare all legal documents required by the Board, Comptroller, Treasurer, Attorney General or outside parties;

(c) request and obtain approval of the Bond issue from the Attorney General, Governor and other required parties; and

(d) review all financial models and render opinions on the legality and relevant tax position of the proposed scenario.

(2) Regarding state and federal laws, the firm will:

(a) review issues and, in concert with the financial services firm and Board staff, recommend alternative legislative action where appropriate;

(b) if requested by the Board or staff, draft desired legislation at the federal or state level, and assist as necessary in informing state and federal officeholders of salient issues; and

(c) in response to real or anticipated changes in state and federal law, regulation or public policy, the firm will be expected to advise the Board and staff of potential or real impact on existing or anticipated:

(i) bond issues,

(ii) investment policy, and

(iii) loan policy.

(3) The firm will advise the Board and staff on the legality of new loan policy proposals and legal aspects of anticipated impacts on investment and loan policy.

(4) The firm will advise the Board and staff on the legality of proposed debt restructuring techniques.

(5) The firm will advise the Board on all other matters necessary or incidental to the issuance of the bonds.

B. Qualifications

Responses to this request for proposals should include at least the following information in the order requested:

(1) a description of the firm's qualifications for performing the legal services requested, including the firm's prior experience in bond issuance matters;

(2) the names, experience, and qualifications for performing the requested legal services of the individual attorneys who would be assigned to perform services under the contract;

(3) efforts made by the firm to encourage and develop the participation of minorities and women in the provision of the firm's legal services and proposed use of women and minorities in regard to the services required under this contract, if any, and previous experience and involvement working with HUB certified firms (if your firm is not HUB certified) or as a HUB certified firm in a co-counsel relationship;

(4) disclosures of conflicts of interest, identifying each and every matter in which the firm has, within the past calendar year, represented any entity or individual with an interest adverse to the Board or to the State of Texas, or any of its boards, agencies, commissions, universities or elected or appointed officials;

(5) confirmation of willingness to comply with policies, directives and guidelines of the Board and the Attorney General of the State of Texas; and

(6) contact information for the proposer, including address, telephone, E-mail address, and fax number, and the name of the individual who will be the Board's primary contact on the contract.

C. Compensation

For the scope of services defined in this RFP, the proposal must specify:

(1) the firm's proposed hourly billing rates for attorneys and other staff who would be assigned to perform services under the contract; flat fees or other fee arrangements; and billable expenses; and

(2) how fees may differ in the cases of a competitive versus a negotiated sale.

SELECTION CRITERIA

(1) The Board will make its selection based on demonstrated knowledge and experiences, quality of staff assigned to perform services under the contract, compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Board and the state, and reasonableness of proposed fees.

(2) The Board has the sole discretion and reserves the right to reject any and all responses to this RFP and to cancel the RFP if it is deemed in the best interest of the Board to do so. Issuance of this RFP in no way constitutes a commitment by the Board to award a contract or to pay for any expenses incurred either in the preparation of a response to this RFP or in the production of a contract for legal services. The successful firm will be required to sign the Texas Attorney General's Outside Counsel Agreement.

(3) The Board previously contracted with the law firm of McCall, Parkhurst & Horton, LLP for these services and intends to award the contract to McCall, Parkhurst & Horton, LLP unless a better offer is received.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

(1) The Board reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to award the contract to the next most qualified firm if the successful firm does not execute a contract within thirty (30) days after the award of the proposal.

(2) The Board reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted and to request additional information of one or more applicants.

(3) The Board and staff will perform an evaluation of the selected firm's performance as necessary, and the Board shall have the right to terminate its contract by specifying the date of termination in a written notice to the firm at least thirty (30) working days before the termination date. In this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed.

(4) Any agreement or contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the Board and shall contain, as a minimum, applicable provisions of the request for proposals. The Board reserves the right to reject any agreement that does not conform to the request for proposals and any Board requirements for agreements and contracts.

(5) The selected firm shall not assign any interest in the contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent of the Board.

(6) No reports, information or data given to or prepared by the firm under the contract shall be made available by the firm to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the Board.

(7) Any and all data provided by the Board during the request for proposals process or under a contract for bond counsel services is the property of the Board and shall be returned to the Board upon request.

(8) Specific analytical software developed at the request and expense of the Board is the property of the Board and, upon request, shall be returned to the Board.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND OPEN RECORDS

Information submitted in response to this RFP shall not be released by the Board during the proposal evaluation process. After the evaluation process is completed as determined by the Board, all proposals and information contained therein may be subject to public disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

(1) All proposals must be in a sealed envelope and clearly marked: "Sealed Proposal C Bond Counsel Services." All proposals must be received by 11:00 a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001.

(2) Seven (7) copies of the proposal are required and may be mailed to: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Attention: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner for Administrative Services, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711; or hand delivered to Room 3.110, 1200 East Anderson Lane, Austin, Texas, by 11:00 a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001. Each proposal should indicate the name, E-mail address, and phone number of the principal contact for the firm.

(3) Questions or comments concerning this request for proposals should be submitted in writing to: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner for Administrative Services, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 427-6160.

TRD-200103002

Gary Prevost

Director of Business Services

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Filed: May 29, 2001


Request for Proposals for Financial Services

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (the "Board") solicits responses to this Request for Proposal ("RFP") from firms interested in providing financial services to the Board on all items of financing necessary for the Board's issuance of student loans under its $400 million bonding authority approved by the Legislature and the voters in November of 1999.

Proposals from HUB certified firms are encouraged. State agencies are required to make a good faith effort to assist Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in receiving contract awards issued by the State of Texas. The goal of this program is to promote fair and competitive business opportunities for all businesses contracting with the state. HUB certified firms are defined as for-profit business entities that are certified by the Texas General Services Commission.

Non-HUB firms are encouraged, in the event they are selected, to consider entering into a partnership arrangement with a HUB firm. The selected firm would function as the managing partner making all decisions on division of work between the two firms and would be the contact to the Board on all matters.

FORM OF RESPONSE

A. Scope of Services

The selected firm will provide the following services:

(1) Regarding bond issues, the firm will:

(a) Determine the timing and structure of any negotiated and/or competitive issues in concert with the bond counsel and Board staff, including:

(i) General Obligation Bonds,

(ii) Defeasance,

(iii) Refunding, and

(iv) Others.

(b) Assist the Board in obtaining approval of the issue by the Bond Review Board and represent the Board at hearings of the Bond Review Board.

(c) Develop a draft of the official statement in concert with the bond counsel and Board staff.

(d) Determine the structure of the escrow and paying/receiving agent bid packages.

(e) Make recommendations on the underwriting team and coordinate the efforts of the underwriting team.

(f) Prepare, in concert with bond counsel and Board staff, all necessary financial models and develop written criteria for evaluation of same.

(g) Assist with the bond closing and final document preparation.

(h) Conduct (with Board staff) a post-sale analysis documenting results of the bond issue.

(i) Advise the Board and staff of any new techniques in debt restructuring which may be beneficial to the loan programs, with specific recommendations for implementation.

(2) Regarding state and federal laws, the firm will:

(a) Review issues and, in concert with the bond counsel and Board staff, recommend legislative action where appropriate.

(b) In response to real or anticipated changes in state and federal law, regulation or public policy, advise the Board and staff of potential or real impact on existing or anticipated:

(i) Bond issues,

(ii) Investment policy, and

(iii) Loan policy.

B. Qualifications

(1) Describe how the firm is organized and how its resources will be put to work for the Board.

(2) List the firm's most recent three (3) years of experience in financial services relationships. State the term of the relationship and include the names, addresses and phone numbers of contact persons. Briefly describe the work performed, including the dollar amount and type of the issues or other financings and associated ratings achieved.

(3) Outline the firm's entire experience during the past three (3) years with the major rating agencies. Discuss this experience and its potential applicability to the Board.

(4) Attach a recent representative example of an official statement for a General Obligation Bond issue for which the firm provided financial services.

(5) Describe the three (3) most common uses of the firm's computer and computer-based analysis as it relates to financial services relationships specified in subsection 2 above.

(6) Describe the efforts made by the firm to encourage and develop the participation of minorities and women in the provision of the firm's financial services and proposed use of women and minorities in regard to the services required under this contract, if any, and previous experience and involvement working with HUB certified firms (if your firm is not HUB certified) or as a HUB certified firm in a financial relationship.

C. Personnel

(1) Indicate which individuals in the firm would be assigned in a direct, on-going working relationship with the Board and staff and include their resumes. Indicate the role these individuals assumed in the three-year history of financial services relationships as described in subsection 2 of the Qualifications section.

(2) Indicate the availability of the individuals described in subsection 1 of this section.

(3) Identify other individuals who would be available as analytical or tax counsel resources to the Board.

D. Compensation

For the scope of services defined in this RFP, the proposal must specify:

(1) the firm's proposed hourly billing rates for staff who would be assigned to perform services under the contract; flat fees or other fee arrangements; and billable expenses; and

(2) how fees may differ in the cases of a competitive versus a negotiated sale.

SELECTION CRITERIA

(1) The Board will make its selection based on demonstrated knowledge and experiences, quality of staff assigned to perform services under the contract, compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Board and the state, and reasonableness of proposed fees.

(2) The Board has the sole discretion and reserves the right to reject any and all responses to this RFP and to cancel the RFP if it is deemed in the best interest of the Board to do so. Issuance of this RFP in no way constitutes a commitment by the Board to award a contract or to pay for any expenses incurred either in the preparation of a response to this RFP or in the production of a contract for financial services.

(3) The Board previously contracted with First Southwest Company for these services and intends to award the contract to First Southwest Company unless a better offer is received.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

(1) The Board reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to award the contract to the next most qualified firm if the successful firm does not execute a contract within thirty (30) days after the award of the proposal.

(2) The Board reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted and to request additional information of one or more applicants.

(3) The Board and staff will perform an evaluation of the selected firm's performance as necessary, and the Board shall have the right to terminate its contract by specifying the date of termination in a written notice to the firm at least thirty (30) working days before the termination date. In this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed.

(4) Any agreement or contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the Board and shall contain, as a minimum, applicable provisions of the request for proposals. The Board reserves the right to reject any agreement that does not conform to the request for proposals and any Board requirements for agreements and contracts.

(5) The selected firm shall not assign any interest in the contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent of the Board.

(6) No reports, information or data given to or prepared by the firm under the contract shall be made available by the firm to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the Board.

(7) Any and all data provided by the Board during the request for proposals process or under a contract for financial services is the property of the Board and shall be returned to the Board upon request.

(8) Specific analytical software developed at the request and expense of the Board is the property of the Board and, upon request, shall be returned to the Board.

(9) The selected firm will not be permitted to underwrite debt of the Board.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND OPEN RECORDS

Information submitted in response to this RFP shall not be released by the Board during the proposal evaluation process. After the evaluation process is completed as determined by the Board, all proposals and information contained therein may be subject to public disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

(1) All proposals must be in a sealed envelope and clearly marked: "Sealed Proposal C Financial Services." All proposals must be received by 11:00 a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001.

(2) Seven (7) copies of the proposal are required and may be mailed to: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Attention: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner for Administrative Services, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711; or hand delivered to Room 3.110, 1200 East Anderson Lane, Austin, Texas, by 11:00 a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001. Each proposal should indicate the name, E-mail address, and phone number of the principal contact for the firm.

(3) Questions or comments concerning this request for proposals should be submitted in writing to: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner for Administrative Services, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 427-6160.

TRD-200103003

Gary Prevost

Director of Business Services

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Filed: May 29, 2001


Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as contract recipients for 2001 program year Community Development Funds under the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.

A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

Agua Dulce - $300,000, Alto - $245,000, Alvarado - $250,000, Amherst - $250,000, Anderson County - $250,000, Anson - $250,000, Atlanta - $250,000, Austwell - $300,000, Balmorhea - $350,000, Barry - $250,000, Bastrop - $250,000, Bay City - $350,000, Bertram - $250,000, Blackwell - $250,000, Blum - $250,000, Bowie - $125,000, Brady - $174,900, Brewster County - $300,000, Bryson - $125,000, Calvert - $250,000, Cameron County - $318,447, Carmine - $250,000, Carthage - $250,000, Chandler - $250,000, Chico - $250,000, China - $250,000, Coahoma - $350,000, Coleman - $250,000, Colorado County - $350,000, Combes - $318,447, Cotulla - $75,000, Crockett County - $174,999, Crystal City - $334,793, Cumby - $250,000, Cuney - $250,000, Daingerfield - $250,000, DeKalb - $250,000, Detroit - $250,000, Devers - $350,000, Eagle Pass - $762,826, East Mountain - $250,000, Eden - $174,900, Edgewood - $250,000, Edna - $250,000, El Paso County $300,000, Electra - $125,000, Elkhart - $250,000, Evant - $250,000, Falls City - $250,000, Falls County - $250,000, Fannin County - $250,000, Farwell - $250,000, Fayette County - $250,000, Flatonia - $250,000, Floresville - $250,000, Foard County - $125,000, George West - $300,000, Glasscock County - $350,000, Goliad County - $250,000, Grandfalls - $350,000, Granger - $250,000, Granite Shoals - $250,000, Greenville - $250,000, Gregory - $300,000, Groveton - $250,000, Gunter - $250,000, Hackberry - $250,000, Hardin - $350,000, Hart - $250,000, Higgins - $250,000, Holland - $250,000, Holliday - $135,000, Hudspeth County - $300,000, Huntington - $250,000, Huntsville - $350,000, Iowa Park - $107,050, Jasper - $250,000, Karnes City - $250,000, Karnes County - $250,000, Kaufman County - $250,000, Kemp - $250,000, Kendall County - $250,000, Kenedy - $228,695, Kirbyville - $250,000, Kountze - $250,000, Kyle - $250,000, La Feria - $318,447, Linden - $250,000, Liverpool - $350,000, Lometa - $350,000, Los Fresnos - $314,479, Lott - $250,000, Lyford - $315,240, Lytle - $250,000, Madisonville - $250,000, Malakoff - $250,000, Marfa - $300,000, Marlin - $250,000, Marquez - $250,000, Matagorda County - $350,000, Maverick County - $762,826, Maypearl - $250,000, McMullen County - $300,000, Meadow - $250,000, Menard - $174,999, Milam County - $250,000, Miles - $250,000, Milford - $250,000, Morton - $250,000, Mount Calm - $247,169, Mount Pleasant - $250,000, Munday - $250,000, Mustang - $150,450, Natalia - $250,000, Navarro County - $250,000, Newton - $250,000, Nome - $250,000, O'Brien - $250,000, Oakwood - $250,000, Olton - $250,000, Orange County - $250,000, Overton - $250,000, Palacios - $350,000, Palmer - $250,000, Pearsall - $250,000, Perryton - $233,658, Petrolia - $125,000, Pine Forest - $249,975, Pineland - $250,000, Polk County - $250,000, Port Lavaca - $250,000, Queen City - $243,500, Quinlan - $250,000, Raymondville - $318,447, Refugio - $300,000, Richland - $250,000, Rio Vista - $250,000, Rockport - $300,000, Roma - $800,000, Ropesville - $250,000, Sabinal - $262,592, Saint Jo - $125,000, San Saba County - $250,000, Sanford - $250,000, Seadrift - $250,000, Seymour - $125,000, Shepherd - $250,000, Smiley - $250,000, Smith County - $250,000, Smyer - $250,000, Socorro - $300,000, Somerville - $250,000, Sonora - $174,999, Sour Lake - $250,000, Stamford - $250,000, Sweetwater - $225,210, Teague - $250,000, Tenaha - $250,000, Texline - $250,000, Three Rivers - $300,000, Timpson - $250,000, Tioga - $250,000, Toyah - $350,000, Travis County - $189,820, Trinidad - $250,000, Troup - $250,000, Turkey - $250,000, Val Verde County - $404,765, Van Horn - $300,000, Venus - $250,000, Vinton - $300,000, Webb County - $800,000, Wellman - $250,000, West Tawakoni - $250,000, Willacy County - $318,447, Windom - $250,000, Wink - $350,000, Woodsboro - $300,000, Zapata County - $800,000, Zavalla - $250,000.

TRD-200103010

Daisy A. Stiner

Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as contract recipients for 2001 program year Planning and Capacity Building Funds under the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.

A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

Anahuac - $34,900, Cleveland - $50,000, Coleman - $50,000, Crosbyton - $32,750, Dublin - $40,347, Eagle Pass - $36,500, Floydada - $50,000, Hamilton - $38,800, Jefferson - $47,200, Junction - $50,000, Liberty - $48,800, Los Fresnos - $33,800, Marion - $26,800, Mart - $44,800, Mathis - $50,000, Pecos City - $50,000, Seadrift - $33,800, Socorro - $40,000, Van Alstyne - $38,200.

TRD-200103011

Daisy A. Stiner

Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as contract recipients for 2001 program year Housing Rehabilitation Funds under the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.

A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

Brookshire - $250,000, Mason County - $250,000, Milano - $250,000, Mingus - $250,000, Paris - $250,000, Robstown - $250,000.

TRD-200103012

Daisy A. Stiner

Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as contract recipients for 2001 program year Colonia Construction Funds under the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.

A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

Bandera County - $500,000, Brooks County - $500,000, Cameron County - $500,000, Dimmit County - $475,000, Hidalgo County - $500,000, Karnes County - $500,000, Kenedy County - $500,000, Kerr County - $500,000, Kleberg County - $500,000, Maverick County - $500,000, Webb County - $500,000, Willacy County - $469,543, Zapata County - $500,000.

TRD-200103013

Daisy A. Stiner

Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as contract recipients for 2001 program year Colonia Planning Funds under the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.

A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

Hidalgo County - $200,000, Kendall County - $49,500, Kenedy County - $25,000, Live Oak County - $28,000.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jeff Vistein at (512) 475-3855 or by e-mail at the following address jvistein@tdhca.state.tx.us..

TRD-200103014

Daisy A. Stiner

Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: May 29, 2001


Texas Department of Human Services

Cancellation of Public Hearing

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) are canceling the joint public hearing on proposed payment rates for the following programs operated by DHS: nursing facilities, swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities. The hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2001, in conference room 5501 of the Brown-Heatly Building. Notice of the hearing appeared in the June 1, 2001, issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 3970).

Only the public hearing on proposed payment rates for nursing facilities, swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities is being canceled. The other three public hearings included in the original notice in the June 1, 2001 issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 3970) will be conducted as originally scheduled.

If there are any questions concerning this cancellation, contact Tony Arreola, DHS, MC W-425, P.O. Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030, (512) 438-4817.

TRD-200103022

Paul Leche

General Counsel

Texas Department of Human Services

Filed: May 30, 2001


Texas Lottery Commission

Instant Game Number 230 "Money Machine"

1.0. Name and Style of Game.

A. The name of Instant Game Number 230 is "MONEY MACHINE". The play style is a match three of nine with key number match and bonus".

1.1. Price of Instant Ticket.

A. Tickets for Instant Game Number 230 shall be $2.00 per ticket.

1.2. Definitions in Instant Game Number 230.

A. Display Printing--That area of the instant game ticket outside of the area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.

B. Latex Overprint--The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols on the front of the ticket.

C. Play Symbol--One of the symbols which appears under the Latex Overprint on the front of the ticket. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in black ink in positive. The possible play symbols are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, $1.00, $2.00, $3.00, $5.00, $10.00, $20.00, $40.00, $100, $1,000, $25,000, GOLD SYMBOL, COIN SYMBOL, MONEY BAG SYMBOL, STACK OF BILLS SYMBOL, and MONEY SYMBOL.

D. Play Symbol Caption--the small printed material appearing below each Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One and only one of these Play Symbol Captions appears under each Play Symbol and each is printed in caption font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:

Table 1

[graphic]

[graphic]

E. Retailer Validation Code--Three small letters found under the removable scratch-off covering in the play area, which retailers use to verify and validate instant winners. The possible validation codes are:

Table 2

[graphic]

Low-tier winning tickets use the required codes listed in Table 2. Non-winning tickets and high-tier tickets use a non-required combination of the required codes listed in Table 2 with the exception of ∅, which will only appear on low-tier winners and will always have a slash through it.

F. Serial Number--A unique 13 digit number appearing under the latex scratch-off covering on the front of the ticket. There is a four digit security number which will be boxed and placed randomly within the Serial Number. The remaining nine digits of the Serial Number are the Validation Number. The Serial Number is positioned beneath the bottom row of play data in the scratched-off play area. The format will be: 0000000000000.

G. Low-Tier Prize--A prize of $2.00, $3.00, $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, or $20.00.

H. Mid-Tier Prize--A prize of $40.00, or $100.

I. High-Tier Prize--A prize of $1,000 or $25,000.

J. Bar Code--A 22 character interleaved two of five bar code which will include a three digit game ID, the seven digit pack number, the three digit ticket number and the nine digit Validation Number. The bar code appears on the back of the ticket.

K. Pack-Ticket Number--A 13 digit number consisting of the three digit game number (230), a seven digit pack number, and a three digit ticket number. Ticket numbers start with 000 and end with 249 within each pack. The format will be: 230-0000001-000.

L. Pack--A pack of "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game tickets contain 125 tickets, which are packed in plastic shrink-wrapping and fanfolded in pages of one. There will be two fanfolded configurations for this game. Configuration A will show the front of ticket 000 and the back of ticket 124. Configuration B will show the back of ticket 000 and the front of ticket 124.

M. Non-Winning Ticket--A ticket which is not programmed to be a winning ticket or a ticket that does not meet all of the requirements of these Game Procedures, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), and applicable rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery Act and referenced in 16 TAC, Chapter 401.

N. Ticket or Instant Game Ticket, or Instant Ticket--A Texas Lottery "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game Number 230 ticket.

2.0. Determination of Prize Winners. The determination of prize winners is subject to the general ticket validation requirements set forth in Texas Lottery Rule §401.302, Instant Game Rules, these Game Procedures, and the requirements set out on the back of each instant ticket. In the Match 3 Game, a prize winner in the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose nine play symbols. If the player matches three like amounts, the player wins that prize. In the Bonus Keypad Game, a prize winner in the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose one play symbol. If the player reveals a Stack of Bills, the player will win $40 automatically. In the Key Number Match game, a prize winner in the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose 22 play symbols. If the player's Your Numbers match either Winning Numbers the player will win the prize shown for that number. No portion of the display printing nor any extraneous matter whatsoever shall be usable or playable as a part of the Instant Game.

2.1. Instant Ticket Validation Requirements.

A. To be a valid Instant Game ticket, all of the following requirements must be met:

1. Exactly 32 Play Symbols must appear under the latex overprint on the front portion of the ticket;

2. Each of the Play Symbols must have a Play Symbol Caption underneath, and each Play Symbol must agree with its Play Symbol Caption;

3. Each of the Play Symbols must be present in its entirety and be fully legible;

4. Each of the Play Symbols must be printed in black ink;

5. The ticket shall be intact;

6. The Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket Number must be present in their entirety and be fully legible;

7. The Serial Number must correspond, using the Texas Lottery's codes, to the Play Symbols on the ticket;

8. The ticket must not have a hole punched through it, be mutilated, altered, unreadable, reconstituted or tampered with in any manner;

9. The ticket must not be counterfeit in whole or in part;

10. The ticket must have been issued by the Texas Lottery in an authorized manner;

11. The ticket must not have been stolen, nor appear on any list of omitted tickets or non-activated tickets on file at the Texas Lottery;

12. The Play Symbols, Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket Number must be right side up and not reversed in any manner;

13. The ticket must be complete and not miscut, and have exactly 32 Play Symbols under the latex overprint on the front portion of the ticket, exactly one Serial Number, exactly one Retailer Validation Code, and exactly one Pack-Ticket Number on the ticket;

14. The Serial Number of an apparent winning ticket shall correspond with the Texas Lottery's Serial Numbers for winning tickets, and a ticket with that Serial Number shall not have been paid previously;

15. The ticket must not be blank or partially blank, misregistered, defective or printed or produced in error;

16. Each of the 32 Play Symbols must be exactly one of those described in Section 1.2.C of these Game Procedures.

17. Each of the 32 Play Symbols on the ticket must be printed in the Symbol font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; the ticket Serial Numbers must be printed in the Serial font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and the Pack-Ticket Number must be printed in the Pack-Ticket Number font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery;

18. The display printing on the ticket must be regular in every respect and correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and

19. The ticket must have been received by the Texas Lottery by applicable deadlines.

B. The ticket must pass all additional validation tests provided for in these Game Procedures, the Texas Lottery's Rules governing the award of prizes of the amount to be validated, and any confidential validation and security tests of the Texas Lottery.

C. Any Instant Game ticket not passing all of the validation requirements is void and ineligible for any prize and shall not be paid. However, the Executive Director may, solely at the Executive Director's discretion, refund the retail sales price of the ticket. In the event a defective ticket is purchased, the only responsibility or liability of the Texas Lottery shall be to replace the defective ticket with another unplayed ticket in that Instant Game (or a ticket of equivalent sales price from any other current Instant Lottery game) or refund the retail sales price of the ticket, solely at the Executive Director's discretion.

2.2. Programmed Game Parameters.

A. Consecutive non-winning tickets will not have identical play data, spot for spot.

B. In the Match 3 Game, no four or more like play symbols will appear in a game.

C. In the Match 3 Game, no more than two pairs of like play symbols will appear in a game.

D. In the Bonus Game, the Stack of Bills symbol will only appear as dictated by the prize structure.

E. In the Key Number Match Game, duplicate non-winning Your Number symbols will not appear on a ticket.

F. In the Key Number Match Game, duplicate non-winning prize symbols will not appear in a game.

G. In the Key Number Match Game, duplicate Winning Number symbols will not appear on a ticket.

H. No correlation between a prize symbol and a play symbol on a ticket.

2.3. Procedure for Claiming Prizes.

A. To claim a "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game prize of $2.00, $3.00, $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $40.00, or $100, a claimant shall sign the back of the ticket in the space designated on the ticket and present the winning ticket to any Texas Lottery Retailer. The Texas Lottery Retailer shall verify the claim and, if valid, and upon presentation of proper identification, make payment of the amount due the claimant and physically void the ticket; provided that the Texas Lottery Retailer may, but is not, in some cases, required to pay a $40.00 or $100 ticket. In the event the Texas Lottery Retailer cannot verify the claim, the Texas Lottery Retailer shall provide the claimant with a claim form and instruct the claimant on how to file a claim with the Texas Lottery. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, a check shall be forwarded to the claimant in the amount due. In the event the claim is not validated, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly. A claimant may also claim any of the above prizes under the procedure described in Section 2.3.B and 2.3.C of these Game Procedures.

B. To claim a "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game prize of $1,000 or $25,000, the claimant must sign the winning ticket and present it at one of the Texas Lottery's Claim Centers. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, payment will be made to the bearer of the validated winning ticket for that prize upon presentation of proper identification. When paying a prize of $600 or more, the Texas Lottery shall file the appropriate income reporting form with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and shall withhold federal income tax at a rate set by the IRS if required. In the event that the claim is not validated by the Texas Lottery, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.

C. As an alternative method of claiming a "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game prize, the claimant must sign the winning ticket, thoroughly complete a claim form, and mail both to: Texas Lottery Commission, Post Office Box 16600, Austin, Texas 78761-6600. The risk of sending a ticket remains with the claimant. In the event that the claim is not validated by the Texas Lottery, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.

D. Prior to payment by the Texas Lottery of any prize, the Texas Lottery shall deduct a sufficient amount from the winnings of a person who has been finally determined to be:

1. delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the Comptroller, the Texas Workforce Commission, or Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission;

2. delinquent in making child support payments administered or collected by the Attorney General; or

3. delinquent in reimbursing the Texas Department of Human Services for a benefit granted in error under the food stamp program or the program of financial assistance under Chapter 31, Human Resource Code;

4. in default on a loan made under Chapter 52, Education Code; or

5. in default on a loan guaranteed under Chapter 57, Education Code

F. If a person is indebted or owes delinquent taxes to the State, other than those specified in the preceding paragraph, the winnings of a person shall be withheld until the debt or taxes are paid.

2.4. Allowance for Delay of Payment. The Texas Lottery may delay payment of the prize pending a final determination by the Executive Director, under any of the following circumstances:

A. if a dispute occurs, or it appears likely that a dispute may occur, regarding the prize;

B. if there is any question regarding the identity of the claimant;

C. if there is any question regarding the validity of the ticket presented for payment; or

D. if the claim is subject to any deduction from the payment otherwise due, as described in Section 2.3.D of these Game Procedures. No liability for interest for any delay shall accrue to the benefit of the claimant pending payment of the claim.

2.5. Payment of Prizes to Persons Under 18. If a person under the age of 18 years is entitled to a cash prize of less than $600 from the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall deliver to an adult member of the minor's family or the minor's guardian a check or warrant in the amount of the prize payable to the order of the minor.

2.6. If a person under the age of 18 years is entitled to a cash prize of more than $600 from the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall deposit the amount of the prize in a custodial bank account, with an adult member of the minor's family or the minor's guardian serving as custodian for the minor.

2.7. Instant Ticket Claim Period. All Instant Game prizes must be claimed within 180 days following the end of the Instant Game. Any prize not claimed within that period, and in the manner specified in these Game Procedures and on the back of each ticket, shall be forfeited.

3.0. Instant Ticket Ownership.

A. Until such time as a signature is placed upon the back portion of an Instant Game ticket in the space designated therefor, a ticket shall be owned by the physical possessor of said ticket. When a signature is placed on the back of the ticket in the space designated therefor, the player whose signature appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled to any prize attributable thereto. Notwithstanding any name or names submitted on a claim form, the Executive Director shall make payment to the player whose signature appears on the back of the ticket in the space designated therefor. If more than one name appears on the back of the ticket, the Executive Director will require that one of those players whose name appears thereon be designated by such players to receive payment.

B. The Texas Lottery shall not be responsible for lost or stolen Instant Game tickets and shall not be required to pay on a lost or stolen Instant Game ticket.

4.0. Number and Value of Instant Prizes. There will be approximately 20,554,250 tickets in the Instant Game Number 230. The approximate number and value of prizes in the game are as follows:

Table 3

[graphic]

A. The actual number of tickets in the game may be increased or decreased at the sole discretion of the Texas Lottery.

5.0. End of the Instant Game. The Executive Director may, at any time, announce a closing date (end date) for the Instant Game Number 230 without advance notice, at which point no further tickets in that game may be sold.

6.0. Governing Law. In purchasing an Instant Game ticket, the player agrees to comply with, and abide by, these Game Procedures for Instant Game Number 230, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), applicable rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery Act and referenced in 16 TAC, Chapter 401, and all final decisions of the Executive Director.

TRD-200102882

Kimberly L. Kiplin

General Counsel

Texas Lottery Commission

Filed: May 23, 2001


Instant Game Number 238 "High Roller"

1.0. Name and Style of Game.

A. The name of Instant Game Number 238 is "HIGH ROLLER". The play style in Game 1 is a "key number match with tripler". The play style in Game 2 is "add up". The play style in Game 3 is "beat score". The play style in the Bonus Box is "key symbol match".

1.1. Price of Instant Ticket.

A. Tickets for Instant Game Number 238 shall be $5.00 per ticket.

1.2. Definitions in Instant Game Number 238.

A. Display Printing--That area of the instant game ticket outside of the area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.

B. Latex Overprint--The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols on the front of the ticket.

C. Play Symbol--One of the symbols which appears under the Latex Overprint on the front of the ticket. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in black ink in positive. The possible play symbols are: $1.00, $2.00, $4.00, $5.00, $10.00, $50.00, $100, $500, $1,000, $50,000, STAR SYMBOL, GOLD SYMBOL, STACK OF BILLS SYMBOLS, MONEY SYMBOL, WHEEL SYMBOL, CHIP SYMBOL, ACE CARD SYMBOL, 1 SYMBOL, 2 SYMBOL, 3 SYMBOL, 4 SYMBOL, 5 SYMBOL, 6 SYMBOL, KING CARD SYMBOL, QUEEN CARD SYMBOL, JACK CARD SYMBOL, TEN CARD SYMBOL, NINE CARD SYMBOL, EIGHT CARD SYMBOL, SEVEN CARD SYMBOL, SIX CARD SYMBOL, FIVE CARD SYMBOL, FOUR CARD SYMBOL, THREE CARD SYMBOL, and TWO CARD SYMBOL.

D. Play Symbol Caption--the small printed material appearing below each Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One and only one of these Play Symbol Captions appears under each Play Symbol and each is printed in caption font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:

Table 1

[graphic]

[graphic]

E. Retailer Validation Code--Three small letters found under the removable scratch-off covering in the play area, which retailers use to verify and validate instant winners. The possible validation codes are:

Table 2

[graphic]

Low-tier winning tickets use the required codes listed in Table 2. Non-winning tickets and high-tier tickets use a non-required combination of the required codes listed in Table 2 with the exception of ∅, which will only appear on low-tier winners and will always have a slash through it.

F. Serial Number--A unique 13 digit number appearing under the latex scratch-off covering on the front of the ticket. There is a four digit security number which will be boxed and placed randomly within the Serial Number. The remaining nine digits of the Serial Number are the Validation Number. The Serial Number is positioned beneath the bottom row of play data in the scratched-off play area. The format will be : 0000000000000.

G. Low-Tier Prize--A prize of $5.00, $8.00, $10.00, or $20.00.

H. Mid-Tier Prize--A prize of $50.00, $100, or $500.

I. High-Tier Prize--A prize of $1,000, $5,000, and $50,000.

J. Bar Code--A 22 character interleaved two of five bar code which will include a three digit game ID, the seven digit pack number, the three digit ticket number and the nine digit Validation Number. The bar code appears on the back of the ticket.

K. Pack-Ticket Number--A 13 digit number consisting of the three digit game number (238), a seven digit pack number, and a three digit ticket number. Ticket numbers start with 000 and end with 249 within each pack. The format will be : 238-0000001-000.

L. Pack--A pack of "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game tickets contain 75 tickets, which are packed in plastic shrink-wrapping and fanfolded in pages of one. The packs will alternate. One pack will show the front of ticket 000 and the back of 074, while the other fold will show the back of ticket 000 and front of 074.

M. Non-Winning Ticket--A ticket which is not programmed to be a winning ticket or a ticket that does not meet all of the requirements of these Game Procedures, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), and applicable rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery Act and referenced in 16 TAC, Chapter 401.

N. Ticket or Instant Game Ticket, or Instant Ticket--A Texas Lottery "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game Number 238 ticket.

2.0. Determination of Prize Winners. The determination of prize winners is subject to the general ticket validation requirements set forth in Texas Lottery Rule §401.302, Instant Game Rules, these Game Procedures, and the requirements set out on the back of each instant ticket. A prize winner in Game 1 of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose seven play symbols. If the player matches their Lucky Dollar Amounts to the Prize Amount in the center the player will win that prize. If the player gets a star symbol the player will win triple the Prize Amount in the center. A prize winner in Game 2 of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose 12 play symbols. If the total of the player's YOUR ROLL equals seven or 11 for each roll, the player will win the prize shown for that roll. A prize winner in Game 3 of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose 12 play symbols. If the player's YOUR CARD beats the DEALER'S CARD within a hand the player will win the prize shown. A prize winner in the bonus game of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose one play symbol. The player wins $10 instantly if the player gets a chip symbol. No portion of the display printing nor any extraneous matter whatsoever shall be usable or playable as a part of the Instant Game.

2.1. Instant Ticket Validation Requirements.

A. To be a valid Instant Game ticket, all of the following requirements must be met:

1. Exactly 32 Play Symbols must appear under the latex overprint on the front portion of the ticket;

2. Each of the Play Symbols must have a Play Symbol Caption underneath, and each Play Symbol must agree with its Play Symbol Caption;

3. Each of the Play Symbols must be present in its entirety and be fully legible;

4. Each of the Play Symbols must be printed in black ink;

5. The ticket shall be intact;

6. The Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket Number must be present in their entirety and be fully legible;

7. The Serial Number must correspond, using the Texas Lottery's codes, to the Play Symbols on the ticket;

8. The ticket must not have a hole punched through it, be mutilated, altered, unreadable, reconstituted or tampered with in any manner;

9. The ticket must not be counterfeit in whole or in part;

10. The ticket must have been issued by the Texas Lottery in an authorized manner;

11. The ticket must not have been stolen, nor appear on any list of omitted tickets or non-activated tickets on file at the Texas Lottery;

12. The Play Symbols, Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket Number must be right side up and not reversed in any manner;

13. The ticket must be complete and not miscut, and have exactly 32 Play Symbols under the latex overprint on the front portion of the ticket, exactly one Serial Number, exactly one Retailer Validation Code, and exactly one Pack-Ticket Number on the ticket;

14. The Serial Number of an apparent winning ticket shall correspond with the Texas Lottery's Serial Numbers for winning tickets, and a ticket with that Serial Number shall not have been paid previously;

15. The ticket must not be blank or partially blank, misregistered, defective or printed or produced in error;

16. Each of the 32 Play Symbols must be exactly one of those described in Section 1.2.C of these Game Procedures.

17. Each of the 32 Play Symbols on the ticket must be printed in the Symbol font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; the ticket Serial Numbers must be printed in the Serial font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and the Pack-Ticket Number must be printed in the Pack-Ticket Number font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery;

18. The display printing on the ticket must be regular in every respect and correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and

19. The ticket must have been received by the Texas Lottery by applicable deadlines.

B. The ticket must pass all additional validation tests provided for in these Game Procedures, the Texas Lottery's Rules governing the award of prizes of the amount to be validated, and any confidential validation and security tests of the Texas Lottery.

C. Any Instant Game ticket not passing all of the validation requirements is void and ineligible for any prize and shall not be paid. However, the Executive Director may, solely at the Executive Director's discretion, refund the retail sales price of the ticket. In the event a defective ticket is purchased, the only responsibility or liability of the Texas Lottery shall be to replace the defective ticket with another unplayed ticket in that Instant Game (or a ticket of equivalent sales price from any other current Instant Lottery game) or refund the retail sales price of the ticket, solely at the Executive Director's discretion.

2.2. Programmed Game Parameters.

A. Consecutive non-winning tickets will not have identical play data, spot for spot.

B. There will be no correlation between a prize symbol and the play symbol it appears with.

C. There will be no duplicate non-winning play symbols in Games 1, 2, and 3.

D. No duplicate non-winning rolls in any order will appear in Game 2.

E. No duplicate YOUR CARD play symbols will appear in Game 3.

F. No duplicate DEALER'S CARD play symbols will appear in Game 3.

G. No ties between YOUR CARD and the DEALER'S CARD within a hand in Game 3.

2.3. Procedure for Claiming Prizes.

A. To claim a "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game prize of $5.00, $8.00, $10.00, $20.00, $50.00, $100, or $500, a claimant shall sign the back of the ticket in the space designated on the ticket and present the winning ticket to any Texas Lottery Retailer. The Texas Lottery Retailer shall verify the claim and, if valid, and upon presentation of proper identification, make payment of the amount due the claimant and physically void the ticket; provided that the Texas Lottery Retailer may, but is not, in some cases, required to pay a $50.00, $100 or $500 ticket. In the event the Texas Lottery Retailer cannot verify the claim, the Texas Lottery Retailer shall provide the claimant with a claim form and instruct the claimant on how to file a claim with the Texas Lottery. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, a check shall be forwarded to the claimant in the amount due. In the event the claim is not validated, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly. A claimant may also claim any of the above prizes under the procedure described in Section 2.3.B and 2.3.C of these Game Procedures.

B. To claim a "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game prize of $1,000, $5,000 or $50,000 the claimant must sign the winning ticket and present it at one of the Texas Lottery's Claim Centers. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, payment will be made to the bearer of the validated winning ticket for that prize upon presentation of proper identification. When paying a prize of $600 or more, the Texas Lottery shall file the appropriate income reporting form with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and shall withhold federal income tax at a rate set by the IRS if required. In the event that the claim is not validated by the Texas Lottery, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.

C. As an alternative method of claiming a "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game prize, the claimant must sign the winning ticket, thoroughly complete a claim form, and mail both to: Texas Lottery Commission, Post Office Box 16600, Austin, Texas 78761-6600. The risk of sending a ticket remains with the claimant. In the event that the claim is not validated by the Texas Lottery, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.

D. Prior to payment by the Texas Lottery of any prize, the Texas Lottery shall deduct a sufficient amount from the winnings of a person who has been finally determined to be:

1. delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the Comptroller, the Texas Workforce Commission, or Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission;

2. delinquent in making child support payments administered or collected by the Attorney General; or

3. delinquent in reimbursing the Texas Department of Human Services for a benefit granted in error under the food stamp program or the program of financial assistance under Chapter 31, Human Resource Code;

4. in default on a loan made under Chapter 52, Education Code; or

5. in default on a loan guaranteed under Chapter 57, Education Code

F. If a person is indebted or owes delinquent taxes to the State, other than those specified in the preceding paragraph, the winnings of a person shall be withheld until the debt or taxes are paid.

2.4. Allowance for Delay of Payment. The Texas Lottery may delay payment of the prize pending a final determination by the Executive Director, under any of the following circumstances:

A. if a dispute occurs, or it appears likely that a dispute may occur, regarding the prize;

B. if there is any question regarding the identity of the claimant;

C. if there is any question regarding the validity of the ticket presented for payment; or

D. if the claim is subject to any deduction from the payment otherwise due, as described in Section 2.3.D of these Game Procedures. No liability for interest for any delay shall accrue to the benefit of the claimant pending payment of the claim.

2.5. Payment of Prizes to Persons Under 18. If a person under the age of 18 years is entitled to a cash prize of less than $600 from the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall deliver to an adult member of the minor's family or the minor's guardian a check or warrant in the amount of the prize payable to the order of the minor.

2.6. If a person under the age of 18 years is entitled to a cash prize of more than $600 from the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall deposit the amount of the prize in a custodial bank account, with an adult member of the minor's family or the minor's guardian serving as custodian for the minor.

2.7. Instant Ticket Claim Period. All Instant Game prizes must be claimed within 180 days following the end of the Instant Game. Any prize not claimed within that period, and in the manner specified in these Game Procedures and on the back of each ticket, shall be forfeited.

3.0. Instant Ticket Ownership.

A. Until such time as a signature is placed upon the back portion of an Instant Game ticket in the space designated therefor, a ticket shall be owned by the physical possessor of said ticket. When a signature is placed on the back of the ticket in the space designated therefor, the player whose signature appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled to any prize attributable thereto. Notwithstanding any name or names submitted on a claim form, the Executive Director shall make payment to the player whose signature appears on the back of the ticket in the space designated therefor. If more than one name appears on the back of the ticket, the Executive Director will require that one of those players whose name appears thereon be designated by such players to receive payment.

B. The Texas Lottery shall not be responsible for lost or stolen Instant Game tickets and shall not be required to pay on a lost or stolen Instant Game ticket.

4.0. Number and Value of Instant Prizes. There will be approximately 10,373,250 tickets in the Instant Game Number 238. The approximate number and value of prizes in the game are as follows:

Table 3

[graphic]

A. The actual number of tickets in the game may be increased or decreased at the sole discretion of the Texas Lottery.

5.0. End of the Instant Game. The Executive Director may, at any time, announce a closing date (end date) for the Instant Game Number 238 without advance notice, at which point no further tickets in that game may be sold.

6.0. Governing Law. In purchasing an Instant Game ticket, the player agrees to comply with, and abide by, these Game Procedures for Instant Game Number 238, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), applicable rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery Act and referenced in 16 TAC, Chapter 401, and all final decisions of the Executive Director.

TRD-200102883

Kimberly L. Kiplin

General Counsel

Texas Lottery Commission

Filed: May 23, 2001


Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Air Quality Standard Permit for Electric Generating Units

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) is issuing a new standard permit for electric generating units. The new air quality standard permit will be effective June 1, 2001, and authorizes certain electric generating units installed or modified after June 1, 2001 that generate electricity for use by the owner or operator and/or generate electricity to be sold to the electric grid. The standard permit does not apply to electric generating units permitted by rule under title 30 TAC §§106.101, Domestic Use Facilities, 106.511, Portable and Emergency Engines and Turbines, 106.512, Stationary Engines and Turbines, or included on the list entitled "De Minimis Facilities or Sources."

Copies of the standard permit for electric generating units may be obtained from the commission web site at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/airperm or by contacting the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Air Permits Division at (512) 239-1240.

OVERVIEW OF STANDARD PERMIT

The commission is issuing an air quality standard permit authorizing certain electric generating units under authority of the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.05195 and 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F, Standard Permits. The commission previously authorized the majority of the electric generating units under the conditions of a permit by rule, 30 TAC §106.512, or under Chapter 116, Subchapter B. This standard permit provides a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism that may be used by any electric generating unit complying with its requirements and not prohibited by some other state or federal permitting statute or regulation. The issuance of this standard permit 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 and complex.

In addition, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas anticipates that small electric generating units (EGUs) may become an attractive option for electric customers as an alternative to central station generating units as a primary source of electricity due to electric restructuring and electric reliability concerns. These EGUs, sited at or near a load that will use all or most of the electricity generated, may be equipped to export electricity to the electrical grid. Until now, many EGUs have been eligible for authorization under §106.512. However, a number of EGU technologies exist which can meet and exceed the emission limits in §106.512. Thus, it would be inappropriate to allow new or modified engines or turbines to operate under the §106.512 emission standards. Therefore, this standard permit contains emission limits more stringent than the emission limits in §106.512. The standard permit is designed to provide a streamlined permitting method to encourage the use of "clean" EGU technologies.

The standard permit is designed to allow for authorization of an electric generating unit. However, it is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism for all possible unit configurations or for unusual operating scenarios. Those facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for a case-by-case review of an air quality permit under 30 TAC §116.111.

PUBLIC MEETING AND COMMENTERS

In accordance with §116.603, the commission published notice of the proposed standard permit in the Texas Register and in daily newspapers of the largest general circulation in the following metropolitan areas: Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, San Antonio, and Tyler. The notice was published on November 17, 2000. The initial comment period ran from November 17, 2000 to December 19, 2000. However, in response to comment, the comment period was extended to February 5, 2001.

STAKEHOLDERS MEETING

At the request of several commenters, staff hosted a stakeholders meeting on January 23, 2001 in Room 212W of the TNRCC, Building C, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. Notice of the meeting was posted on the agency's web site on January 12, 2001. At that meeting, staff provided stakeholders with an update on the development of the standard permit based on the comments received to that date. Stakeholders were also provided an opportunity to make presentations to the group and to participate in a "roundtable" discussion with staff and with each other on the issue of the standard permit.

COMMENTS

A public meeting on the proposal was held December 19, 2000 in Room 2210 of the TNRCC Building F, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. Oral comments were made by the following: Capstone Turbine Corporation (Capstone); Catalytica Energy Systems (Catalytica); Energy Developments Incorporated (EDI); the Engine Manufacturer's Association (EMA); Good Company Associates (Good Company); Honeywell Power Systems (Honeywell Power); and Public Citizen, Texas office (Public Citizen).

The period for written comments on the proposed standard permit closed at 5:00 p.m., February 5, 2001. Written comments were submitted by the following: the American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy (ACEEE); the American Gas Cooling Center, Inc. (AGCC); ALSTOM Power Inc. (ALSTOM); American Electric Power (AEP); Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos); Austin Energy; Calpine Corporation (Calpine); Capstone; Catalytica; Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, P.C. (Cotton Bledsoe); Cummins, Inc., Cummins Inc./Onan (Cummins); Dresser-Waukesha, Waukesha Engine Division (Waukesha Engine); DTE Energy Technologies (DTE); Deutz Corporation (Deutz); EDI; the EMA on behalf of Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc./Onan, Deere & Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Deutz Corporation, General Motors Corporation, and Waukesha Engine Division; Encorp; Energy Transfer Group, L.L.C. (ETG); Environmental Defense; Global Power Corporation (Global Power); Good Company; Holt Companies (Holt); Holt Power Systems (Holt Power); Honeywell Power; Hunt Power, L.P. (Hunt Power); International Fuel Cells; the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Consumer Protection Division, Public Agency Representation Section (OAG - Public Agency Representation Section); Plug Power Fuel Cell Systems (Plug Power); Public Citizen, Texas office (Public Citizen); the Railroad Commission of Texas, Alternative Fuels Research and Education Division (AFRED); Reliant Energy, Inc. (REI); Solar Turbines Incorporated (Solar); Southern Union Gas Company (Southern Union); Sure Power Corporation (Sure Power); the United States of America Department of Energy (DOE); United States of America Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (EPA); the United States Combined Heat and Power Association (USCHPA); the Honorable Leticia Van de Putte, R. Ph., the Senate of Texas (Senator Van de Putte); and Waukesha-Pearce Industries, Inc. (Waukesha- Pearce).

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS

Support for Standard Permit

Environmental Defense applauded the commission for the foresight it has shown by proposing the standard permit for small electric generating units. Environmental Defense stated that proliferation of small generation units, lacking meaningful emission standards, could undermine measures adopted to reduce nitrogen oxides (NO x ) emissions in the state implementation plans (SIPs). Public Citizen applauded the commission for using output-based measures for regulating small electric generators and assuring that efficiency is considered. Good Company supported the output-based measure. Capstone supported the intent and objective of the proposed standard permit, the tapered- down NO x emission requirements over time, and the 9 parts per million (ppm), 5 ppm, 3 ppm profile of the taper down.

The commission appreciates the support expressed by these commenters.

Commitment to Solve Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Nonattainment Issue

Calpine stated its willingness and intent to play an integral role in solving the DFW nonattainment issue by putting state-of-the-art combined cycle generation to work in the DFW area.

The commission appreciates Calpine's commitment to help solve the DFW nonattainment issue.

Request for Extension of Original Comment Period

Good Company, DOE, Encorp, and Cummins requested an extension of the original comment period.

The original comment period was extended from December 19, 2000 to February 5, 2001.

Combining Gas Turbines and Duct Burners

Catalytica commented that if the best available emission rate for duct burners is currently 0.1 pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu), then the standard permit should require the appropriate emission level from the turbine and limit the duct burner to 0.1 lb/MMBtu.

The standard permit has output-based standards (pounds of NO x per megawatt-hour) and does not regulate based upon the use of specific technologies, such as duct burners. Therefore, no changes were made to the standard permit in response to this comment.

Statewide Applicability of Proposed Standard

ACEEE, AEP, ALSTOM, Cotton Bledsoe, Encorp, Environmental Defense, Good Company, Honeywell Power, NRDC, Public Citizen, Solar, Southern Union, USCHPA, and Waukesha Engine commented on the statewide applicability of the proposed standards. ACEEE and USCHPA commented that areas that maintain environmental attainment should be given a greater technology choice than the nonattainment areas of downtown Houston and Dallas based on the theory that state- wide emissions can be decreased by allowing the implementation of distributed technologies throughout Texas, and since transmission and distribution losses in rural parts of the state may be more than in urban areas. AEP commented that the emission limitations should be based on siting the plant in an attainment area with special provisions being added for equipment being installed in nonattainment areas. ALSTOM stated that statewide applicability of the standard permit could be catastrophic for the implementation of distributed generation (DG) in NO x attainment areas and increase demand for existing, higher polluting plants. Cotton Bledsoe questioned the appropriateness of applying the same emission standard to East and West Texas since West Texas has the potential to become a major power generating and exporting region but has not "used up" its portion of the NO x increment as has East and Central Texas. Encorp recommended that two permits, each with different standards, be developed, one for attainment areas and the second for nonattainment areas. Encorp explained that adoption of a single statewide standard is arbitrary and capricious and penalizes areas which have maintained good air quality by eliminating the possibility of cheaper DG power. Environmental Defense commented that it may be appropriate in the first years of the revised standard permit to apply a different set of standards for East and West Texas. However, Environmental Defense commented that all sources in East Texas subject to the standard permit need to achieve the same standard set out for nonattainment areas. Good Company recommended that the commission establish "attainment area" and "nonattainment area" limits. Honeywell Power recommended that different emission standards be developed for attainment and nonattainment areas of the state. Honeywell Power stated that such an approach would match appropriate technology with each area at minimal cost to the ratepayer. NRDC commented that applying different standards to an East Texas and West Texas region may be useful for some interim period but that the ultimate goal should be a strong, statewide final emission standard. Public Citizen supported the commission proposal to divide the state into East and West Texas for emission limits. Solar proposed that the standard permit set different standards for attainment and nonattainment areas. Southern Union recommended that the proposed standard permit apply only to sources located in ozone nonattainment areas that do not have a Federal Clean Air Act, §182(f) waiver for nitrogen oxides. Southern Union recommended that sources in areas designated as attainment or unclassified, or in areas with a §182(f) waiver, continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512. Waukesha Engine recommended limiting applicability of additionally restrictive NO x standards for DG units to nonattainment areas only.

The commission agrees that in the case of an ozone precursor, such as NOx , different standards should apply in different areas of the state. The standard permit has been revised to include the Senate Bill (SB) 7 (76th Legislature, 1999) definitions of "East Texas region" and "West Texas region" (revised to include the El Paso region). Thus, the East Texas region includes all counties traversed by or east of Interstate Highway 35 or Interstate Highway 37, including Bosque, Coryell, Hood, Parker, Somervell, and Wise Counties. The West Texas region includes all of the state not contained in the East Texas region. As stated, the El Paso area is considered in the West Texas region for purposes of this standard permit, although it is considered separately in SB 7. Different standards will apply in each region based upon generating capacity, date of installation, and hours of operation. The commission plans to conduct a study to determine the environmental impact of DG on the State of Texas. The standards for each region will be reevaluated at the conclusion of that study.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Good Company commented that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are burdensome for residential and small business uses. NRDC recommended that units between 10 kilowatts (kW) and 50 kW be subject to reduced recordkeeping requirements.

Electric generating units used exclusively for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101 which has no recordkeeping or reporting requirements. The commission believes that requiring records of the hours of operation and maintenance schedule is reasonable for all units, including those between 10 kW and 50 kW. The standard permit has no reporting requirements per se. Instead, records required by the standard permit must be provided upon request to the commission.

Registration Fee

Good Company commented that the $450 registration fee is burdensome for residential and small business uses. Hunt Power commented that smaller scale DG technologies could be unfairly penalized with a flat fee of $450. Hunt Power recommended that the permit fee should be applied as a dollar per kW amount. NRDC recommended that units between 10 kW and 50 kW pay a registration fee of 0.15% of the capital cost of the project regardless if that amount is less than $450. Plug Power recommended that the registration fee be a factor of "x" dollars and the power output of the unit.

The commission has revised the fee schedule from a $450 registration fee for all units to a fee scale based on generating capacity of a unit. Units or multiple units with a generating capacity of 1 megawatt (MW) or greater will be subject to a $450 fee; units or multiple units with a generating capacity of less than 1 MW will be subject to a $100 fee; units or multiple units less than 1 MW that have certified NO x emissions that are less than 10% of the required standards will be granted a fee waiver. The fee is intended to recover staff expenses in reviewing the registration. The commission reduced the fee for smaller units because a $450 fee may be a substantial percentage of the initial cost to operate some small units. The commission has waived the fee for ultra-clean small units to encourage their use. The commission notes that units used exclusively for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101 which requires no fee.

Registration of Propane-fueled or Gaseous-fueled Units

AFRED recommended that propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled units of 30 kW or less be permitted by rule. In the alternative, AFRED recommended a phased-in implementation over a period of four years for propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled units less than 30 kW and at a reduced permitting cost. AFRED commented that these units will most likely be used by residential customers and small businesses and sometimes in rural attainment areas.

Propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled units of 30 kW or less used exclusively for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101 which requires no fee. The commission has reduced the fee to $100 for units, like propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled units, operating under 1 MW. Should these units emit less than 10% of the standards, no fee is required. The intent of the standard permit is to provide a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism for all electric generating units.

Fee Exemption for State Agencies

The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section recommended that state taxpayer-supported facilities, such as state agencies and institutions of higher learning, should be exempt from paying the registration application fee. The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section explained that state agencies operate on limited budgets and that a fee requirement could have serious financial impacts on the larger agencies.

No change has been made directly in response to this comment. State agencies have historically paid all required fees required by the commission for various permitting projects regardless of the media. The standard permit is consistent with this process. It should be noted that the proposed registration fee has been reduced for small units and waived for ultra-clean units.

Applicability of Standard Permit to Wind or Solar-Driven Generators

Cotton Bledsoe asked whether the standard permit requirements apply to alternative energy DG projects, such as wind and solar power.

The standard permit requirements do not apply to wind and solar units. Since they do not have air emissions, the commission does not regulate them under the Texas Clean Air Act.

Applicability of Standard Permit to Emergency Engines or Turbines

NRDC commented that a benefit of the standard permit is that it clarifies that the exemption for emergency generators applies only to generators that run only when there is a loss of power on the electric grid. Waukesha Engine endorsed the exclusion of emergency generators in paragraph (1)(C). EMA approved of the exclusion of emergency EGUs from the scope of the standard permit's applicability. EMA also supported a permitting exemption for DG units installed for operation in the case of "Stage III" power shortages such as are occurring in California.

The commission appreciates the support of the commenters. Emergency engines and turbines will continue to be permitted by rule under §106.511, rather than be authorized under this standard permit. However, the commission notes that §106.511 applies only to units satisfying its requirements and that §106.511 does not use the term "Stage III."

ACEEE proposed that §106.511 be modified to tighten the regulations on emergency backup generators. Good Company recommended that the commission establish a new standard, to allow installation of standby generators, or the retrofit of existing standby generators, in a way which meets certain minimum emission levels in order that they might be interconnected to the grid and provide power during an ERCOT/ISO stage three, or higher, emergency. Good Company stated that the commission should work with the PUC to establish similar protocols for localized situations that may occur in the future. Good Company recommended that standby units and Stage II emergency units be exempt from the standard permit. Public Citizen agreed with the commission that there should be different limits for emergency generators but was concerned that the language in the rules is not "tough enough" to assure that emergency plants are required to apply for a permit if used more than a few hours each year. Public Citizen recommended that the operations limit be decreased to no more than 100 hours per year. Public Citizen recommended that the commission explicitly require a change in use patterns to require registration and compliance with emission limits and recommended that emergency generators be tested at night or at hours that would minimally affect ozone formation. Public Citizen recommended a requirement that all mechanics who work on emergency engines or turbines undergo a training and certification process, and that they be prohibited from modifying a backup unit to provide voltage stability or dispatchability until permitted under the standard permit.

The commission did not propose amendments to §106.511 as part of this action, and therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of this standard permit action.

The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section commented that the exemption for emergency units contained in paragraph (1)(C) would prohibit the use of DG in times of high demand. The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section recommended changing paragraph (1)(C) by deleting the word "exclusively" and adding the following language after the word meter: "or when conditions on the grid are such that the power source is unreliable or power quality is questionable." The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section explained that as the use of DG expands and the load on the grid increases, it will be desirable to have large customers that are capable of producing their own electricity, thereby reducing the demands on the utility.

The definition of emergency has been removed from the standard permit to avoid confusion between the standard permit and §106.511 which permits by rule emergency engines and turbines.

Applicability of Standard Permit to Non-road Engines and Portable Units

EMA commented that portable DG units are nonroad engines; therefore, the standard permit should not apply to portable DG units because the commission is "specifically and expressly preempted" from regulating nonroad engines pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act, §209(e). EMA stated that the commission should adopt the definition of "nonroad engine" contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations §89.2. Good Company recommended that the standard permit not apply to portable units.

The commission agrees with this comment and does not consider portable "nonroad engines" that are not on a site more than 12 months a stationary source. Therefore, this standard permit does not apply to these units.

Applicability of Standard Permit to Units Generating More than 10 MW

ALSTOM recommended increasing the upper range of applicability to 15 MW because there are a number of industrial gas turbines offered by major suppliers in the 10 to 15 MW bracket which may benefit DG if the standard permit option is available. Catalytica commented that a number of turbines operate in the 10 MW area and that setting the limit at 10 MW would give a competitive advantage to some models just below the limit, while hindering competing models just above the limit. Catalytica stated that there are almost no popular models in the 15 to 25 MW range and, therefore, suggested that the standard permit apply to units up to 20 MW. Sure Power commented that the proposed 10 MW size limit will inhibit the use of DG systems in many data center applications. Sure Power commented that if Texas is to set a size limitation, then 50 MW, as is the case in California, should be considered and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) should be required.

The standard permit has been revised in response to these comments. The commission has issued the standard permit with a provision for electric generating units greater than 10 MW that has separate standards that represent BACT for natural gas-fired turbines. The commission believes this change to the standard permit is appropriate to provide these clean units greater than 10 MW the opportunity to use a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism.

Affect of Standard Permit on Ability to Authorize Under Regular NSR Permitting

Global Power stated that issuance of the standard permit should not preclude authorization of small electrical generating units under a regular new source review (NSR) permit.

This standard permit does not preclude authorization by NSR. Any owner or operator may request a NSR permit. This standard permit and the permit by rule are provided as streamlined alternatives, if the unit meets the requirements of the permit by rule or the standard permit.

Applicability of Standard Permit to Landfill to Gas Energy (LFGTE) Projects, Stranded Gas to Energy Projects, and Units using Flare Gas

REI commented that the proposed standard permit should not apply to LFGTE projects because the proposed emission limits cannot be met by internal combustion engines fueled by landfill gas. REI commented that the proposed standard permit will eliminate the development of LFGTE projects in Texas and that LFGTE projects should continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512. Deutz commented that DG engines fueled by landfill/digester gas require their own specific NO x standard because the contents of the fuel prohibit the application of standard aftertreatment technologies. Deutz recommended a standard of 0.6 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhphr) which is the standard adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for these units. Deutz recommended a +/- 10% tolerance be added to the 0.6 g/bhphr standard to take into account the variable nature of landfill/digester gas. Deutz commented that a reasonable standard for landfill/digester gas projects is necessary to realize the significant energy recovery and economic benefits of these projects. Deutz commented that commission regulations need to address the specific engine applications that make use of "stranded gas." Deutz stated that stranded gas, often too far from pipelines to be affordable shipped to market, can be used to generate electricity.

To encourage the use of some gases that would otherwise be flared or vented to the atmosphere, the standard permit was revised to include an East Texas NO x standard to be applied exclusively to units that use as fuel landfill gas, digester gas, or some oil field gases (stranded gas). The NO x standard of 1.77 pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) is equivalent to 0.6 grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) and was established based upon a lean burn engine, since catalytic converters are poisoned by contaminants found in landfill gas. Since this NO x standard can be met by existing technology, it would be inappropriate to allow these units to continue to be permitted by rule under the less stringent standards in §106.512. Units in the West Texas region using these fuels may comply with the West Texas region standards contained in the standard permit.

Public Citizen recommended a standard permit for landfill gas generators since they have unique emissions profiles and control limits that may need to be different from other generators. Good Company recommended that units using flare gas should be exempt from the standard permit.

The separate NO x limit applicable only to units that use landfill gas, digester gas, or some oil field gases takes into account the unique emission profiles and control limits of these units. With the changes discussed in the previous response to comment, the commission finds no additional reason to develop a standard permit exclusively for these units. Furthermore, it is these same emission profiles and control limits of these units that require the commission to regulate these units and not exempt from the standard permit.

Applicability of Standard Permit to Ultra-Clean Electric Generating Units or Non-Combustion Generating Units

Plug Power recommended that the commission consider a "zero" or "de minimis" threshold category below which registration for the standard permit is not required or is otherwise provided, based upon ultra-clean technologies, such as solar, wind, and fuel cells or based upon a generation process, such as whether any fuel is combusted. As an alternative, Plug Power recommended that the commission give consideration to a power output threshold approach below which registration is not required or is granted pro forma. International Fuel Cells commented that its PC25 fuel cell has NO x emissions of 0.0267 lb/MWh and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of 0.0017 lb/MWh and that in cogeneration applications fuel cells typically approach 85% combined efficiency.

The commission intends the standard permit to apply to all electric generating units that emit air contaminants. Thus, generating units driven by the sun or by the wind are not subject to this standard permit. However, fuel cells that use natural gas or a converter fuel are subject to the standard permit because of their NO x emissions. Nevertheless, in an effort to encourage the use of ultra-clean technology, such as fuel cells, the commission has revised the standard permit. The registration fee has been waived for units generating less than 1 MW that have NO x emissions that are less than 10% of the standards. Fuel cells should be able to satisfy this requirement and thus qualify for the fee waiver. In addition, the commission encourages ultra-clean distribution technology to petition the commission for inclusion on the list entitled "De Minimis Facilities or Sources" referenced under 30 TAC §116.119. Sources on this list require no registration prior to construction.

Applicability of Standard Permit to EGUs less than 1.5 MW

NRDC commented that the standard permit should explicitly state that it covers generators from 10 MW to either 10 kW or 0 kW. NRDC commented that the lower end should be 0 kW if the commission reduces the fee and record-keeping burden on very small generators. NRDC commented that in the alternative 10 kW could be used to ease the regulatory burden on the smallest generators which will primarily be used by individuals and small commercial customers. NRDC commented that the standard permit should be made mandatory for units too small to be covered by existing minor NSR. NRDC commented that if this step is not taken, small generators currently exempted from minor NSR permitting will not opt into the standard permit.

The commission has revised the standard permit to apply to all electric generating units regardless of size so that all of these units which meet the standard permit may have a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism. As previously discussed, the commission has reduced the registration fee for very small and very clean units.

Good Company commented that generating units less than 100 kW should be exempt from any standard for now and that a standard for those units could be developed over the next few years.

No change was made in response to this comment. Units generating less than 100 kW used exclusively for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101 which requires no registration. The commission has reduced the fee to $100 for units operating under 1 MW. If these units emit less than 10% of the standards, no fee is required. The intent of the standard permit is to provide a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism for all electric generating units.

AEP commented that smaller DG systems of 1.5 MW and less should be kept in a permit by rule registration system and DG systems and units between 1.5 MW and 10 MW should use the proposed standard permit. AEP commented that this will allow the deployment of this technology with relative ease to that sector of the regulated community (homeowners and small commercial) that would be most adversely impacted by a permitting requirement. Waukesha Engine recommended that smaller units be exempt from the CO and NO x emission limits.

The commission notes that units constructed and operated at a domestic residence for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101. As previously discussed, the fee has been reduced to $100 for units under 1 MW and eliminated for very clean units less than 1 MW. The commission anticipates that most small commercial entities using the standard permit will register units less than 1 MW.

Authorization Period under Standard Permit

Public Citizen recommended that the commission limit the life of the standard permit and require generators subject to it to update their technologies to BACT levels every ten years. Sure Power commented that license renewal in ten years will create an uncertainty burden since "high availability power supply" facilities normally have life cycles of 20 years or longer. Sure Power commented that an uncertain renewal process could deter development of clean DG in Texas.

Provisions for amending or revoking a standard permit are included in Chapter 116, Subchapter F. Those rules require that standard permits be renewed at least every ten years. Those rules also provide a mechanism, as appropriate, for updating technology. Comment on those rules is beyond the scope of this commission action and, therefore, no change has been made to the standard permit in response to these comments.

Definition of "Modified"

The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section and Waukesha Engine recommended that Section (1)(A) include an appropriate definition of a "modified unit." Global Power requested clarification of what is meant by the word "modified."

The term "modified" is defined in §116.10(9) "Modification of existing facility." This definition applies to this standard permit.

Clarification of When Construction Begins

Cotton Bledsoe asked for clarification whether "dirt work" or setting of a skid for a skid-mounted DG project could begin before commission approval of the application.

To eliminate questions on start of construction and to eliminate the ability to "start construction" on a unit prior to the implementation of a more strict NO x standard, the standard permit was revised to include a definition of "installed." The NO x standards are based upon an "installed" date.

Clarification of Term "Site"

Cotton Bledsoe recommended clarification of the word "site". Cotton Bledsoe asked whether a manufacturing facility may put two separate DG skids, one at each building in a manufacturing complex of up to 10 MW each, or whether the facility is considered a single "site" and limited to 10 MW of DG projects total.

For purposes of this standard permit, the term "site" is used as defined in §122.10(29).

Clarification of Applicability of Standard Permit to a Site

Waukesha Engine recommended that paragraph (3)(A) clarify that the standards apply to the DG site as a whole and not to each unit individually to provide owners and operators flexibility in operation. Global Power also endorsed this position.

The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment because the commission is specifically regulating the NO x emissions from each electric generating unit registered under the standard permit. Although the NO x standard in the standard permit applies to each electric generating unit, the reference to multiple units at an account only applies to the fee determination.

Stakeholder Involvement in Establishing Emission Limits

Honeywell Power recommended that the emission limits be qualitatively determined using a consensus process that involves all stakeholders and that one aspect of this process should be to broadly evaluate the consequences and value of a variety of generation options. DOE, Cummins, EDI, Public Citizen and Good Company supported a collaborative effort to set the emission limits. AGCC requested that a workshop be held with stakeholders to derive a methodology that appropriately calculates and compares emissions impacts of electrical generation alternatives relative to the grid. Global Power recommended that the commission work with EMA and its members to establish practical NOx and CO limits. AFRED recommended that the commission establish a working group of stakeholders to evaluate present emissions and potential emission reductions and to develop regulatory options that protect air quality but allow the market for these units to develop.

In addition to the public meeting required by rule, staff hosted a stakeholders meeting at the stakeholder's request on January 23, 2001. The commission thanks all stakeholders who have participated in the standard permit development process thus far. The public comment period for written comments was extended until February 5, 2001 at the request of the stakeholders, and all submitted written and oral comments have provided the basis for the revisions in the issued standard permit. The commission intends to continue to involve stakeholders in any further developments on this issue.

Study to Determine Potential Impact of DG on Texas

Good Company recommended that the commission consider entering into a study of the technology and its potential applications, as well as, available emission reduction technologies applicable to generation units of the size under consideration prior to attempting to develop this standard permit. Good Company requested that the commission adopt the standards Good Company submitted if the commission decided to issue the standard permit before such a study was complete. DOE suggested that the commission conduct a study to determine the potential DG impact on Texas and offered to share the cost of such a study. DOE stated that consideration of technology-specific goals may be necessary before development of broad output-based standards. EMA and Cummins stated that the proposed emission standards are not supported by any assessment of impacts on emissions inventories.

The commission intends to participate in a study in conjunction with the DOE and the PUC to determine the environmental impact and define the market potential of DG (i.e., electric generating units of 10 MW or less). However, the commission believes it is important to proceed with issuing this standard permit prior to the completion of the study because of the very real potential for increased preconstruction authorization applications for electric generating units, especially small units. Upon completion of the study, the commission plans to reevaluate the standard permit to ensure that the standards are set at an appropriate level.

The Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limitations

Hunt Power commented that if the commission methodology of central station unit comparisons is to be fairly applied, appropriate central station technology should be used to make the comparison. Hunt Power used the duty cycle of a power plant as an example of a factor that must be considered when determining appropriate emission limitations. Hunt Power also commented that the standards must recognize the short-run benefit of DG in reducing central station power plant emissions. Hunt Power commented that if the commission deemed a specific emission limit for a central station unit in a given duty cycle, the allowable emission limit for DG in the same duty cycle should be 10% higher than the central station technology based solely on line losses. Hunt Power commented that the commission's standards must recognize the overall contribution that DG technologies make to improve air quality by taking into account the physical power system realities, which require re-dispatch of generating plants. Hunt Power commented that to the extent that an end use customer or DG project developer incorporates these technologies into a single site project, we believe the customer or owner of the site should receive 100% credit for the energy generated by these non-polluting technologies, applied against thermal generating resources that are part of the overall site or project.

The NO x standards originally proposed were based upon BACT for recently permitted combined cycle central power stations. In response to these comments, the standards required in the standard permit have been revised to reflect BACT for electric generating units in pounds of NO x per MW hour adjusted to reflect a simple cycle power plant. In addition, these output-based standards include an adjustment to account for inefficiencies associated with conversion of mechanical to electrical energy. While no specific credits were included for line losses except in the conversion to lb/MWh, a 100% credit was allowed for any combined heat and power added.

AEP commented that the current state of the technology on the DG systems will not meet the stringent standards as outlined in the proposal and the high cost and operational difficulties associated with post-combustion control equipment will make it prohibitive to install DG equipment in the state. AEP commented that the DG systems should be allowed to be permitted at a BACT rate that was in effect 120 months prior to the submission of the application with a reduction in the standard over the next five years. AEP commented that this will allow DG technology to mature and catch up with the traditional combined cycle type of equipment.

BACT is required by the TCAA and 30 TAC §116.602(c) for standard permits. Therefore, the commission does not have the authority to make the suggested change. However, as discussed previously, the standard permit was revised to reflect BACT for simple cycle power plants, as well as the cleanest reciprocating engines.

Austin Energy commented that since the Central Texas region is nearing ozone nonattainment, the emission rates should be weighted toward the clean end of the spectrum of possible emission rates, but that the emission rates should not be so strict that no manufacturer will be able to meet them in a cost-effective manner. Austin Energy commented that it is in the process of building a new facility near Austin that consists of four large peaking-type gas turbines that will have selective catalytic reduction (SCR) emissions control devices added to the units. Austin Energy commented that the emissions target for these units is below 5 ppm NO x . Austin Energy commented that it has found that it can invest the added cost of the SCR into its new power plant in an economically viable manner. Austin Energy commented that this fact should be considered during the negotiations regarding emission rates for the various forms of DG and cogeneration. Austin Energy commented that the cost of all of the equipment that would nominally be utilized for emergency backup generation only (i.e., the generator and the prime mover) should not be included in the control cost-effectiveness determinations because a facility would have to pay for these generators whether they are DG or not. Austin Energy commented that only the incremental cost of adding the emissions control devices should be used for determining the emission control cost-effectiveness.

The commission appreciates Austin Energy's concern about the air quality of the Central Texas region and agrees that emission controls can be cost-effective for electric generating units. By setting output-based standards and not distinguishing between driver-types, more clean and more efficient units are rewarded and recent gains in air quality from clean central power plants will not be negated. This standard permit does not require emergency generators to use additional controls unless they switch service from emergency-only to peaking applications.

Austin Energy commented that it is concerned that by allowing several small but comparatively high-emitting sources into the air shed, any gains that have been made recently to improving the air quality in Texas through NOx reductions made at centralized power plants will be negated. Austin Energy commented that this increase would lead to an increase in the emission reduction requirements that would be necessary from the mobile source sector.

The commission is also concerned about the impact of small but comparatively high-emitting sources on the gains made by recently permitted low emitting centralized power plants. The standard permit as issued requires BACT in the East Texas region to address the nonattainment problems in the area.

NRDC supports the proposed standard permit and the commission's efforts to establish user- friendly emissions standards for small electric generators. NRDC commented that the standard permit will close a gap in existing air pollution regulations and encourage the development of small clean electricity generators to address capacity concerns in Texas. NRDC endorsed the aggressive emission limits in the standard permit because use of the standard permit is optional. NRDC commented that the approach for setting standards endorsed in the Federal Clean Air Act requires new units to perform at least as well as the best unit in that technological family, and the result of that approach is to allow the market place to set the rate of tightening in emissions standards. NRDC commented that technological family being regulated here is the customer-owned generation market. However, NRDC commented that no generation technology should be allowed to profit by being dirtier than other technologies and for that reason recommended that the commission explicitly link the standard permit requirements starting in 2007 to the emission rates being achieved by combined cycle natural gas turbines. Environmental Defense commented that it is irresponsible to argue that engine manufacturers should be allowed to emit at rates that are 40 to 70 times higher than existing fleet or new central station power plants that must achieve 93% emission reductions (achieving an emissions rate of approximately 0.1 lb/MWh) and when other much cleaner alternatives are available. In addition, Environmental Defense commented that the commission must consider the cumulative effects from rapid deployment of small generating units in determining the appropriate emission standard under the standard permit given the fact that rapid growth in DG is expected. Environmental Defense commented that a strict emission standard is achievable. Environmental Defense endorsed Capstone's recommended NO x emission standard schedule of: 0.40 lb/MWh in 2001; 0.19 lb/MWh in 2003; and 0.08 lb/MWh in 2005. Environmental Defense commented that DG should not be subsidized by low-emitting large generators. Environmental Defense commented that it small generators should not be allowed to emit at rates 40 to 70 times higher than large generators when the large generators are spending millions of dollars to reduce emissions and incur the additional cost of acquiring emission offsets. Environmental Defense stated that it would understand the reasonableness of "backing off" the emission standards if it were accompanied by a 1.3 to 1 emission offset requirement.

The commission appreciates NRDC's and Environmental Defense's comments. The standards in the standard permit are based upon BACT for the cleanest type of equipment available. Due to concerns about potential transmission and distribution problems in remote areas of West Texas, the standard for these peaking units operating less than 300 hours per year represents Tier I non-road engine standards proposed by EPA. The East Texas standards reflect BACT to account for the ozone nonattainment issues in this region, but also provide for the use of clean peaking applications. The future year standard will be reevaluated upon completion of the planned DG study. Additionally, because the standard permit applies to units greater than 10 MW and the proposed standards have been revised, the commission has proposed removal of the exemption for electric generating units contained in Chapter 117. Thus, once this exemption is removed from Chapter 117, electric generating units under 10 MW, operating under the standard permit, will be subject to Chapter 117.

Good Company recommended a site-internal emissions trading system that would allow sites to select the most appropriate and cost-effective technology for each application. Good Company stated that sites should receive credits based on the net emission reductions achieved at a site due to DG implementation.

Providing for emission trading at a site or at an account would unnecessarily complicate the standard permit which was designed to be an expedited method of authorizing clean electric generating units. Therefore, the standard permit was not changed in response to this comment. A flexible permit under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter G provides a mechanism for the flexibility described in the comment.

Environmental Defense commented that the current DFW and Houston/Galveston (HGA) SIP does not account for emissions increases brought about by increased utilization of small generation that is exempt from major source permitting and offset requirements. Environmental Defense commented that the only way to remedy the failure to account for increased emissions from small generating sources is to establish emission rates that ensure cumulative emissions from these sources over the next seven years that will not have a measurable impact on air quality in the affected regions.

As previously stated, the commission has proposed removal of the exemption for small electric generating units registered under this standard permit from Chapter 117 because of the potential impact upon the SIP from units operating under the standard permit. In addition, the results of the planned DG study will be used to evaluate the 2005 East Texas region standard. The standards applicable to the East Texas region drastically cut the limits currently permitted by rule under 30 TAC §106.512 and will require even cleaner technology for future installations.

Environmental Defense commented that effect of the standard permits on the availability of adequate power should not be a factor in deciding on the appropriate emission standards since adequate power is already available. In the alternative, Environmental Defense commented that deployment of energy efficiency measures would solve most electricity sufficiency and reliability problems.

Although adequate power is generally readily available throughout the state, the commission believes this standard permit will be most useful in areas of the state that either do not have adequate power available or inadequate transmission and distribution systems for the power. The standard permit includes strict emission standards to protect the environment, including the requirement for future installations to meet increasingly stricter standards. The inclusion of a credit for CHP use also benefits those who chose to install and operate more efficient units and eliminate the need for additional fossil fueled heat sources.

Public Citizen recommended more stringent standards for nonattainment areas and commented that the state should be required to examine the cumulative impact of these emissions in nonattainment areas. Public Citizen recommended that the commission adopt a bifurcated rule that would allow EGUs to be permitted as proposed under the standard permit but in nonattainment areas require individual permits with offsets. Public Citizen commented that this would assure that the addition of any new source must be aggregated into the SIP caps and that they are "permittable" under the limits. Public Citizen commented that this would assure that the technologies used meet the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standard.

As discussed earlier, by establishing the standards for both the East Texas region and the West Texas region in the standard permit, the commission is able to ensure that BACT in the East Texas region addresses the unique nonattainment issues in that area of the state. Individual New Source Review permits would be required for any project that triggers nonattainment review which would include LAER.

Public Citizen questioned the wisdom of placing diesel units in neighborhoods or in office clusters where citizens would be continuously exposed to carcinogens and encouraged the commission to keep in mind various air quality issues and deadlines that must be met in upcoming years when choosing the standard permit's emission standards. Public Citizen encouraged the commission to evaluate the impact of other pollutants from DG because of the long useful life of some DG units. Public Citizen also stated that pricing of electricity in the future will likely encourage the use of DG and this fact should also be considered when establishing emission limits.

The commission agrees with Public Citizen's concern about diesel units because of the higher emissions of NO x and other air pollutants. The only standard in the standard permit that would authorize diesel engines which use current technology is the standard for peaking units operating 300 hours or less in the West Texas region. Parts of the West Texas region may have transmission and distribution limitations in a deregulated market, but by limiting the hours of operation, the impact of all pollutants are minimized.

Public Citizen recommended that the commission modify the standard permit to assure that some or all of the emissions from EGUs are controlled under its general authority to adopt regulations necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Public Citizen recommended that the commission establish a docket to develop appropriate emission levels for EGU pollutants and incorporate the findings of that inquiry into a BACT review.

The standard permit requires BACT and replaces the use of permit by rule 30 TAC §106.512 that has less stringent standards for NO x . Any BACT determination for permits under review will look at all technology available, not just recently permitted units. In addition, facilities which trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting would not be eligible to use the standard permit.

Plug Power supported the fact that the proposed standard permit treats different electric generation technologies identically with respect to the air emission standards.

The commission appreciates Plug Power supporting the position that the standards should be the same for all units to encourage the use of the cleanest and most efficient units.

Senator Van de Putte stated that the standard permit inappropriately applied emission standards for one type of technology for the regulation of another and encouraged the commission to apply a broader, integrated solution to the regulation of emissions from the power generation sector. She also stated the proposed standard permit must be revised to allow DG technologies to benefit the Texas environment and economy. Honeywell Power stated that a direct application of combined cycle plant emission standards to the DG industry does not necessarily maintain the current level of air quality. Honeywell Power stated that many factors, as they relate to the operation and use of combined cycle plants and DG, affect air quality. Holt and Holt Power commented that the commission's approach to setting the emission limits has no basis in United States environmental law or regulatory practice. They stated that the commission has set an environmental standard for several categories of equipment based on the peak performance of a different technology in a completely different size category. They stated that the commission should set challenging but attainable emission limits based on the best performance of each DG technology with consideration given to the technical capabilities and economic factors associated with each technology. They requested that there be an opportunity for public review and comment before this rule is finalized. Solar commented that comparing DG technologies to large combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) is inappropriate because of differences in system efficiency, line losses, and air dispersion characteristics. Solar commented that the standards for DG technologies should be based on technology-based standards (New Source Performance Standards) or case-by-case assessment of technical and economic feasibility (BACT/LAER). Solar commented that lack of DG will harm markets that are not served adequately by central station power plants. EMA and Cummins stated that the standards are not reflective of sound public policy since they "will effect a de facto ban" on small electrical generating units powered by reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). EMA and Cummins stated that the NOx standards should be based on the best available emission control technologies for RICE DG units instead of the standards applicable under the HGA SIP to combined cycle power plants. EMA stated that since the proposed standards effect a de facto ban on RICE, owners and operators of will not refurbish or upgrade existing RICE. EMA stated that the decision not to refurbish existing RICE will adversely affect air quality and energy concerns. AGCC commented that the apparent purpose of the proposed standard permit is to ban all DG except for certain renewables and fuel cells. AGCC stated that a ban on DG results in a situation where very few companies representing the same technology control the multi-billion dollar electricity- generating industry and that such a situation appears to violate the spirit (if not the letter) of Section 18 of the Texas Constitution, which states: "Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed." AGCC stated that such a situation results in higher electricity and natural gas prices for ratepayers, harms Texas' agricultural industry, and degrades the environment. AGCC also stated that case-by-case full permit hearings create a hardship for DG projects of 1 MW or less because those requirements may eliminate the economic feasibility of those projects. ETG stated that the proposed emission standards will have the effect of limiting competition by eliminating market entrance of smaller competitors and power projects but with no concomitant benefit to air quality since the economic lives of older technologies and equipment will be extended. ETG requested that the commission not take any action that sets standards beyond the reasonable economic capabilities of those who build and supply generating equipment. The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section commented that the commission should reexamine the emission standards to ensure that these standards are achievable using technology that is available now.

The commission has revised the standard permit in response to these comments. The standard permit contains different standards to account for different technologies available and the mode of operation of the units. The original draft used natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants as the basis for the standards. However, in response to comments, the commission divided the state into two regions and allowed different technologies to be used in each. In the West Texas region, nonattainment is not a major concern so the standards allow for the cleanest reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines, and fuel cells. These standards do not ban any clean equipment and even clean diesels meeting the EPA Tier 1 non-road engine standards can be used for peaking in West Texas. In the East Texas region, where concern for ozone formation is greater, the standards should allow for authorization of fuel cells, micro- turbines, clean turbines using catalytic combustors or flue gas cleanup, and the very cleanest reciprocating engines using catalytic converters. The commission also recognizes that the cleanest technology available will be needed to maintain the current level of air quality and to improve it in nonattainment and near-nonattainment areas. The revised standards are output-based to encourage the use of the most efficient and cleanest technology available and to encourage smaller units located at or near the user to avoid the line losses associated with only a few central power plants. The less stringent standards should encourage the use of small units where appropriate and do not represent a ban on any technology that is clean. The TCAA authorizes the commission to control the quality of the state's air, issuing permits that meet or exceed BACT. The commission considered this standard permit in an open meeting at which time the public had the opportunity to comment on the standard permit.

DOE also stated that consideration of technology-specific goals may be necessary before development of broad output-based standards.

The standard permit contains emission limits that allow for authorization of a variety of clean electric generating units. The commission plans to use the results of a planned study with the DOE to determine the environmental impact and market penetration of DG units in Texas to determine the appropriate outlying standards for DG technology.

AGCC also commented on the importance of considering how reduction of one pollutant may increase emissions of another pollutant.

Information reviewed on the engines that can meet the NO x standards in the standard permit indicates that these engines are efficient combustion sources so that increases in pollutants due to the NOx standards are anticipated to be minimal, if at all.

ACEEE commented that comparing DG technologies to baseload generating technologies such as CCGT is inappropriate. ACEEE proposed that the commission consider using state-of-the-art peaking units as the comparison technology for DG systems. Sure Power commented that the comparison of DG only to new combined cycle generation neglects other emissions attributable to the system as a whole (i.e., DG emissions should be compared to grid emissions plus the emissions from use of uninterruptible power supplies plus the emissions from the use of backup diesel units). Sure Power commented that in markets requiring high-availability power, DG emissions should be compared against the grid plus diesel generators used to assure reliability. Catalytica commented that the commission's decision to set emission limits based on the best emission level achievable from large combined cycle units does not take into account that most DG units will be simple cycle nor that small units cannot achieve the efficiencies of large combined cycle systems. Catalytica commented that no units in the size range covered by the proposed permit will be able to achieve the levels required after January 1, 2005. Catalytica commented that the commission could establish emission limits based on the best performance available from a gas turbine and allow credit for emission reductions resulting from heat recovery. Catalytica commented that by its emission levels the standard permit seems to be mandating heat recovery, and that if that is the case, the commission should develop a standard permit for non-heat recovery applications. Catalytica commented that it would like the proposed standard permit to give credit for use of combustion control technology over NO x control technology applied to a boiler because emissions at start-up from the former are less than the latter. DTE commented that adoption of the standard permit will prevent implementation of DG in Texas while suppressing total market opportunities for DG. DTE commented that this result will harm end- users requiring personalized solutions that the electric grid cannot provide, and society in general. AGCC stated the proposed standard permit will result in electricity capacity shortfalls and price increases, increased emissions of global warming gases, and reduced competition in the electricity- generation sector. Good Company requested that the commission examine the costs and benefits of the proposed standard permit. Sure Power commented that the stringent emission limitations will drive customers to use the traditional grid plus diesel backup, since the diesels are permitted by rule.

As previously discussed in response to the standards proposed, the commission has modified the standard permit to represent BACT for more than just combined cycle central station plants. The standards in the issued standard permit will allow for the cleanest reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines and fuel cells. This should allow the use of clean equipment, give an incentive for using CHP without setting standards that would require it, and provide economic incentive for reliability power to be generated at the point of use as opposed to relying on central plant power with emergency backup.

USCHPA stated that DG units should be given credit for abated transmission and distribution (T & D) line losses equal to the average T & D losses in Texas because DG reduces the amount of electricity that central station plants must transmit. ACEEE proposed that the commission develop a system for providing small generators with credit for avoiding transmission losses. ACEEE recommended that emission rates for on-site generation be at least 9.0% higher than the emission rates of state-of-the-art central combined cycle gas generators. Good Company commented that the commission should at a minimum allow a fair credit for on-site generation to account for line losses and enhanced power quality and ensure that emissions are measured as total power avoided rather than net power produced on site. Good Company recommended that peaking power applications be given higher line loss and power quality adjustments because peaking power is used when line losses are greatest. Good Company recommended a 30% credit. ALSTOM commented that no credit is given for avoided transmission losses from central generation by using DG despite the fact that in periods of high demand transmission losses may reach 30%. Good Company requested that the commission recognize the variety of needs which DG meets as it develops the standard permit. Good Company commented that the emissions from DG applications should, at a minimum, be compared to the emissions of either peaking units or the electrical generation system average, rather than the baseload combined cycle gas turbine plant. Good Company commented that the commission should determine a fair credit that will account for the avoided line losses and enhanced power that DG affords since increased DG generation means decreased central station emissions. Austin Energy estimated that typical line losses within its service area (the Austin Metro area) are between 8.0% and 10% on a hot day.

The revised standards in the standard permit issued are no longer exclusively based on recently permitted combined cycle power plants. Dividing the state into two regions and setting separate standards in each region allowed for more technologies and eliminated the need to meet the efficiency of a combined cycle unit. This relaxation of the standards to reflect simple cycle turbine and even reciprocating engines provides enough flexibility to adequately account for the 10% line losses avoided. The commission does not believe that it is appropriate to credit the highest possible line losses of 30% to allow equipment that cannot meet the BACT standards to be competitive.

USCHPA suggested that the allowable emission limits be adjusted to allow for multiple DG technologies, including simple-cycle gas turbines and controlled gas engines. USCHPA stated that the only available technology that meets the requirements in the proposal is the fuel cell but that fuel cells, at a cost of $1,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt-hour (KWh) installed, are cost-effective only for a small number of "high-value industries." ALSTOM stated that DG will only succeed as a "mix of technologies" so that consumers may have maximum choice in how their power is generated. ALSTOM stated that the mix would include reciprocating engines, micro-turbines, wind, solar, small to medium-sized gas turbines, fuel cells, and other technologies as they become available. ALSTOM commented that a standard for turbines and one for reciprocating engines are necessary for DG to successfully grow in Texas. ALSTOM stated that it seems impractical to compare emissions, on a lb/MWh basis, from a small DG unit to that of a combined cycle gas turbine where efficiency is relatively high and exhaust cleanup, though expensive, is a smaller proportion of total cost. AGCC commented that "force-fitting" the state implementation plan for Houston and Galveston on the remainder of Texas, the majority of which is in attainment, is "counterproductive for the greater good of Texas" and consumers from other states who rely on natural gas from Texas. AGCC commented that mandating BACT would preclude more logical Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) which could undermine legitimate environmental objectives. AGCC commented that mandating combined-cycle turbine "merchant plants" would decrease competition and increase water and natural gas consumption (thereby increasing emissions). AGCC commented that combined-cycle emission reductions may be significantly overstated since emissions from those units may vary significantly as a function of inlet air temperature.

As previously discussed in responses to other comments on the standards, the commission has revised the standards based upon East and West Texas regions and upon the operating schedule of the units. The original draft used natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants as the basis for the standards, but by dividing the state into two separate regions, the standard permit issued allows different technologies to be used. In the West Texas region nonattainment is not a major concern, so the standards allow for the cleanest reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines and fuel cells. Even clean diesels meeting the EPA Tier 1 non-road engine standards can be used for peaking. In the East Texas region, the standards should allow for authorization of fuel cells, micro-turbines, clean turbines using catalytic combustors or flue gas cleanup, and the very cleanest reciprocating engines using catalytic converters. This mix of technologies should give the users the flexibility to choose the most appropriate equipment for the location.

AGCC commented that an ideal credit formula should be based upon actual overall emissions reduced since the emissions that accompany overall British thermal unit (Btu) consumption are of primary importance. AGCC commented that for DG, credit should be based upon a given DG system's emissions relative to the grid, and for CHP, credit should also compensate for emission differences between heat recovery and use of an on-site furnace or boiler. AGCC provided an alternative formula.

The commission appreciates AGCC's comments on CHP credits, and tried to give adequate credit for CHP installations without over complicating the calculations required. To simplify the calculations and demonstrations required, the revisions in the standard permit credit 100% of the useful heat recovered and no longer require a standardized system.

Waukesha-Pearce urged the commission to carefully study the reduction systems it is advocating with respect to initial cost, operational cost, and total impact on air quality. Waukesha-Pearce expressed concern that the commission is mandating large reductions too quickly with the proposed standard permit and the proposed levels in §117.206(C)(9). Waukesha-Pearce stated that the proposed emission limits create a situation where the cost of controls equals or exceeds the cost of the engine. AGCC commented that the trade-offs between minimizing criteria emissions, minimizing adverse economic impacts, and maximizing conservation of finite resources must be comprehensively addressed to minimize unintended consequences of the standard permit emission limits. AGCC also commented that least-cost/integrated resource planning are being ignored. AGCC explained that most commercially-available DG technologies are less expensive than most combined-cycle power plants when the cost of transmission and distribution infrastructure is included in the cost of combined-cycle power plants. AGCC stated that ignoring such factors usually results in higher costs to consumers, fewer consumer choices, and deterioration of the environment. EMA and Cummins stated that the proposed emission standards are not cost-effective. Cummins stated that the proposed standard permit is not reasonable. Global Power commented that the decision to base the proposed emission limits on emission limits achievable by recently permitted large combined-cycle power plants is misguided and impractical and provided emission, cost, and anecdotal evidence in support of its proposition. Global Power opposed emission limits that would require widespread use of SCR technology to achieve them because of the potential problems associated with SCR use. Global Power stated that the proposed emission limits would create a severe economic hardship for businesses in Texas because the standard permit, in effect, prohibits DG and, therefore, DG cannot be used to supplement the inadequacies of the electric grid transmission and distribution system. Global Power recommended that the standard permit should reflect the emissions capabilities of small gas turbines and reciprocating engines without post-combustion treatment except in nonattainment areas, where non-selective catalytic reducers (NSCR) would be required in the exhausts of natural gas-fueled rich burn engines and turbines that utilize non-dry low NO x combustion systems. Global Power would be in favor of emission limits for diesel engines in attainment areas that require the use of commercially-viable SCR technology, while diesel engines in nonattainment areas would be required to obtain a regular NSR permit.

As previously discussed in responses to comments about the standards, the issued standard permit has been revised to include different standards based upon the area of the state and operation of the unit. The commission believes that these new standards reflect BACT for what is available for clean technology today in most cases without additional expensive controls.

Good Company recommended credit for any emission reductions or increase of on-site efficiencies attributed to DG units at a site. For example, an owner or operator should be credited for replacement of two industrial boilers by a lesser emitting DG unit. Encorp commented that permitting should be on a "weighted environmental impact" basis and dependent on available options.

The commission believes these issues should be addressed in a case-by-case review permit, such as a flexible permit, rather than the standard permit issued. Therefore, no change to the standard permit was proposed.

AGCC commented that water usage issues have not been considered. AGCC stated that combined-cycle power plant cooling water consumption equates to about 5.71 acre-feet per megawatt- year but that DG units do not. AGCC commented that the standard permit encourages reliance on combined-cycle power plants and that reliance on those units negatively impacts the agriculture industry, especially in the panhandle of Texas, where combined-cycle plants and agriculture sources compete for a limited amount of water. AGCC commented that insufficient water for agriculture sources in the panhandle will result in detriment to the state and the nation. DTE commented that DG benefits include reduced use of land and water resources associated with construction of new central station power plants and expansion of transmission and distribution facilities. DTE also commented that since DG is located near the end-user, DG does not have significant line losses resulting from transmission of electricity over long distances. Solar commented that operation of a 25 ppm or 15 ppm gas turbine during an emergency is better than operation of liquid fuel-based emergency unit and that the emission standards should take this into account.

As revised, the standard permit should encourage the use of smaller, clean generating units near the end-user where there is a limited power supply or distribution system and would, therefore, reduce the need for additional central power stations that require cooling towers that use large quantities of water to condense the steam back into water. The NO x standards that were established based upon BACT will ensure that the cleanest units are used.

Good Company encouraged the commission to recognize that small-scale generation, when and if it becomes a significant economic alternative, will not be simply an alternative for large-scale, centrally-generated electric power, but that it holds promise for providing power quality and reliability characteristics not available from the larger power grid. Good Company commented that the commission should consider the impact of the standard permit on the economy. Good Company recommended that the commission recognize three classes of on-site applications (emergency, peaking, and primary power) and that standards be set based upon the best available technology assessment of the applicable technology for each. Good Company recommended that the commission recognize the technical and economic feasibility of a variety of equipment in different size ranges. Good Company commented that the standards should not be based upon the assumption that fuel cells are the best available technology.

The standard permit, as revised, includes standards for large and small units as well as incentives for the use of small units and units that operate a limited number of hours. To encourage efficiency, standards were established in pounds of emissions per unit output, but were not established separately for different types of technology. The standards will allow for very clean reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines, and fuel cells.

Good Company commented that a separate standard permit that includes a less stringent standard for units used less than 720 hours could reduce the need for either the use of older, out-dated central station and "must run" plants, or the need to start up diesel backup generator sets. Good Company commented that the commission should consider the standard emission levels in comparison to the most outmoded generation rather than the new utility-scale generation. Good Company commented that by limiting the use of these machines to after 10 a.m., the commission could limit the contribution of any NOx emissions to ground level ozone formation, as well.

The standard permit has been revised to allow units in the West Texas region to operate up to 300 hours per year at a higher standard which could reduce the needs mentioned. This should allow diesel engines meeting EPA's Tier I diesel off-road standards to be used for peaking. The standards in the East Texas region are more stringent to recognize the nonattainment concerns for this region. Since the commission is required to apply at least BACT, it is difficult to set standards based on outmoded generation rather than current technology.

Southern Union recommended that sites located in nonattainment areas, with total DG capacity of less than 300 kW and emissions less than 5.912 lb/MWh, continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512. Southern Union explained that under this scenario, total NO x emissions would be approximately 7.8 tons per year (assuming continuous operation). Global Power suggested that units with a nameplate rating of 150 kW or less, with a limit of three such units per site, have relaxed emission standards. ACEEE recommended that the regulations for on-site generation set forth in the standard permit be loosened.

No change has been made in response to this comment. Without proper controls, a proliferation of small units could negatively impact the commission's obligation to demonstrate attainment with ozone standards. As previously stated, the standard permit was revised so that more types of facilities could meet it. In addition, the commission wants to encourage the use of emerging ultra-clean technologies, such as fuel cells, for small generation units. Finally, very clean small units may petition the executive director to be listed on the list entitled "De Minimis Facilities or Sources" and avoid the need to register under this standard permit, if approved and added to the list.

Environmental Defense stated that the standard for West Texas should be set in the first period to allow new units to utilize internal combustion engine (ICE) technology but be fueled and operated in a manner that produces lower emissions. Environmental Defense recommended a 2001 - 2002 NO x standard of 1 lb/MWh for those units since an ICE engine fueled by natural gas can achieve a standard of 1 lb/MWh without SCR post-combustion control. Environmental Defense recommended a 2003 - 2004 NO x standard of 0.3 lb/MWh since Caterpillar has publicly stated that it expects to achieve a standard of 0.3 lb/MWh very soon with lean burn natural gas ICEs.

The commission is issuing the standard permit which includes separate standards applicable to an East Texas region and a West Texas region. The West Texas standards represent BACT for natural gas-fired lean burn and rich burn internal combustion engines. The standards recommended by Environmental Defense would not allow lean burn engines to use the standard permit without adding SCR, which the commission has not determined to be needed in the West Texas region. The West Texas standards will be reevaluated at the completion of the planned DG study and may be adjusted, if needed.

Environmental Defense commented that if the East Texas NO x standards of 0.19 pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) and 0.08 lb/MWh for 2003 and 2005 are maintained then micro-turbine technology will benefit from increased production and concomitant decreasing production costs. Environmental Defense reasoned that micro-turbine technology will then be economic for use in West Texas, as well as East Texas, by 2005. For that reason, Environmental Defense recommended that for the time being, the West Texas target for 2005 should remain 0.08 lb/MWh.

The standard permit has an initial East Texas region standard for units (10 MW or less) operating more than 300 hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units (10 MW or less) operating 300 hours or less per year must comply with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The commission will reevaluate the 2005 standard after completion of the planned DG study. The standards in East Texas represent BACT for the ozone nonattainment areas in East Texas. The commission agrees that as clean technology, such as micro-turbines, becomes more commercially available, there will be more options for the owners or operators of these electric generating units. This can be considered when, and if, new standards for West Texas are proposed.

NRDC commented that a number of commenters claim that because the proposed emission rates cannot be achieved by all generation technologies that the standards are too strict. NRDC commented that technology forcing regulations by their very nature should only be achievable by the best technologies, and that there is clearly a set of small generators that can meet the standards proposed by the commission as long as the standards are adjusted for phased-in efficiency. NRDC commented that Capstone, in their comments, suggested adjusting the commission proposed standards to reflect gradual improvements in efficiency. NRDC supported Capstone's suggested NO x emission rates of 0.40 lb/MWh today, 0.19 lb/MWh in 2003, and 0.08 lb/MWh in 2005.

The commission appreciates NRDC's comments and support for the concept that standards apply to all technologies so long as they are achievable. The standard permit was revised to reflect this concept. The standard permit has an initial East Texas region standard for units (10 MW or less) operating more than 300 hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units (10 MW or less) operating 300 hours or less per year must comply with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The standard permit contains standards that represent BACT for various electric generating unit technologies. The East Texas region standards will be reevaluated upon completion of the planned DG study.

Honeywell Power commented that practical emission limits should be set that are within the DG industry's "reach" both technically and economically, and that these limits will result in cleaner ambient air and economic benefits. Honeywell Power recommended the following NO x emission limits: 2001, 2.0 lb/MWh; 2002, 1.0 lb/MWh; 2003, 1.0 lb/MWh; 2004, 0.3 lb/MWh; 2005, 0.3 lb/MWh. Honeywell Power stated that their recommended emission limits are achievable by most manufacturers in the given time period and are significantly lower than the aggregated existing fleet. Honeywell Power stated that they have no technology that can meet the proposed emission limitations. Capstone recommended the following NO x emission limits over time: 0.4 lb/MWh; 0.19 lb/MWh; 0.08 lb/MWh. Capstone stated that commission assumed too high an efficiency for CCGT on which the commission based its standards. Capstone's recommendation assumes a more realistic efficiency (30% - 35%) for these units. Capstone commented that the emission standards should be stepped down as the efficiency of CCGTs goes up. Capstone commented that the standards should reflect that reduced line losses attributed to DG. Solar recommended the following NO x emission levels for natural gas-fueled gas turbines across all duty cycles: 1.06 lb/MWh until 2004 and 0.68 lb/MWh from 2005 to 2010. Solar commented that the proposed standards would require add-on controls to achieve and make such projects too expensive to construct.

The standard permit was revised in response to these comments. The standards were adjusted to represent BACT for more than just the most efficient combined-cycle turbines and are similar to the standards proposed by the commenters. The state was divided into two regions with different standards for units under 10 MW because of the nonattainment issues in the East Texas region. The West Texas region standards for units less than or equal to 10 MW are 21 lb/MWh for units operating less than or equal to 300 hours per year and 3.11 lb/MWh for all other units. The standard permit has an initial East Texas region standard for units (10 MW or less) operating more than 300 hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units (10 MW or less) operating 300 hours or less per year must comply with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The initial standards in the standard permit are achievable by the cleanest reciprocating engines and turbines without expensive controls as well as micro-turbines and fuel cells. The standard permit now contains emission limits that do not require add-on controls.

EMA and Cummins stated that the proposed emission requirements are not technologically feasible for RICE. EMA stated that the proposed interim standard is an order of magnitude more stringent than what can be achieved by the most advanced lean-burn spark-ignited (SI) RICE. EMA also stated that the proposed standard is an order of magnitude more stringent than the expected federal NO x limit for heavy-duty diesel on-highway engines expected to become final in 2007.

The standard permit was revised in response to these comments. The proposed standards were based upon what had been permitted for combined-cycle central power plants and was not achievable by most of the smaller engines. However, the initial standards in the standard permit, as revised, represent BACT that the cleanest RICE and turbines can meet today, as well as micro- turbines and fuel cells.

DOE suggested that the commission consider an interim ruling targeting single digit NO x with future reductions that match research and development goals for various DG technologies. DOE stated that commercial offerings do not exist which will guarantee the proposed 2005 standard can be met. Encorp commented that a determination should be made of the expected distribution and size of DG units in the state in an effort to determine the impact of DG.

The commission plans to participate in a study with the DOE to determine the environmental impact, market potential, and technology available for small electric generating units. The results of this study will be used to reevaluate the 2005 East Texas region standard.

Cummins stated that the standard permit should take into account that NOx and particulate matter (PM) emission levels from diesel reciprocating engines in heavy-duty on highway applications will have been reduced by 90% by 2002 and that expected near-term standards would require another 90% reduction of these emissions or 99% reduction from unregulated levels. Cummins stated that emission reductions should be staged over time as the cost-effectiveness of technology advances.

The standards in the West Texas region allow for the use of diesel engines meeting the Tier 1 non-road engine standards for 300 hours or less. If the planned DG study demonstrates the market potential for additional diesel use and that the technology will continue to improve, revisions to the West Texas region standards may be considered. Please note that emergency backup generators powered by diesel engines can still be authorized under §106.511, Portable and Emergency Engines and Turbines.

Global Power stated that the proposed emission limits are not viable for any small electric generating units using proven technology that is currently available or under development. Global Power disagreed with the agency's intention, presented at the January 23, 2001 stakeholder meeting, to retain the proposed emission standards for years 2003 and 2005. Global Power said that to do so will discourage, if not eliminate, the raising of capital to develop the DG market since companies will not put resources into a market that has unattractive economics and "impassable" environmental regulations.

As previously discussed, the standard permit was revised in response to these comments with a single step-down for the East Texas region in 2005. The initial standard reflects BACT for units available today. The East Texas region 2005 standard will be reevaluated once the planned DG study is completed.

EMA endorsed the alternative permitting standards that Good Company submitted during the January 23, 2001 stakeholder meeting. ALSTOM recommended a standard of 0.4 lb/MWh for today's turbines (in simple, open cycle) and a standard of 0.22 lb/MWh for 2005. ALSTOM commented that the standard permit's 2005 standard of 0.08 lb/MWh is cost prohibitive. ALSTOM commented that relaxing the long-term proposed standards to 9 ppm may encourage the development of small DG in all areas of the state. ALSTOM explained that a relaxed standard should decrease demand for existing plant generation and accelerate the improvement of air quality since modern gas turbines can meet 9 ppm which is an order of magnitude more clean than existing plants in some areas of the state. AGCC stated that the commission should not mandate unaffordable emission reduction technologies since RACT for reciprocating engines can provide economically manageable NO x emission of 0.5 to 1 lb/MWh, thereby reducing NO x emissions somewhere between one-third and one-sixth the emissions of the grid average. AGCC commented that overall emission reductions from DG are further increased when rejected heat is recovered to displace less clean combustion processes. Waukesha Engine recommended less stringent CO and NO x emission standards in paragraph (3)(C) and (D) according to the following: Rich-burn SI RICE: 1.86 lb/MWh CO, 0.62 lb/MWh NO x ; Lean-burn SI RICE: 0.93 lb/MWh CO, 0.93 lb/MWh NO x . Southern Union requested that the commission reevaluate the proposed emission limits and provide justification that existing, readily available combustion units can meet the limits without an inordinate amount of post-combustion controls. Southern Union requested that the proposed standard permit be revised to reflect the additional time provided for in the version of the SIP rule adopted by the commission (i.e., the first step-down extends until December 31, 2006 rather than December 31, 2004).

The commission has made changes to the standard permit in response to these comments. The state has been divided into two regions to address the need for more stringent requirements in the East Texas region because of the ozone nonattainment problem and inclusion of near nonattainment areas in much of that region. The West Texas region standards for units less than or equal to 10 MW are 21 lb/MWh for units operating less than or equal to 300 hours per year and 3.11 lb/MWh for all other units. The standard permit has an initial East Texas region standard for units (10 MW or less) operating more than 300 hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units (10 MW or less) operating 300 hours or less per year must comply with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The commission decided that a single-step down four years from now is more appropriate than the two step-down approach over four years because the two step-down approach does not provide manufacturers time to develop, test, and market products. The East Texas region 2005 standard will be reevaluated upon completion of the planned DG study. As discussed previously, different standards are based upon region, date of installation, and hours of operation. Standards, based upon hours of operation, have also been included for units greater than 10 MW.

Southern Union recommended NO x emission limits of 2.0 g/hp-hr for internal combustion gas-fired engines and 3.0 g/hp-hr for turbines rated at 500 horsepower (hp) or more for sources located in attainment or unclassified areas, since the commission's March 2000 "Revised Draft of BACT for Gas Turbines" states that sources meeting these limits could be permitted by rule under 30 TAC §106.512. Encorp recommended that NO x and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission limits should be based on specific information about current best available technology for DG units. Encorp recommended that emission limits should be based on the overall electrical and thermal efficiency of the unit. Encorp commented that emission limits should be in units of tons per year. Encorp commented that emission limits should be based on comparisons between the various commercially available DG units and not between DG units and large combined- cycle turbine central plants.

As discussed previously, the emission standards in the issued standard permit have been revised, although not to the extent suggested by these comments. Permits by Rule in Chapter 106 do not necessarily represent BACT. Permit by rule, §106.512 has not been revised since 1992. This standard permit represents BACT, as required by 30 TAC §116.602(c), with consideration given to the region of the state and operating mode. Establishing the standard in lb/MWh encourages the cleanest and most efficient units regardless of the technology.

Catalytica suggested that paragraph (3)(C) and (D) include the averaging period to be used to determine compliance. Catalytica suggested a three-hour averaging period.

The standard permit has not been revised in response to this comment. The commission believes that there is not enough data available to justify including a three-hour averaging period. A one-hour standard is consistent with NSR permitting on a pound per hour basis.

DTE commented that the proposed NO x emission standards for DG can only be met with today's emerging fuel cell and renewable energy (wind and solar) based DG technologies. DTE commented that even if an end-use customer were to use an emerging micro- or mini- gas turbine technology with waste heat recovery, the resulting NO x emissions, when corrected for the waste heat recovered, would be too high to meet the January 1, 2003 standard. DTE commented that the commission should consider deploying the strict standard for DG NO x only within ozone nonattainment areas.

The standard permit has been revised in response to these comments. As discussed previously in response to other comments, the standard permit issued has been revised to represent BACT that will include more technologies than just fuel cells and micro-turbines, and to include different standards for the West Texas and East Texas regions.

DTE commented that the time frame for deployment does not provide enough time for technology development to meet the standard. Therefore, DTE recommended modifying the time line for implementation to allow combustion-based technology time to advance to a point where it can meet the outlying standards. Solar commented that the timing proposed in the "stair-step" approach is inappropriate because it does not allow time for technology development. Solar recommended a five- year or ten-year window at each emission level. Solar also commented that project delays may trigger a different emission level than that for which the equipment was designed.

In response to this comment, the standard permit contains a single step-down in 2005 for the East Texas region. The commission will reevaluate this standard upon completion of the planned DG study.

Public Citizen supported the multi-stage process proposed by the commission and supported establishing interim standards and providing for a later review of technology. Public Citizen recommended conducting a reevaluation of the technology in October 2002 after the implementation of the Tier 2 standards.

The commission appreciates the support of Public Citizen. As previously discussed, the standard permit has been revised to retain the step-down feature for the East Texas region, but extended to 2005 to have a single step-down. Upon completion of the planned DG study, the commission will reevaluate this standard, as well as whether the standards in East Texas require adjustment.

Public Citizen commented that the emission reductions and technologies proposed by engine and turbine manufacturers are far too low given the federal Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels that will soon be required.

The commission appreciates the effort of the engine and turbine manufacturers in providing information about emissions from their products, but agrees with Public Citizen that the emission standards provided by manufacturers do not represent BACT for electric generators. However, the initial standard has been revised to allow for use of the standard permit by clean RICE which represent BACT.

Public Citizen recommended the following NO x standards for base-load applications in East Texas: under 560 kW: a 2001 standard of 1.2 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh; between 560 kW and 2 MW: a 2001 standard of 1.1 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh for; between 2 MW and 10 MW: a 2001 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh. Public Citizen recommended the following NO x standards for peaking applications in East Texas: under 560 kW: a 2001 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh; between 560 kW and 2 MW: a 2001 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh; between 2 MW and 10 MW: a 2001 standard of 1.5 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 1.5 lb/MWh. Public Citizen recommended a West Texas 2001 NO x standard equivalent to Tier 2 for units generating under 560 kW and a 2003 standard equivalent to Tier 3; a 2001 West Texas NO x standard equivalent to Tier 2 for units generating between 560 kW and 2 MW and a 2003 standard equivalent to Tier 3; and a 2001 West Texas standard equivalent to low NO x for units generating between 2 MW and 10 MW and a 2003 standard equivalent to low NO x . Public Citizen commented that its 2001 standard represents best practices today and that its 2003 standards are commercially achievable somewhere in the nation. Public Citizen supported the position taken by Environmental Defense and NRDC for 2006 but recommended that the commission review the technology in October 2002. Public Citizen commented that its break point at 2 MW reflects the fact that few diesel units are sold below 2 MW while turbines prevail due to cost and efficiency factors. Finally, Public Citizen recommended that the commission review emissions for generators under 37 kW because they are unregulated for the most part and need to be studied for the 2002 review. Good Company recommended the following NO x emission standards for nonattainment areas: Good Company recommended a 2001 NOx standard of 1.2 lb/MWh for a base-load unit generating under 560 kW and a 2003 standard of 1.2 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 0.6 lb/MWh; a 2001 NO x standard of 1.1 lb/MWh for a base-load unit generating between 560 kW and 6 MW and a 2003 standard of 1.1 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 0.47 lb/MWh; and a 2001 NO x standard of 0.6 lb/MWh for a base-load unit generating between 6 MW and 10 MW and a 2003 standard of 0.47 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh. Good Company recommended a 2001 NO x standard of 7.2 lb/MWh for a peaking unit generating under 560 kW and a 2003 standard of 7.2 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 2.5 lb/MWh; a 2001 NO x standard of 6.2 lb/MWh for a peaking unit generating between 560 kW and 6 MW and a 2003 standard of 6.2 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 2.2 lb/MWh; and a 2001 NO x standard of 4.4 lb/MWh for a peaking unit generating between 6 MW and 10 MW and a 2003 standard of 4.4 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 1.5 lb/MWh. Good Company recommended that units generating under 37 kW be exempt from the standard permit. Good Company recommended the following NO x emission standards for attainment areas: Good Company recommended a 2001 NO x standard of 21 lb/MWh for units generating under 10 MW and a 2003 standard of 21 lb/MWh and a 2006 standard of 14 lb/MWh. Good Company recommended that units generating under 37 kW be exempt from the standard permit because most of these units will be used for residential and small business applications. Good Company recommended that the commission adopt EPA's non-road mobile engine standard for the areas of the state that are in attainment.

The commission agrees that the emission standards originally proposed should be revised but did not agree entirely with the standards proposed by Public Citizen and Good Company because they were too complex and contained too many options. Rather the commission has issued the standard permit to include definitions from SB 7 for an East Texas region and a West Texas region, as requested. The East Texas region includes all of the nonattainment areas, except the El Paso area, and is the same area already identified as needing special consideration due to the ozone "near-nonattainment" for several other major metropolitan areas. Different standards have been included based upon the region, date of installation, and hours of operation. There are no special standards for very small units, but very clean small units may be listed as a de-minimis source. Standards have also been added for units greater than 10 MW based upon hours of operation to encourage streamlined permitting of clean units. The standards in West Texas represent BACT for clean generators and allow for relaxed standards for peaking unit operating 300 hours or less. The East Texas standards for units operating more than 300 hours represent BACT which is comparable to recently permitted central station power generation plants to protect the ozone nonattainment areas of East Texas. The commission notes that the standard permit represents a substantial reduction in emissions permitted by rule under §106.512.

Carbon Monoxide Requirement and Other Pollutants

Capstone recommended that unburned hydrocarbons, rather than CO, be regulated because the primary environmental concern is the unburned hydrocarbon emissions. Cotton Bledsoe asked whether the waste gas credit applied to CO emissions. EMA stated that the proposed CO standard would require engines to incorporate catalytic oxidation aftertreatment. Solar recommended that the CO standard be changed to 1.3 lb/MWh because it represents the upper limit of the range for which manufacturers will guarantee CO but that actual emissions are often much lower. Sure Power commented that the CO emission limit of 0.9 lb/MWh seems very restrictive and could result in significant added cost of additional catalytic reduction to both gas reciprocating engines and gas turbine systems. Sure Power agreed that CO emissions should be as low as practicable and requested that the commission reconsider where the CO number should be established.

The standard permit has been revised to remove the CO emission limit. The commission evaluated the data available for CO and unburned hydrocarbons emissions and determined that since output-based standards require high efficiency, the CO standard was not necessary.

DOE encouraged discussion of emission trade-offs before setting an emission limit. In support of this suggestion, DOE stated that often times regulation of one pollutant increases the emission of non- regulated pollutants. DOE implied that this phenomena should be accounted for in a cost/benefit calculation. AGCC also commented on the importance of considering how reduction of one pollutant may increase emissions of another pollutant.

No change has been made in response to this comment. The commission does not believe that the NO x limits will contribute to large increases in other air contaminants because the standards reward efficient operation of a unit.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

NRDC supported the commission's treatment of CHP. USCHPA commended the commission for recognizing the inherent efficiency improvements and emission reductions that CHP systems afford. ACEEE supported the commission's efforts to encourage the adoption of CHP systems. Solar supported the effort to encourage the adoption of CHP systems and the decision to credit recovered heat equally with useable electricity.

The commission appreciates the support for CHP. The CHP credit is designed to encourage users to install and use CHP to improve the efficiency of these generating units where there is a valid need for the recovered heat.

AGCC assumed that the intention of the heat recovery credit is to provide 0.23 pounds of NO x and/or 0.9 pounds of CO for every 3.4 million Btu recovered and, therefore, suggested that the second sentence in paragraph (3)(E) be revised to so reflect. However, AGCC commented that the second sentence in paragraph (3)(E) and its suggested revision do not address the variability and relationships between overall efficiency and heat recovery of CHP. AGCC also commented that the credit for CHP should also reflect that DG CHP will reduce NO x and CO emissions from traditional commercial and industrial combustion processes (e.g., furnaces, boilers, etc.). Sure Power commented that the proposed standard permit provides inadequate credit for CHP applications. For example, in the case where waste heat is used to drive an absorption chiller, this heat should be credited with the average heat rate of the generators in the grid as a whole, rather than just 3.4 million Btu per delivered MWh, as in the proposed standard permit.

By way of clarification, the commission intends the CHP credit to work in the following manner. If, for example, an owner of a 10 MW unit in compliance with the standard permit recovers and applies 3.4 million Btu of heat for some useful purpose, the unit may emit NO x in an hourly amount equal to that of an 11 MW unit. Thus, suppose that a 10 MW unit is subject to a NO x emission standard of 0.47 lb/MWh. The hourly NO x rate for that unit is 4.7 pounds of NO x per hour. If 3.4 million Btu of heat is recovered from that unit, the permissible NO x rate for that unit is 5.17 pounds of NO x per hour.

However, the standard permit has been revised in response to this comment. Since the CHP credit does not take into account the variability of the relationship between overall efficiency and heat recovery of CHP, the commission removed the requirement that the unit maintain a minimum efficiency of 55%. However, the commission did not change the CHP credit itself. The commission believes the credit is appropriate and that it clearly and simply acknowledges and encourages reduced NO x emissions concomitant with use of heat recovery. The straightforward credit also keeps the recordkeeping requirements to a minimum. Attempting to assign a credit based on the NOx emissions of the unit replaced by use of heat recovery would make the standard permit complex.

ACGG stated that the commission would better serve the public by awarding tradable emissions reductions credits for promoting CHP systems.

The standard permit as a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism is not an appropriate avenue for implementing a tradable emissions reduction credit program, nor does it preclude participation in an existing emission reduction credit trading program. Therefore, the standard permit was not changed in response to this comment.

AGCC commented that the commission should mandate CHP as BACT rather than combined- cycle turbines.

The standard permit has been changed since the commission agrees that applying combined- cycle turbines standards to all electric generating units is not appropriate. However, mandating CHP as BACT would be inappropriate since many owners and operators have no practical use for recovered heat. Therefore, the standard permit was not changed in response to this latter comment.

AGCC commented that paragraph (3)(E)(ii) and (iii) lacks a time parameter and suggested the time parameter be yearly averages.

The standard permit has been revised to remove paragraph (3)(E)(ii) (i.e., 55% minimum efficiency for units taking CHP credit) from the standard permit. However, paragraph (3)(E)(iii) (i.e., 20% heat recovery of total energy output) has been retained. The requirement that the heat recovered must equal at least 20% of the total energy output of the CHP is a requirement that must be satisfied at any given time. Otherwise, the recordkeeping requirements of the standard permit become unnecessarily complex.

Austin Energy commented that the efficiency requirements need to be increased by 10% since central station power plants are approaching 50 - 55% efficiency rates. Austin Energy commented that cogeneration should only receive credit for heat recovered in excess of the efficiency goal (useful energy out/fuel in).

The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment because of the commission's decision not to apply central station power plant emission limits to all electric generating units initially. In addition, the commission believes that any application of heat recovery is beneficial because it represents efficient unit operation and energy conservation.

ALSTOM stated that standard CHP packages do not exist because many factors, such as size of the equipment, steam conditioning requirements, process requirements, and existing plant requirements must be considered when designing such a package. Catalytica commented that heat recovery systems do not lend themselves to a standardized design. Catalytica requested that paragraph (3)(E)(i) be deleted because systems in the 1 - 10 MW size range are not integrated with the heat recovery system. AEP commented that paragraph (3)(E)(i) should be changed to allow a project developer to design and integrate equipment from more than one vendor. AEP commented that this will allow equipment to be used from manufacturers that do not integrate their own DG systems with heat recovery equipment. Good Company commented that the proposed requirement that CHP systems be sold as a standard unit is not feasible and should not be a requirement of the standard permit.

The commission agrees with these comments and has removed the requirement that to obtain credit for CHP the unit must be sold as an integrated standardized package.

Waste Gas Credit

AEP commented that the proposal to allow credits to be generated and used for the use of gas that would otherwise be vented or flared is a very good way to promote the use of waste gases. Environmental Defense supported giving additional credit to generators that use waste gas or renewable fuels and those that install their facilities in a CHP application. Public Citizen supported giving credit for the reuse of waste heat. Solar supported the concept of waste gas to energy projects and stated that these projects are size and technology specific and do not belong in a permit-by-rule arena.

The commission appreciates the commenter's support for the waste gas credit.

Solar commented that for gas turbines, the proposed emission levels are technically unachievable on landfill gas applications. Solar commented that if the waste gas recovery language remains in the rule, the 25% increase in allowable emissions when the standard is 0.08 lb/MWh will not encourage DG implementation for this or any application. Hunt Power commented that the 25% credit for use of flare gas is insufficient and encouraged the commission to develop a methodology which will encourage the beneficial use of what is today a wasted energy resource, by fairly comparing the "before" and "after" air emissions from the useful combustion of flare gas. DTE commented that the waste gas provisions are overly restrictive and eliminate the use of waste gas as a fuel for purposes of DG. Cotton Bledsoe asked for confirmation that this provision is intended to utilize a 25% larger hypothetical unit in calculating total allowable emissions. Honeywell Power recommended that the commission provide a more generous incentive for the use of flare gas in DG sets, otherwise manufacturers will not have the motivation to manufacture DG sets that use flare gas as a fuel. In the alternative, Honeywell Power recommended that the commission implement a plan that encourages the use of flare gas based on a showing of the emission reductions that can be achieved using flare gas. Capstone recommended that users of waste gas be provided a 100% credit for their use. Capstone stated that the proposed 25% credit may discourage the use of waste gases for power generation and result in continued flaring of these gases. AGCC stated that a 25% credit for gas that would otherwise be wasted seems restrictive to the point of being counterproductive. EMA supported extending meaningful allowances (i.e., 400%) against the permitting standards for DG units operating on landfill and waste gases. EPA commented that the proposed standards cannot be achieved by LFGTE projects that use the latest and lowest NO x engines, even if the credit for the use of flared gas is applied to the project, because landfill gas poisons the catalyst and has different flow, composition, and Btu characteristics than natural gas. EPA stated that new LFGTE internal combustion engines in common use by industry emit at or below 2.0 lb/MWh and reduce emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas, and volatile organic compounds. Because of the environmental benefits of LFGTE projects and the recent PUC mandate for renewable energy technologies, EPA encouraged the commission to evaluate the impact that the standard permit would have on the development of LFGTE projects, notwithstanding that LFGTE projects may apply for a regular NSR permit. ALSTOM recommended a 100% credit for the use of flare or waste gas to recognize that any low emissions technology application using the gas is an acceptable improvement over venting or flaring of the gas. Waukesha Engine recommended that paragraph (3)(F) incorporate emission standards commensurate with the engine-out capability of lean-burn SI RICE. Global Power commented that the "waste" gas credit is insufficient. Global Power commented that DG units using "waste" gas should be permitted based on the best available commercially viable technology that does not use SCR-type post-combustion clean-up device. EDI commented that an issued standard permit, rather than granting a 25% credit to units that use "waste" gas as a fuel, should instead establish a different set of emission limits for these units. EDI commented that the emission limits should be based on current BACT emission standards in West Texas and LAER emission standards in East Texas, as justified by taking into account the emissions from flaring or venting and from the other form of electrical generation offset by the operation of the small electric generating unit. EDI recommended the following emission limits for these units: in the West Texas region, NO x emissions shall not exceed 5.0 lb/MWh and CO emissions shall not exceed 6.0 lb/MWh; in the East Texas region, NO x emissions shall not exceed 2.0 lb/MWh and CO emissions shall not exceed 6.2 lb/MWh. Environmental Defense commented that the commission should follow two principles in establishing the adjustments for use of waste gas: 1) the tighter the overall emission limits under the standard permit, the more flexibility that can be accorded to these applications; and 2) the method of calculating adjustments and verifying applications should be kept simple. Public Citizen thought that the 25% credit is too inexact. Public Citizen commented that most co-generated waste heat will be used to displace some operation with calculable emissions, such as a boiler, heating unit, or air conditioner. Public Citizen commented that the credit should be based on the emissions of the displaced equipment multiplied by the hours of operation of the DG unit, especially in nonattainment areas.

In response to all of these comments, the commission has changed the standard permit so that it now contains a specific East Texas region NO x standard of 1.77 lb/MWh for units that use as fuel landfill gas, digester gas, or oil field gases containing less than 1.5 grains hydrogen sulfide or 30 grains total sulfur compounds. The commission acknowledges that engines currently using landfill gas cannot achieve the NO x standard in the proposed standard permit because of limitations in current technology, and that the 25% credit is not sufficient to bridge the current technological gap. The commission also recognizes the useful benefit in generating electricity with a fuel that is usually flared or vented to the atmosphere. Consistent with the goal of a streamlined, simple authorization mechanism, the commission believes that applying a specific standard for these units rather than a formula based on various factors is more appropriate. The standard for these units should allow for the cleanest lean burn engines. As discussed above, the CO requirement has been removed from the standard permit. Units in the West Texas region using these fuels may comply with the West Texas regions standards contained in the standard permit.

Limitations on Sulfur in Fuel

Cotton Bledsoe stated that a ten grain standard is a very low standard and may prevent many waste gas applications of DG.

The commission agrees that in certain gas fields it is appropriate to allow for a higher sulfur content. The standard permit was revised to allow gases that contain less than 1.5 grains of hydrogen sulfide or 30 grains of total sulfur to be used as fuel. The commission believes that the 10 grain sulfur limit for natural gas fuel is more than generous in most areas of Texas.

Consistent Nationwide Standards for EGUs

Honeywell Power stated that coordination of efforts on a nationwide level is paramount for successfully providing generation options to Texas' ratepayers that are environmentally friendly. Honeywell Power recommended some form of coordination with California on the issue of DG emissions. Good Company encouraged the commission to pursue development of the standard permit in conjunction with other state (e.g., California) and national efforts currently underway. EMA encouraged the commission to follow other ongoing issues and efforts related to DG around the nation. EMA cited to efforts on the part of the DOE in this area, the California state legislature, and the Ozone Transport commission.

The commission has been in contact with California Air Resources Board (CARB) personnel, EPA personnel, and DOE personnel as this standard permit has been drafted. The commission plans to participate with DOE and the PUC on a study of technology and market potential for small electric generating units. The California South Coast Air Quality Management District standards were used to help establish BACT for reciprocating engines.

Future Regulatory Treatment of Electric Generating Units

Honeywell Power recommended that the commission phase out existing DG and shaft power units over a period of three to five years and that "in-kind" replacement of these units should be prohibited. Honeywell Power suggested that an exemption from the phaseout be provided to owners and operators who cannot economically justify replacement of the equipment. Honeywell Power stated that such a phaseout would significantly improve air quality.

By statutory authority, NSR air permits only apply to new or modified facilities, though owners or operators of existing facilities may voluntarily operate their units under the standard permit. Requiring existing units to be replaced would require rulemaking that is beyond the scope of this standard permit.

Certification and Recertification Requirements

ALSTOM stated that the proposed certification approach is reasonable for the purpose of guaranteeing emissions at commissioning and for continuous operation for a three-year period. ALSTOM applauded the apparent aim of the certification approach to shift certification responsibility from the operator to the manufacturer. ALSTOM stated that the 10% sample rate for recertification is reasonable because sales of small gas turbines for this purpose will likely number in the tens or hundreds, rather than thousands. Austin Energy commented that the certification requirement in paragraph (3)(B) makes sense if a manufacturer is providing the entire prime mover/generator/emissions control device as a packaged unit. Austin Energy commented that there should be certification provisions made for an entity that desires to add emissions control devices to existing or new prime movers or for units configured on site from equipment provided by different manufacturers. Capstone commented that recertification based on testing of 10% of the DG fleet would be burdensome if DG thrives. Therefore, Capstone recommended the following: 1.0% of the installed base should be tested. If more than 25% fail to meet the standard, then 10% of the base should be tested. If 25% of this sample fail, then the entire fleet should be tested. Failing units would be required to be retrofitted and recertified. Cummins stated that the certification and recertification plan is not sound standard practice for high volume, mass-produced equipment. Global Power commented that the manufacturer certification requirement cannot be met if post-combustion devices are added to the exhaust stream because manufacturers of DG-size reciprocating engines and turbines do not manufacture post-combustion devices nor market integrated systems.

The standard permit has been revised so that manufacturers or owners may certify units. The commission wanted owners and operators of existing units an opportunity to use the standard permit. The commission also removed the 10% recertification sample rate by manufacturers and, instead, will require recertification of units by owners or operators every 16,000 hours of operation but not less frequently than every 3 years. Recertification may be accomplished by following a maintenance schedule that a manufacturer certifies will ensure continued compliance with the required NO x standard or by third party testing of the unit using appropriate EPA reference methods. The requirement that manufacturers test 10% of the fleet was not consistent with most air pollution control regulatory requirements which place the onus of testing on the owner or operator of the unit.

AGCC stated that the recertification requirements create a hardship for DG projects of 1 MW or less because those requirements may eliminate the economic feasibility of those projects. AGCC also recommended that the commission approve the use of hand-held NO x and CO meters instead of EPA reference methods and/or compliance assurance monitoring (CAM).

The standard permit has not been revised in response to these comments. The commission anticipates that most owners or operators will recertify by simply operating the unit consistent with the manufacturer's maintenance schedule. This should keep costs to recertify to a minimum. The standard permit was not changed to allow for recertification using a portable analyzer because the EPA reference methods are considered a more reliable method for specifically identifying the quantity of an air contaminant. However, the standard permit does allow CARB methods to also be used for certification. Finally, the standard permit does not specifically require CAM. However, owners or operators of sites required to operate under a federal operating permit and concerned about the applicability of CAM are directed to 30 TAC §122.702 for applicability information.

Waukesha Engine recommended that paragraph (3)(B) clarify who is required to certify the emissions from generating units and to affix the specified label.

The standard permit was revised in response to this comment. Paragraph (4)(A) provides that either the manufacturer or the owner may certify the unit. The person certifying the unit should display that certification on the unit's nameplate or on a label attached to the unit.

Plug Power recommended that the commission enforce the compliance at the manufacturing or distribution facilities, and not at the individual residential customer.

Units constructed and operated at a domestic residence for domestic use are permitted by rule under §106.101 and not subject to this standard permit. Therefore, the standard permit has not been revised in response to this comment. Section 106.101 does not require certification.

Plug Power recommended that the commission use the PUC-proposed approach of having an independent third party certify that the DG commercial model meets the emission standards. Plug Power commented that, ideally, the PUC certification of compliance with the technical interconnection requirements and the commission certification of compliance with the emission standards would be accomplished by the same independent third party and through the same document applied for, and issued jointly by, the commission and PUC.

As previously discussed, a manufacturer or an owner may certify compliance while an owner or a third party may recertify a unit. A dual commission/PUC DG certification program is not in place at this time. If, however, it becomes apparent that such a certification process would be useful because of the number of DG units being constructed, the commission is open to studying the feasibility of such a program should the PUC be interested.

Catalytica commented that if the intent of paragraph (3)(B) is to commit the equipment supplier to stand behind the emission claim, the appropriate term would be "guarantee." Catalytica also commented that if the intent is to have a certification process where the supplier demonstrates the emission level, the certification process must be spelled out somewhere in advance of the use of the permit.

Catalytica's interpretation of proposed paragraph (3)(B) is correct; however, the commission believes there is no appreciable benefit to using the word "guarantee" as opposed to the word "certify" so the standard permit was not changed in response to this comment. The standard permit does not provide for certification by a supplier; only a manufacturer or an owner or operator may certify the unit.

Catalytica asked whether undergoing EPA's environmental technology verification (ETV) program or California's precertification program would constitute certification under the standard permit. Catalytica asked what specifically needs to be certified.

As the standard permit is issued, only EPA's reference methods, CARB's methods, or an equivalent testing method, upon a showing by a petitioner of its equivalency, may be used to certify a unit. A manufacturer or owner or operator is certifying that the NO x emissions from the electric generating unit (i.e., the combustion source driving the generator) meet the applicable pound per megawatt-hour NO x emission limit in the standard permit.

Public Citizen recommended that the commission assure that the referenced EPA test protocols match those proposed for real-world Texas DG use and not just those appropriate for emergency generators.

The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment since EPA reference methods, when properly used, are a long-standing, reliable method for determining NO x emissions from a stationary source, regardless of the stationary source being tested. For this reason, the commission will accept certifications using EPA reference methods. The commission will also accept CARB methods because they closely track EPA reference methods.

Plug Power recommended that the commission consider registering models of electric generation technologies, not individual units or groups of units.

Manufacturers choosing to certify their units will certify that the emissions from the unit meet the standards established in the standard permit. If the manufacturer certifies a model meets the required standards and has test data to validate this certification, the commission will accept this certification. Owners or operators authorizing units not certified by a manufacturer must certify the unit using the test methods previously discussed.

Cotton Bledsoe asked whether "accompanying papers" from a manufacturer or manufacturer's web site as to emission rates satisfy the nameplate requirement.

The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment. The standard permit allows the certification of NO x emissions to be displayed on the nameplate or on a label attached to the unit. The commission believes this will enable commission enforcement personnel to more quickly determine if the unit is certified to meet the required standard. Therefore, accompanying papers will not satisfy the nameplate requirement.

Concern about Existing Fleet of Electric Generating Units and NSR Permitting of EGUs

NRDC commented that the standard permit takes the first step in controlling the emissions from small electricity generators but that it does not address the already installed base of generators, nor prohibit units from seeking a traditional site-specific minor NSR permit at potentially higher emission rates. NRDC called on the commission to continue its efforts as soon as final action on the standard permit is taken to close these gaps.

Regulating the currently installed base of EGUs goes beyond the scope of this standard permit. The standard permit only applies to new or modified units installed and operated after the effective date of this standard permit. Requiring existing units to upgrade would require rulemaking, although owners or operators may voluntarily register existing units under this standard permit.

By statute and rule, the standard permit must reflect BACT for the units authorized under it. The commission believes that the issued standard permit reflects BACT for a variety of units of different sizes and operating characteristics. Therefore, persons applying for a regular NSR permit at emission levels higher than in the standard permit will be required to show why the BACT standards in the standard permit should not apply to their EGU.

Impact of the Proposed Standard Permit on the Agricultural and Oil/Gas Industries

ATMOS commented that the proposed standard permit would result in a severe hardship on the agricultural industry and economy of West Texas because engines, rather than electric grid, are often used to power irrigation equipment in this region. DTE commented that the standard permit will negatively impact Texas' economy if it applies to existing reciprocating and gas turbine engines currently used for water pumping/irrigation and oil and natural gas recovery.

In response to these comments and comments received on §106.512, the amendment to §106.512 expected to be adopted by the commission concurrently with issuance of this standard permit allows for engines or turbines used exclusively to provide power to electric pumps used for irrigating crops to be permitted by rule. As previously noted, the standard permit only applies to new or modified engines or turbines. The majority of engines or turbines used in oil and natural gas recovery are not used for generating electricity and should continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512.

TRD-200103005

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Default Orders of Administrative Enforcement Actions

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Default Orders (DOs). The TNRCC staff proposes a DO when the staff has sent an Executive Director's Preliminary Report and Petition (EDPRP) to an entity outlining the alleged violations; the proposed penalty; and the proposed technical requirements necessary to bring the entity back into compliance, and the entity fails to request a hearing on the matter within 20 days of its receipt of the EDPRP. Similar to the procedure followed with respect to Agreed Orders entered into by the executive director of the TNRCC pursuant to Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075, this notice of the proposed order and the opportunity to comment is 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 July 9, 2001 . The TNRCC will consider any written comments received and the TNRCC may withdraw or withhold approval of a DO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate that a proposed DO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the TNRCC's jurisdiction, or the TNRCC's orders and permits issued pursuant to the TNRCC's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed DO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each of the proposed DOs 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 DO should be sent to the attorney designated for the DO 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 July 9, 2001 . Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The TNRCC attorneys are available to discuss the DOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, comments on the DOs should be submitted to the TNRCC in writing .

(1) COMPANY: Abel Lopez, Jr. dba Savey 1; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0279-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0031361; LOCATION: 2713 Mustang Drive, Grapevine, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of refined petroleum products; RULES VIOLATED: §334.7, by failing to provide a written notice to the executive director that the underground storage tanks (USTs) were out of service; §334.54, by failing to properly upgrade or permanently remove from service the USTs which were temporarily out of service in excess of 12 months; PENALTY: $10,625; STAFF ATTORNEY: Elisa Roberts, Litigation Division, MC R-4, (817) 588-5877; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office, 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(2) COMPANY: Derek T. Williams; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1187-OSI-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: OS4948; LOCATION: 250 Oak Lane, Vidor, Orange County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: on-site sewage facility; RULES VIOLATED: §285.7(h) and §285.91(4), by failing to submit three maintenance reports, one total suspended solids sample, and one biochemical oxygen demand sample for each contract; §285.7(h) and §285.91(4), by failing to include fecal coliform or chlorine residual testing information for each contract in the three maintenance reports that were submitted; PENALTY: $313; STAFF ATTORNEY: Joshua M. Olszewski, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-3645; REGIONAL OFFICE: Beaumont Regional Office, 3870 Eastex Fwy., Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 892-2119.

(3) COMPANY: Dupree-Pruett Company, Inc. dba One Stop Convenience Stores; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0617-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0052819; LOCATION: 1414 E. Blanco, Boerne, Kendall County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground storage tanks (UST); RULES VIOLATED: §334.48(c), by failing to conduct effective or automatic manual inventory control procedures for each UST system; §334.50(b)(1), by failing to provide proper release detection requirements for each UST system's tanks and piping by not testing line leak detectors once per year and not testing non-pressurized piping tightness once every three years; §334.10(b)(1)(A), by failing to develop, maintain, and have readily available for inspection all UST records required including records documenting compliance with release detection and inventory control requirements prior to December 20, 1999 inspection, and records which documented the UST system's compliance with the corrosion protection requirements; §37.815, by failing to maintain a demonstration of financial assurance and responsibility for taking corrective action and compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by accidental releases arising from the UST operations; PENALTY: $6,300; STAFF ATTORNEY: Reynaldo De Los Santos, Litigation Division, MCR-13, (210) 403-4016; REGIONAL OFFICE: San Antonio Regional Office, 14250 Judson Rd., San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(4) COMPANY: Mark Locke dba Champion Water Services dba Dayton Oaks Estates Public Water Supply; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0655-PWS-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 1460136; LOCATION: County Roads 2339 and 2341, Liberty, Liberty County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply system; RULES VIOLATED: §290.106(c)(5) and §290.117(e)(2) and (g), by failing to conduct reduced tap monitoring for lead and copper and to provide public notice of the lead and copper sampling violations; §290.51(a)(3) and THSC, §341.041, by failing to pay public health service fees; §290.46(d)(2), by failing to maintain the required chlorine residual at all times and throughout all parts of the public water supply; §290.46(r), by failing to maintain a minimum water pressure of 35 pounds per square inch at a flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute at each service outlet or connection; §290.118(b) and THSC, §341.031(a) and §341.0315(c), by failing to provide water that meets the Commission's "Drinking Water Standards" for iron and manganese; §290.46(v), by failing to install electrical wiring within a securely mounted conduit; §290.46(m), by failing to initiate a program to facilitate cleanliness and improve the general appearance of all of the system's plant facilities by cutting the grass and removing debris at the well site; PENALTY: $1,938; STAFF ATTORNEY: James Biggins, Litigation Division, MC R-13, (210) 403-4017; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Ave., Ste. H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(5) COMPANY: WeeBe Industries, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0776-AIR-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: TA-0611-H; LOCATION: 3700 Flory Street, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: architectural metal work manufacturing business; RULES VIOLATED: §115.426(a)(1)(B) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain records of the utilization of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) compliant coatings and solvents during an inspection on August 19, 1999; §116.110(a) and THSC, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to obtain a permit prior to beginning operations during an inspection on August 19, 1999; §115.426(a)(1)(B) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain records of the utilization of VOC compliant coatings and solvents during an inspection on December 22, 1999; §116.110(a) and THSC, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to obtain a permit prior to beginning operations during an inspection on December 22, 1999; PENALTY: $20,000; STAFF ATTORNEY: Gitanjali Yadav, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-2029; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office, 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

TRD-200103008

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Settlement Agreements of Administrative Enforcement Actions

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 July 9, 2001 . 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 July 9, 2001 . 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: Alliant Energy Desdemona, L.P.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1093-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EA-0085-H; LOCATION: Desdemona, Eastland County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas compression; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to certify compliance with the Title V General Operation Permit Number O-00323; and 30 TAC §106.512(6)(B), §116.110(a), and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to extend exhaust stacks for engines E-5 and E-7; PENALTY: $7,875; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: George Ortiz, (915) 698-9674; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.

(2) COMPANY: Blue Dolphin Energy Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0017-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number BL-0421-R; LOCATION: Freeport, Brazoria County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: oil and gas production; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(2) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to submit annual compliance certifications; and 30 TAC §122.145(2)(B) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to submit deviation reports; PENALTY: $3,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kevin Keyser, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(3) COMPANY: The City of Coleman; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1092-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number CO-0003-M; LOCATION: Coleman, Coleman County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: electrical generation; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to certify compliance with the Title V General Operating Permit Number O-00102; PENALTY: $4,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: George Ortiz, (915) 698-9674; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.

(4) COMPANY: City of Crystal City; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1078-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit Number 10098-001; LOCATION: Crystal City, Zavala County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1) and §325.4, and TPDES Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to employ a class B certified wastewater treatment facility operator; 30 TAC §305.125(1) and §319.4 - 319.12, and TPDES Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to perform pH and dissolved oxygen analyses on effluent samples and routinely perform minimum process control testing; 30 TAC §§305.125(1), 312.1, and 312.13, and TPDES Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to remove stock-piled sludge and clean sludge drying beds; and 30 TAC §305.125(1) and §312.142(a), and TPDES Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to register to transport municipal sludge prior to initiating transportation of sewage sludge; PENALTY: $15,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Malcolm Ferris, (210) 490-3096; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(5) COMPANY: CX Transportation, A Division of TIC United Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1390-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number CS-0048-P; LOCATION: New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: transportation terminal for bulk lime and cement handling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §106.144, §116.110(a), and the Code, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to treat the vehicle work areas to achieve maximum control of dust emissions; 30 TAC §335.4 and the Code, §26.121, by allowing the discharge of industrial waste onto the ground; and 30 TAC §101.4 and the Code, §382.085(a) and (b), by failing to prevent the discharge of air contaminants; PENALTY: $5,625; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Clausewitz, (210) 490-3096; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(6) COMPANY: Dean-Chem, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1265-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HX-2466-F; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: small hard chrome electroplating shop; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a) and the Code, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to obtain a permit; and 30 TAC §113.190, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 63 Subpart N, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to come into compliance with the National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; PENALTY: $6,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Miriam Hall, (512) 239-1044; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(7) COMPANY: The City of Ector; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0084-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: Public Water Supply (PWS) Number 0740007; LOCATION: Ector, Fannin County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F), by failing to provide documentation of sanitary control easements; and 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(D)(i), by failing to meet water system capacity requirements; PENALTY: $500; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Judy Fox, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010- 6499, (817) 588-5800.

(8) COMPANY: Mr. Eddie Johnson dba Eddie's Paint & Body Shop; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0125-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number AC-0093-I; LOCATION: Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: automotive body shop; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a) and the Code, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to obtain a permit or meet the conditions of a permit by rule; PENALTY: $800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: John Barry, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(9) COMPANY: Elmo Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1344-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1290013; LOCATION: Elmo, Kaufman County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (f)(4), by failing to provide a pressure tank capacity of 20 gallons per connection or an elevated storage tank capacity of 100 gallons per connection, provide the pump station with two or more pumps that have a total capacity of two gallons per minute (gpm) per connection, and provide a maximum authorized daily purchase rate; PENALTY: $1,375; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Wendy Cooper, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010- 6499, (817) 588-5800.

(10) COMPANY: Mr. Bobby Lee dba Environmental Box Cleaning and Storage Services; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1275-IHW-E; IDENTIFIER: Solid Waste Registration Number 83646; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: container cleaning and servicing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §§335.94(a), 335.2(a), 335.43(a), and 40 CFR §270.1(c), by failing to obtain a permit for storing hazardous wastes; 30 TAC §335.69(a)(1)(B), §335.112(a)(9), and 40 CFR §262.34(a)(1)(ii) and §265.193(a)(1), by failing to have secondary containment for a wastewater holding tank; and 30 TAC §335.9(a)(1), by failing to maintain records of hazardous wastes generated and shipped off-site; PENALTY: $6,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Faye Liu, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(11) COMPANY: Tuong H. Nguyen dba Express Way Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001- 0028-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: Petroleum Storage Tank (PST) Facility ID Number 0064954; LOCATION: Mesquite, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §115.242(3)(J) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain the Stage II vapor recovery system; 30 TAC §115.245(2) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to conduct pressure decay testing annually; 30 TAC §334.50(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to test a line leak detector; and 30 TAC §334.21, by failing to pay the underground storage tank (UST) fees; PENALTY: $5,625; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jorge Ibarra, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(12) COMPANY: FFP Marketing Company, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0193-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE-1961-R; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: gasoline dispensing station; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to comply with the 2.7% by weight oxygenated fuel content requirement; PENALTY: $750; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Tel Croston, (512) 239-5717; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(13) COMPANY: Grand Ranch Treatment Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0269-MWD- E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 13846-001; LOCATION: Joshua, Johnson County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1) and (5), §319.1, TPDES Permit Number 13846-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to comply with the permitted daily average limit of 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for total suspended solids (TSS), submit the discharge monitoring reports, comply with permitted single grab sample limit of 60 mg/L for TSS, permitted daily average load limit of 3.8 pounds per day (lbs/day) for TSS, permitted daily average limit of 200 fecal coliform bacteria colonies, and permitted seven day average limit of 400 fecal coliform bacteria colonies; PENALTY: $5,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Gary Shipp, (806) 796-7092; REGIONAL OFFICE: 4630 50th Street, Suite 600, Lubbock, Texas 79414-3520, (806) 796-7092.

(14) COMPANY: Harris County Precinct No. 1 - Main Camp; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001- 0030-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number BL-0421-R; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.117(e)(2) and the Code, §341.0315, by failing to conduct annual reduced lead and copper tap monitoring; PENALTY: $313; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Terry Murphy, (512) 239-5025; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(15) COMPANY: Hart and Cooley, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1444-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE-2271-T; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fabricated metal product manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.121, §122.130(b)(1), and the Code, §382.054 and §382.085(b), by failing to submit an initial abbreviated Federal Operating Permit Application; and 30 TAC §116.110(a) and the Code, §382.0518(a) and §382.085(b), by failing to obtain a permit or satisfy the conditions of a permit by rule for modifications; PENALTY: $4,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Cervantes, (915) 834-4949; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(16) COMPANY: Holly Huff Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1457- PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1210004; LOCATION: Jasper, Jasper County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.121(a), by failing to maintain a copy of the chemical and microbiological monitoring plan; 30 TAC §290.46(m) and §290.46(v), by failing to have an adequate maintenance program; 30 TAC §290.43(c)(4), by failing to provide a working water level indicator; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(D)(i) and (v), by failing to provide a total rated well capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection and provide an emergency power supply or interconnection to another public water system; and 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F), by failing to secure and record sanitary well easements; PENALTY: $1,488; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Laura Clark, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(17) COMPANY: Hope Center Youth and Family Services; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0941- MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 11943-001; LOCATION: Groveton, Trinity County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), (5), and (11)(B) and (C), §319.7(a), (c), and (d), and TPDES Permit Number 11943-001, by failing to ensure that all systems of collection, treatment, and disposal are properly operated and maintained; submit effluent reports; report, in writing, any effluent violation; record and maintain records of calibration for the pH meter; meet minimum permit effluent limits; meet the minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) permit limit of four mg/L and the minimum chlorine residual permit limit of one mg/L; properly record results of chlorine residuals; have an effluent flow measuring device; and properly report results of chlorine residual analysis; PENALTY: $5,625; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Susan Kelly, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(18) COMPANY: Mr. Javier Tapia dba J.T. Dairy; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0328-AGR-E; IDENTIFIER: Enforcement Identification Number 16089; LOCATION: San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: dairy; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §321.31(a) and the Code, §26.121, by failing to prevent the discharge of waste and wastewater; and 30 TAC §321.33(e), by failing to locate, construct, and manage waste control facilities; PENALTY: $4,800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Mark Newman, (915) 655-9479; REGIONAL OFFICE: 622 South Oakes, Suite K, San Angelo, Texas 76903-7013, (915) 655-9479.

(19) COMPANY: Knightco Company dba Superior Lubricants; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001- 0182-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 0033904; LOCATION: Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: gasoline service station; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §115.245(2) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to perform an annual pressure decay test; PENALTY: $1,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Cheryl Thompson, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(20) COMPANY: KO Steel Foundry and Machine Company, A Division of TIC United Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0073-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number BG-0112- O; LOCATION: San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: foundry; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §101.10 and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to submit an emissions inventory questionnaire; PENALTY: $1,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Miriam Hall, (512) 239-1044; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490- 3096.

(21) COMPANY: Lake Livingston Water and Sewer Service Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1399-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Numbers 2040009 and 1870137; LOCATION: Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.43(d)(3) and (e), and §290.46(m), by failing to provide the pressure tank with a device for determining the air-water-volume ratio, maintain the intruder-resistant fence, and the general appearance of the tanks; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), by failing to provide a well capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection, provide a total storage capacity of 200 gallons per connection, provide two or more service pumps having a total capacity of two gpm per connection, and a pressure tank capacity of 20 gallons per connection; and 30 TAC §290.46(u) and (v), and the Code, §76.1004(a), by failing to plug or repair to a non-deteriorated condition the out-of-service well and install wiring at well numbers one and two in securely mounted conduit; PENALTY: $2,063; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Laura Clark, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(22) COMPANY: Lasco Bathware, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1446-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number DB-0976-P; LOCATION: Lancaster, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fiberglass bathware; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.116(a) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to properly install the filters in the fiberglass area; 30 TAC §101.6(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to determine whether an upset is a reportable quantity; and 30 TAC §116.115(c), Permit Number 9519, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain the facility operation within the maximum allowable emission rate table limit; PENALTY: $35,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Wendy Cooper, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588- 5800.

(23) COMPANY: City of Lexington; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0292-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 10016-001 and Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number TX0054429; LOCATION: Lexington, Lee County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 10016-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to comply with permit limits for five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH, and TSS; PENALTY: $1,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jaime Garza, (915) 425-6010; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

(24) COMPANY: Roy Martini dba Roy Martini Special Services; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001- 0102-MSW-E; IDENTIFIER: Unauthorized Facility Number 45514010; LOCATION: Robstown, Nueces County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: municipal solid waste; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §330.4, §330.5, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to obtain authorization or a permit prior to accepting municipal solid waste; 30 TAC §328.57(c)(1) and (3), by failing to obtain a scrap tire transporter registration and transport scrap tires to an authorized tire facility; and 30 TAC §328.60(a), by failing to obtain a scrap tire storage facility registration prior to transporting more than 500 scrap tires; PENALTY: $3,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carol McGrath, (361) 825-3100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6300 Ocean Drive, Suite 1200, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5503, (361) 825-3100.

(25) COMPANY: Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0048-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HG-1436-O; LOCATION: La Porte, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: transfilling, various gas mixture manufacturing, and residual gas treatment RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a)(1) and (4), and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to obtain a permit for storage, transfilling, and disposal of chemicals and satisfy the conditions for facilities permitted by rule; PENALTY: $4,800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Trina Lewison, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(26) COMPANY: McKinney Crushing Company, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000- 1164-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number 90-0168-O; LOCATION: Terrell, Kaufman County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: rock crusher; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.115(b) and (c), Permit Number 168L, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to operate and maintain spray arms on the crusher and water stockpiles and roads of the plant as necessary to achieve maximum control of the dust; PENALTY: $2,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carl Schnitz, (512) 239-1892; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(27) COMPANY: Paul H. Krebs dba Roving Meadows Utilities Wastewater Treatment Facilities; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0013-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 12691-001; LOCATION: Baytown, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 12691-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to comply with the permitted daily average concentration limit of 15.0 mg/L, single grab limit of 60.0 mg/L, and the daily average loading limit of 2.8 pounds per day for TSS, correctly calculate and report TSS and BOD daily average concentration and daily average loading values; PENALTY: $4,375; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Catherine Albrecht, (713) 767- 3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(28) COMPANY: Bennard Rowland dba Rowland Dusters; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0834- PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 15260; LOCATION: Lasara, Willacy County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: crop dusting; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.6 and §334.55(a) and (e), by failing to provide notification of construction activities prior to initiating the permanent abandonment of USTs in-place, have qualified personnel conduct the construction activities, and empty the USTs of residue or residual vapors, and conduct a site assessment; 30 TAC §334.10(b)(1)(A), by failing to develop and maintain all records; 30 TAC §334.49(a) and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to equip the UST system with corrosion protection; 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to provide a release detection method; 30 TAC §334.51(b)(2) and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to equip the UST system with tight-fill fitting, spill containment, and overfill protection equipment; and 30 TAC §334.93(a)(2) and (b)(1), by failing to demonstrate financial responsibility for taking corrective action; PENALTY: $9,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Sandra Hernandez, (915) 425-6010; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1804 West Jefferson Avenue, Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247, (915) 425-6010.

(29) COMPANY: SANIN, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-1407-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 0029667; LOCATION: Austin, Travis County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground storage tank; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to provide a method of release detection; 30 TAC §334.49(a)(2) and (3), and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to operate a corrosion protection system and maintain corrosion protection records; and 30 TAC §334.93, by failing to demonstrate, at the time of inspection, the necessary financial responsibility for taking corrective action; PENALTY: $8,500; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Craig Fleming, (512) 239-5806; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

(30) COMPANY: The Sherwin-Williams Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0010-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number DB-0728-N; LOCATION: Garland, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: paint manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.130(c)(2), §122.121, and the Code, §382.054 and §382.085(b), by failing to submit a Title V operating permit application and continuing to operate; PENALTY: $2,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Bill Davis, (512) 239-6793; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(31) COMPANY: Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1124-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 11001-001; LOCATION: Spring, Montgomery County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §§305.125(1), 319.7(a), 325.2(a), TPDES Permit Number 11001-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to prevent the unauthorized discharge of raw sewage, identify the individual who collected samples and made measurements, and prevent an uncertified individual from operating the facility; and 30 TAC §319.302(c) and the Code, §26.039(e), by failing to notify the local media of a sewage spill; PENALTY: $13,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Catherine Albrecht, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(32) COMPANY: Starward Realty and Development, Inc. dba Sunchase Subdivision Water Supply; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0767-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1230083; LOCATION: Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.120(h)(4), by failing to conduct a corrosion control study; and 30 TAC §291.76 and the Code, §5.235(n), by failing to pay the regulatory assessment fees; PENALTY: $313; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Cheryl Thompson, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(33) COMPANY: Stoney Point Agricorp, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1229-AGR-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 003681-000 (expired); LOCATION: Covington, Hill County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: cattle feedlot; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §321.34(e), §321.33(f), and the Code, §26.121(c), by failing to submit an application for renewal and continuing to operate; PENALTY: $0; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: James Jackson, (254) 751-0335; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(34) COMPANY: Structural Metals, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1048-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number GL-0028-H and Air Permit Number 37740; LOCATION: Seguin, Guadalupe County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: electric arc furnace; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.121 and the Code, §382.054, by failing to stop operation of a unit having major emissions of sulfur dioxide; 30 TAC §116.115(b)(2)(G), Permit Number 8248, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to limit sulfur dioxide emissions from the electric arc furnace; 30 TAC §113.615(2) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to obtain permit authorization to emit large quantities of sulfur dioxide; and 30 TAC §122.136(b) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to correct the federal operating permit application within 60 days of discovering that the facility is a major source of sulfur dioxide emissions; PENALTY: $12,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Malcolm Ferris, (210) 490-3096; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(35) COMPANY: The Texas Department of Criminal Justice; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1162- MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 10829-001; LOCATION: Angleton, Brazoria County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 10829-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to comply with the ammonia-nitrogen daily average permit limit and the DO minimum limit; PENALTY: $850; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carl Schnitz, (512) 239-1892; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(36) COMPANY: United Rentals, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0192-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE-1203-U; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: equipment rental and leasing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to comply with the 2.7% by weight oxygenate content requirement during the control period; PENALTY: $1,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Tel Croston, (512) 239-5717; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901- 1206, (915) 834-4949.

TRD-200103001

Paul Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Settlement Agreements of Administrative Enforcement Actions

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 (TWC), §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 July 9, 2001 . 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 July 9, 2001 . 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) COMPANY: City of Little Elm; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0023-MWD-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: TX0053783, 11600-001; LOCATION: 2600 feet east of the intersection of Farm-to- Market Road (FM) 720 and Hart Road, approximately 1000 feet south of FM 720 in Denton County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: municipal wastewater treatment plant; RULES VIOLATED: TWC, §26.121, NPDES Permit Number TX0053783, and WQ Permit Number 11600-001, by exceeding the biochemical oxygen demand limits, and exceeding the total suspended solids effluent limits; PENALTY: $11,250; STAFF ATTORNEY: Laurel Lindsey, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-3693; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office, 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(2) COMPANY: Elhamad Enterprises, Inc. dba Jr's Mini Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999- 1236-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0034001; LOCATION: 2600 E. Belknap, Forth Worth, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground petroleum storage tank facility (UST); RULES VIOLATED: §115.222(5) and Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.085(b), by failing to have a pressure vacuum relief valve at the top of each vent pipe; §334.48(c), by failing to perform inventory control procedures for the UST system; §334.50(a)(1)(A), (d)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii)(1), by failing to provide a method of leak detection, failing to provide records indicating inventory control is being reconciled each month, and failing to provide documentation indicating that volume measurements are recorded each day; §334.51(b)(2)(B) and (C), by failing to provide a spill container/catchment basin at each UST fill tube and install an automatic shut off valve or other device at each UST; §334.93(a) and (b), by failing to provide documentation of corrective action and third party liability insurance; PENALTY: $19,500; STAFF ATTORNEY: Laurencia Fasoyiro, Litigation Division, MC R-12, (713) 422-8914; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office, 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.

(3) COMPANY: Joe Hamilton dba Keg Korner; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0443-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 71627; LOCATION: intersection of FM 1476 and FM 1496, Proctor, Comanche County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: §334.7(a)(1) and TWC, §26.346(a), by failing to register with the Commission, on authorized forms, underground storage tanks (UST); §§334.401(a), 334.414, and 334.55(a)(3), by failing to have the permanent removal from service of a UST conducted by a qualified person possessing the required license or certification; by failing to utilize a contractor registered with the Commission for the permanent removal; by failing to utilize a licensed installer or on-site supervisor for the permanent removal; and by failing to complete the permanent removal from service of a UST system in a manner designed to minimize the risks to human health and safety or the environment; §334.55(a)(6) and (e), by failing to conduct a site assessment in response to the permanent removal from service of a UST system; §334.55(b)(4)(A), by failing to transport a tank from the removal site within 24 hours of removal; §334.21, by failing to pay the required annual UST registration fees; PENALTY: $13,500; STAFF ATTORNEY: Elisa Roberts, Litigation Division, MC R-4, (817) 588-5877; REGIONAL OFFICE: Abilene Regional Office, 1977 Industrial Blvd., Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.

(4) COMPANY: Steves & Sons, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0699-AIR-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: BG-0214-F; LOCATION: 203 Humble Avenue, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wood door manufacturing operation plant; RULES VIOLATED: §101.4 and THSC, §382.085(a) and (b), by failing to maintain abatement equipment thereby causing a nuisance condition, specifically, accidentally allowed sawdust emissions in such concentration and of such duration as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property; §101.4 and THSC. §382.085(a) and (b), by failing to maintain abatement equipment thereby causing a nuisance condition, specifically, when an employee mistakenly opened the hopper of the sawdust collection system, which allowed sawdust to spill to the floor and disperse offsite during cleanup in such concentration and of such duration as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property; PENALTY: $4,375; STAFF ATTORNEY: Joshua M. Olszewski, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-3400; REGIONAL OFFICE: San Antonio Regional Office, 14250 Judson Rd., San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

TRD-200103009

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 29, 2001


Notice of Public Hearing

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing to receive comments concerning amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapters B, D, E, and F concerning Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements of 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 regulations concerning SIPs. These subchapters will be submitted as a revision to the SIP.

The rule amendments are a staff initiative needed to implement regulatory reform so that the rules are free of technical and typographical errors and are more clear and easy to read. The amendments are also needed to add clarifications consistent with rule interpretations made by the commission's Air Rule Interpretation Team into the rules. The new recordkeeping requirement is needed so that staff can determine compliance with an exemption for certain operations in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties.

A public hearing on the proposal will be held July 3, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2210 of Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Building F, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not occur during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and answer questions before and after the hearing.

Comments may be submitted to Ms. Angela Slupe, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087; or by fax at (512) 239-4808. All comments must be received on July 9, 2001, and should reference Rule Log No. 2001-005-115-AI. Comments received by 5:00 p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission before any final action on the proposal. For further information, please contact Ms. Jill Burditt at (512) 239-0560.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

TRD-200102965

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 24, 2001


Notice of Public Hearings

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding revisions to 30 TAC Chapters 101, 114 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.

The proposed SIP revision for the HGA ozone nonattainment area contains transportation conformity budgets, rate-of-progress tables, control strategies (including reduction of emissions resulting from permitting of facilities which are exempted under Texas Health and Safety Code §382.0518(g)), and the layout of the mid-course review process. The multi-part mid-course review process includes a thorough evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other tools used to develop the attainment demonstration, as well as an ongoing assessment of scientific studies, new technologies, and ideas to incorporate into the plan. The proposed changes to Chapter 114 and the SIP would: 1) change the idling restriction rules clarifying that the operator of a rented or leased vehicle is responsible for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 114 in situations where the operator of a leased or rented vehicle is not employed by the owner of the vehicle; and 2) limit implementation of the low emission diesel fuel control strategy for on-road fuel and non-road fuel to the four-county Dallas/Fort Worth nonattainment area, the eight-county HGA nonattainment area, the three-county Beaumont/Port Arthur nonattainment area, and the 95-county central and eastern Texas region to be able to demonstrate and maintain attainment with the ozone national ambient air quality standard. The proposed amendments and new section would modify the existing May 1, 2002 program compliance dates so that they occur in 2005 and would allow for alternative emission reduction plans.

The proposed changes to Chapter 117 and the SIP would: 1) decrease the nitrogen oxide (NO x ) emission reductions required from electric utilities; 2) amend the schedule for the Emission Specifications for Attainment Demonstration for non-utility facilities with NO x emissions; 3) provide for a possible alternative strategy to be implemented that will reduce the maximum amount of NO x emission reductions required from point sources; 4) clarify the utility rules emission inventory baseline; 5) clarify the calculation of the maximum heat rate for cogeneration units; 6) add an emission specification for the attainment demonstration for stationary gas turbines and duct burners at minor sources of NO x in HGA; 7) add flexibility to the HGA system cap requirements by allowing trading among owners under the system cap trading program on a daily or 30-day rolling average basis; 8) add flexibility for reciprocating engines fired by landfill gas; 9) add requirements to achieve the intended emission reductions of the program; 10) require stationary diesel and dual-fuel fired engines to meet new emission specifications in the HGA area; and 11) delete the exemption for certain small electric generating units.

The proposed changes to Chapter 101 and the SIP would: 1) state that level of activity for allowance determination applies to facilities and remove the requirement that level of activity relates directly to economic output or emission rate; 2) specify that only an owner or operator may certify emission reductions as emission credits; 3) allow additional time for requests for deviations from allowance allocation methods; 4) allow an additional 30 days for balancing compliance accounts; 5) allow owners or operators receiving allowances to sell allowances permanently; 6) remove the requirement that a mobile emission reduction credit be surplus when it is used; 7) disallow temporary shutdowns as sources of credits; 8) require executive director approval prior to use of emission credits; 9) correct obsolete rule citations; 10) require the executive director to conduct audits of the cap and trade program and make annual reports on the program available to the public and the EPA; 11) revise the discrete emission reduction credit discount schedule as it relates to the cap and trade program; and 12) amend the reduction and compliance schedule for non-utility facilities with NO x emissions.

Public hearings on these proposed revisions will be held at the following times and locations: June 13, 2001, 6:00 p.m., Galveston City Council Chambers, Room 200, 823 Rosenberg, Galveston; June 14, 2001, 10:00 a.m., Rosenberg Civic and Convention Center, Room C, 3825 Highway 36 South, Rosenberg; June 14, 2001, 6:00 p.m., Houston City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901 Bagby, Houston; and June 15, 2001, 10:00 a.m., Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 North I-35, Austin; and July 2, 2001, 6:00 p.m., Houston City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901 Bagby, Houston. Notices for the June 13 - 15 hearings were published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Houston Chronicle, Longview News-Journal, and San Antonio Express-News on May 11, 2001 and in the Austin American Statesman and Beaumont Enterprise on May 12, 2001.

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 the hearings; however, agency staff members will be available to discuss the proposal one hour before the hearings, and will answer questions before and after the hearings.

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 July 2, 2001, although written comments submitted at the July 2, 2001 hearing will be accepted. On May 10, 2001, the commission proposed changes to Chapters 114, 117, and to the SIP which were made available on the commission's web site and which were the subject of newspaper notices as listed above. Subsequently, on May 30, 2001 the commission proposed changes to Chapters 101, 117 and the SIP. The latest versions of all of the proposed rules in Chapters 101, 114 and 117 and the SIP revision were placed on the commission's web site on May 30, 2001 and are available at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/sips/houston.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-200103034

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 30, 2001


Notice of Water Quality Applications

The following notices were issued during the period of May 14, 2001 through May 23, 2001.

The following require the applicants to publish notice in the newspaper. The public comment period, requests for public meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing may be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, Mail Code 105, PO Box 13087, Austin Texas 78711-3087, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE.

CITY OF BECKVILLE has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10718-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 140,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the intersection of State Highway 149 and Farm-to-Market Road 124, adjacent to Wall Branch, south of the City of Beckville in Panola County, Texas.

CITY OF CADDO MILLS has applied for renewal of an existing wastewater permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0024970 and an existing Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 10425-001. The draft permit authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day. The plant site is located approximately 0.7 mile south of the intersection of State Highway 60 and Farm to Market Road 36 in Hunt County, Texas.

CAPITOL AREA BOY SCOUTS COUNCIL, INC., BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA has applied for a new permit, Proposed Permit No. 14187-001, to authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 23,795 gallons per day via subsurface drainfields with a minimum area of 85,334 square feet. This notice corrects the requested flow stated in the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain a Water Quality Permit. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are on a 541-acre tract located along Farm-to-Market Road 1441 nearly 3.5 miles east of its intersection with State Highway 95, between U.S. Highway 290 and State Highway 71, approximately 5 miles north of Bastrop along State Highway 95 in Bastrop County, Texas.

CITY OF COPPERAS COVE has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. 10045- 005 to authorize an increase in the discharge of treated domestic wastewater from an annual average flow not to exceed 3,050,000 gallons per day to an annual average flow not to exceed 4,000,000 gallons per day. The facility is located north of the City of Copperas Cove adjacent to the west side of Farm-to-Market Road 116 at a point approximately 1.8 miles north of the intersection of Farm-to- Market Road 116 and Farm-to-Market Road 1113 in Coryell County, Texas.

CITY OF CUMBY, has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 13792-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 120,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 2000 feet east of the intersection of Interstate Highway 30 and Farm-to-Market Road 275 on the east side of the City of Cumby along the south side of the Louisiana and Arkansas Railroad in Hopkins County, Texas.

EXCEL CORPORATION which operates a slaughter house, beef packing plant, and rendering facility has applied for a major amendment to Permit No. 01350 to authorize an increase in the irrigation area from 1,445 acres to 2,865 acres. The current permit authorizes the disposal of process wastewater, utility wastewater, and domestic wastewater at an application rate not to exceed 4.2 acre feet/acre/year via irrigation of 1,445 acres and the disposal of brine and pickling wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 21,000 gallons per day via evaporation. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility is located immediately south of U.S. Highway 60 and the Santa Fe Railroad, approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the City of Friona, Parmer County, Texas.

CITY OF FARWELL has applied for a major amendment to Permit No. 10661-001, to authorize an increase in the daily average flow from 147,000 gallons per day to 185,000 gallons per day and to increase the acreage irrigated from 33 acres to 34 acres of agricultural non-public access land. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located approximately 1/4 mile east of the City of Farwell and immediately north of the Panhandle and Santa Fe Railroad in Parmer County, Texas.

CITY OF GEORGETOWN has applied to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) for a new permit, Proposed Permit No. 14232-001, to authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of 100 acres of golf course. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located approximately 5.8 miles west of Interstate Highway 35 and 1.05 miles north of State Highway 29 in Williamson County, Texas.

HARRIS COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 17 has applied for a major amendment to TNRCC Permit No. 11917-001 to authorize an increase in the discharge of treated domestic wastewater from a daily average flow not to exceed 450,000 gallons per day to a daily average flow not to exceed 700,000 gallons per day. The facility is located on the south bank of South Mayde Creek approximately 4000 feet east of the intersection of Elrod and Morton Roads in Harris County, Texas.

HUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION which operates a pertochemical manufacturing plant, has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 00584 which authorizes the discharge of process wastewater , cooling tower blowdown, broiler blowdown, demineralizer blowdown, sanitary wastewater and storm water at a daily average flow not to exceed 617,000 gallons per day via outfall 001: and storm water on an intermittent and flow variable basis via outfall 002. The facility is located approximately five miles east of the Cit of Conroe: approximately 0.25 miles south of Farm-to-Market Road 1485: and approximately 0.5 miles west of the City of Cut-N- Shoot, Montgomery County, Texas.

JIM NED CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 11908-001, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 5,000 gallons per day via evaporation with two (2) 0.35 acre ponds. The facility and disposal site are located north of the intersection of Avenue E and Fourth Street in Lawn in Taylor County, Texas.

CITY OF LA COSTE has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10889-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day. The facility is located at the easterly city limits of the City of La Coste, approximately 0.5 mile east-southeast of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 471 and Farm-to- Market Road 2790, 0.30 mile due south of the Southern Pacific Railroad in Medina County, Texas.

MAHARD EGG FARMS, INC. has applied to the TNRCC for a new permit, Proposed Permit No. 04043 to authorize the disposal of process wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 4000 gallons per day via evaporation and irrigation etc. of 80 acres. The applicant proposes to operate an egg farm. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal area are located approximately 1.6 miles north of the intersection of County Road 90N and Texas Farm-to-Market Road 2379, on the east side of County Road 90N, Wilbarger County, Texas. The plant site and disposal area are located in the drainage basin of , in Segment No. 0206, of the Red River Above Pease River.

CITY OF NACOGDOCHES has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 10342-004, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 12,880,000 gallons per day. The draft permit authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 12,880,000 gallons per day. The applicant has also applied to the TNRCC for approval of a substantial modification to its pretreatment program under the TPDES program. The facility is located on the east side of Bayou La Nana between Farm-to-Market Road 1275 and Farm-to-Market Road 2863 in Nacogdoches County, Texas.

CITY OF OMAHA has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 10239-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 2,800 feet southwest of the intersection of U.S. Highways 67 and 259 in Morris County, Texas.

RIO GRANDE VALLEY SUGAR GROWERS, INC. has applied for a renewal of an existing wastewater permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0032905 and an existing Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 01752. The draft permit authorizes the discharge of process wastewater, domestic wastewater, and stormwater at a daily average flow not to exceed 0.289 gallons per day via Outfall 001 and the disposal of partially treated wastewater via irrigation of 2000 acres. The applicant operates a raw sugar and molasses production facility. The plant site is located three miles west of the community of Santa Rosa on State Highway 107 in Hidalgo County, Texas.

CITY OF SAN ANGELO has applied for renewal of an existing filter backwash water permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0002178 and an existing Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 10641-001. The draft permit authorizes the discharge of filter backwash water at a daily average flow not to exceed 400,000 gallons per day. The plant site is located at Avenue I and Metcalf Street in the City of San Angelo in Tom Green County, Texas.

SAN YGNACIO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 13383-001 to authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 0.194 million gallons per day via irrigation of 72 acres of pastureland. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The wastewater treatment facilities and disposal site are located approximately 2.2 miles north-northeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 83 and Farm-to-Market Road 3169 at San Ygnacio in Zapata County, Texas.

STEAG POWER which proposes to operate the Brazos Valley Electric Generating Facility, a combined cycle electric power generating station, has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. 04258 to authorize an increase in the discharge of low volume wastewater, process area storm water, and previously monitored effluent (cooling tower blowdown) from a daily average flow not to exceed 700,000 gallons per day to a daily average flow not to exceed 10,000,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001; to authorize the increase of effluent limitations for total dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfates at Outfall 001; and to relocate Outfall 001. The applicant has also requested additional amendments requests were not addressed in the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain a Water Quality Permit which include the relocation of total suspended solids and oil and grease monitoring requirements and limitations from Outfall 001 to internal Outfalls 201 and 301, and the removal of metal cleaning wastes and associated limitations at Outfall 201 which will now be disposed off-site. The current permit authorizes the discharge of low volume wastewater, process area storm water, and previously monitored effluent from Outfalls 101 and 201 (cooling tower blowdown and metal cleaning waste) at a daily average flow not to exceed 700,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001, and storm water on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 002. The facility is located at the intersection of Rabbs Prairie Road, Smithers Lake Road, and Lockwood Road, approximately two miles southwest of the City of Thompsons, Fort Bend County, Texas.

CITY OF TOLAR has applied for a new permit, proposed Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 14233-001, to authorize the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 100,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 1/5 mile west of Farm-to-Market Road 201 and 1/4 mile south of U.S. Highway 377 on the south side of Squaw Creek in the City of Tolar in Hood County, Texas. The treated effluent is discharged to Squaw Creek; thence to Squaw Creek Reservoir; thence to Squaw Creek; thence to the Paluxy River/North Paluxy River in Segment No. 1229 of the Brazos River Basin.

UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT has applied to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) for a new permit, proposed Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 10698-002, to authorize the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 500,000 gallons per day. This application was submitted to the TNRCC on September 27, 2000. The facility is located on the south side of the Little Elm Creek branch of Lewisville Lake, approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 380 and Navo Road in Denton County, Texas.

WOODRIDGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 13474-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 4,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 1600 feet southeast of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 134 and State Highway 43 in Harrison County, Texas.

CITY OF YANTIS has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 12187-001 which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 42,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately one mile south of the intersection of Farm-to- Market Road 17 and State Highway 154 in Wood County, Texas.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

Written comments and requests for a public meeting may be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE.

ROBERT STEINBERGER Tex-Stein Dairy has applied for TPDES Registration No. 03674 to authorize the applicant to construct a new retention control structure at an existing dairy facility. The facility will expand from a current maximum capacity of 995 head to 1500 head in Archer County, Texas. No discharge of pollutants into the waters in the state is authorized by this registration except under chronic or catastrophic rainfall conditions. The existing facility is located 0.9 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 281 and State Highway 25, on the west side of U.S. Highway 281 in Archer County, Texas.

TRD-200103029

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 30, 2001


Notice of Water Rights Application

Capitol Aggregates, Ltd., P. O. Box 6230, Austin, Texas, 78762, applicant, has submitted Application No. 4025E to amend Water Use Permit No. 3732, as amended, pursuant to Texas Water Code (TWC) §11.122, and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Rules 30 TAC §§295.1, et seq. Water Use Permit No. 3732, as amended, authorizes the permittee to divert and use not to exceed 4,504 acre-feet of water per annum (with consumptive use of 600 acre-feet per annum) for mining (sand and gravel washing) purposes at a maximum rate of 17.47 cfs (7,840 gpm) from the perimeter of two reservoirs that capture underflow of the Medina River, a tributary of the San Antonio River, San Antonio River Basin in Bexar County. Special Conditions apply as follows: the diversion of 3,304 acre-feet per annum is authorized only when the flow of the Medina River immediately downstream of the most downstream reservoir is at least 20 cfs, the diversion of the remaining 1,200 acre-feet of water is not restricted; permittee shall return at least 87 percent of the diverted water to settling ponds in the project area; and, prior to diversion of water authorized herein, permittee shall contact the South Texas Watermaster.

Permittee seeks to amend Water Use Permit No. 3732, as amended, by adding a diversion point at the Montgomery Road Plant, being Latitude 29.332 degrees N and Longitude 98.754 degrees W, with no changes in water use or diversion rate and removing an existing diversion point at the Pue Road Plant, being Latitude 29.334 degrees N and Longitude 98.699 degrees W.

The application was received on December 27, 2000. The Executive Director reviewed the application and determined it to be administratively complete on April 23, 2001. Pursuant to TAC 295.158, notice will be sent to the five water right holders with diversion points in the Medina River Watershed between the existing and proposed additional diversion point. Should the requested amendment be granted, it will be subject to administrative requirements of the South Texas Watermaster.

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, by Tuesday, June 19, 2001. 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 Tuesday, June 19, 2001. The Executive Director may approve the application unless a written request for a contested case hearing is filed. 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 for the requested permit 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 issue the permit and will 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, 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-200103030

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 30, 2001


Proposal for Decision

The State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Proposal for Decision and Order to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on May 10, 2001. Executive Director of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Petitioner v. William Ince; Respondent; SOAH Docket Number 582-01-2067; TNRCC Docket Number 2000-0101-MSW-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 North 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, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Doug Kitts, Chief Clerk's Office, (512) 239-3317.

TRD-200102912

Douglas A. Kitts

Agenda Coordinator

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 24, 2001


Public Hearing Notice

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 the proposed amendment of 30 TAC Chapter 39, §39.551, Application for Wastewater Discharge Permit, Including Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge or Water Treatment Sludge.

The proposed amendment would amend Chapter 39 notice requirements for applicants seeking to discharge storm water and certain non-storm water from municipal separate storm sewer systems under an individual Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on June 25, 2001 at 10:00 a.m., in Building F, Room 3202A at the commission's central office located at 12100 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.

Comments may be submitted to Patricia Durón, MC 205, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 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 2000-040-039-AD. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., July 9, 2001 . For further information, please contact Debi Dyer, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-3972.

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 .

TRD-200102968

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Filed: May 24, 2001


Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

Request for Proposal - Training and Technical Assistance Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR) Program

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS), Division of Prevention and Early Intervention, is soliciting proposals for a service contract to provide training and technical assistance for Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR) program contractors. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, hereafter referred to as PRS or the Department, anticipates funding only one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released on or about June 5, 2001. The RFP will be posted on the State Internet Site at www.marketplace.state.tx.us on the date of its release.

Brief Description of Services: Services solicited under this RFP include: working closely with PRS staff and STAR contractors to develop training that best meets the needs of STAR contractors; providing training to STAR contractor program delivery staff to increase counseling, clinical, and direct care skills; providing training to STAR contractor administrative staff to increase administrative and program management skills; providing on-site specialized technical assistance and resource materials to individual STAR contractors to ensure compliance with STAR program guidelines and the STAR automated system; maintaining a help desk and automation guide for STAR contractors to ensure appropriate use of the STAR automated system; quarterly publishing and distributing a newsletter to all STAR contractors to provide information that is pertinent to youth- serving agencies; facilitating a one-day annual meeting for STAR contractors; and maintaining a STAR program Internet web site.

The goal of this procurement is to provide technical assistance and training to enhance the skills of administrative, program management, clinical, and other direct care contract staff and PRS staff.

Eligible Applicants: Eligible offerors include private nonprofit and for-profit corporations, cities, counties, partnerships, and individuals. Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs), Minority Business and Women's Enterprises, and Small Businesses are encouraged to submit proposals.

Limitations: Total funding of approximately $271,010 is available for September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002. The funding allocated for the contract resulting from this RFP is dependent on Legislative appropriation. Funding is not guaranteed at the maximum level, or at any level. PRS reserves the right to reject any and all offers received in response to this RFP and to cancel this RFP if it is deemed in the best interest of PRS. PRS also reserves the right to re-procure this service.

If no acceptable responses are received, or no contract is entered into as a result of this procurement, PRS intends to procure by non-competitive means in accordance with the law, but without further notice to potential vendors.

Deadline for Proposals, Term of Contract, and Amount of Award: Proposals will be due July 16, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. The effective dates of contracts awarded under this RFP will be September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002, at a maximum amount of $271,010 for the period. If contracts are renewed, funding will be reviewed annually with prescribed maximum funding levels each year.

Contact Person: Potential offerors may obtain a copy of the RFP on or about June 5, 2001. It is preferred that requests for the RFP be submitted in writing (by mail or fax) to: Jacqueline Gomez, Mail Code E-541; c/o Marilyn Eaton; Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services; P.O. Box 149030; Austin, Texas 78714-9030; Fax: (512) 438-2031.

TRD-200102934

C. Ed Davis

Deputy Director, Legal Services

Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

Filed: May 24, 2001


Public Utility Commission of Texas

Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority

On May 15, 2001, NorthPoint Communications, 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 60164. Applicant intends to relinquish its SPCOA.

The Application: Application of NorthPoint Communications, Inc. to Relinquish its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 23872.

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, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326 no later than June 13, 2001. You may contact the commission's Customer Protection Division 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 23872.

TRD-200102982

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority

On May 24, 2001, The Telephone Reconnection, 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 60139. Applicant intends to relinquish its SPCOA.

The Application: Application of The Telephone Reconnection, Inc. for an Amendment to its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24161.

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, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326 no later than June 13, 2001. You may contact the commission's Customer Protection Division 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 24161.

TRD-200102992

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Notice of Application for Approval of Depreciation Rate Change

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) of an application on May 18, 2001, for approval of an increased depreciation rate of 13.4% for digital switching equipment pursuant to §§52.252 and 53.056 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). A summary of the application follows.

Docket Title and Number: Application of Border to Border Communications, Inc. for Increase in Depreciation Rate for Digital Switching Equipment. Docket Number 24127.

The Application: Border to Border Communications, Inc. filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) an application for approval of a 13.4% depreciation rate increase on digital switching equipment, effective January 1, 2001.

Persons who wish to intervene in the proceeding or comment upon the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or (888) 782-8477. Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or use Relay Texas (toll-free) 1-800-735-2989.

TRD-200103024

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 30, 2001


Notice of Application for Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) of an application on May 23, 2001, for a service provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151 - 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application follows.

Docket Title and Number: Application of Cypress Communications Operating Company, Inc. for a Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24158 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Applicant intends to provide plain old telephone service, and long distance services.

Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area of Texas currently served by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later than June 13, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200102990

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Notice of Application for Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) of an application on May 23, 2001, for a service provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151 - 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application follows.

Docket Title and Number: Application of GiantLoop Telecom, Inc. for a Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24159 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Applicant intends to provide dedicated and private line fiber optic telecommunications transmission capacity to business customers.

Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area of Texas currently served by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Verizon Southwest.

Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later than June 13, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200102991

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Notice of Application for Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) of an application on May 24, 2001, for a service provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151 - 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application follows.

Docket Title and Number: Application of Steller Communications, Inc. for a Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24163 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Applicant intends to provide plain old telephone service, ADSL, ISDN, HDSL, SDSL, RADSL, VDSL, Optical Services, T1-Private Line, Switch 56 KBPS, Frame Relay, Fractional T1, long distance, and wireless services.

Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area of Texas served by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Verizon Southwest in 11 north central Texas counties.

Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later than June 13, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200102993

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Notice of Application for Waiver of Reporting Requirements in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B)

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (P.U.C. or commission) of an application on May 23, 2001, for waiver of the requirements of P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B), regarding access line counting.

Docket Title and Number: Application of Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Leaco) for Waiver of Reporting Requirements Imposed by P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B), Docket Number 24151.

The Application: P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B) requires certificated telecommunications providers to file with the commission quarterly reports showing the number of access lines within each municipality served by the provider. Applicant reports that it provides service to fifteen access lines exclusively in Texas. According to applicant, the Texas access lines serve residents of Loving County, a county with a declining population and only one town, Mentone, which is not incorporated nor in the service area served by the applicant. Applicant is seeking a good cause exception pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.3, in the belief that the expenditure in time, effort and cost to comply with P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B) is unduly burdensome and disproportionate in view of the absence of municipal access lines in the applicant's service area in Texas.

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 Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All comments should reference Docket Number 24151.

TRD-200103000

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 29, 2001


Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement

On May 22, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Time Warner Telecom of Texas, LP, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under Section 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 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24147. 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 24147. 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 June 21, 2001, 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 Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 24147.

TRD-200102989

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement

On May 24, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Mpower Communications Corporation, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under Section 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 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24165. 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 24165. 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 June 22, 2001, 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 Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 24165.

TRD-200103017

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 29, 2001


Public Notice of Intent to File Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission), of a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215.

Docket Title and Number. Verizon Southwest's Application for Approval of LRIC Study for CentraNet Numbers Not in Use Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215 on or about June 4, 2001, Docket Number 24173.

Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing Docket Number 24173. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no later than 45 days after the date of sufficiency and should be filed at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200103019

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 29, 2001


Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement

On May 24, 2001, Coleman County Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval of interconnection agreement and amendment to interconnection agreement under Section 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 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24164. 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 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 24164. 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 June 22, 2001, 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 Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 24164.

TRD-200103016

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 29, 2001


Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement

On May 25, 2001, SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. and DSLnet Communications, LLC, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval of interconnection agreement under Section 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 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24169. 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 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 24169. 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 June 22, 2001, 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 Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 24169.

TRD-200103018

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 29, 2001


Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement and Amendment Thereto

On May 21, 2001, TCI Telephony Services of Texas, Inc. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval of an interconnection agreement and amendment thereto under Section 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 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24141. 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 24141. 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 June 21, 2001, 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 Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should refer to Docket Number 24141.

TRD-200102988

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 25, 2001


Public Notice of Workshop-Rulemaking to Address the Provision of Advanced Services By Electing Companies, COA or SPCOA Holders in Rural Service Areas

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) will hold a workshop regarding the provision of advanced services by electing companies, certificate of operating authority (COA) or service provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) holders on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, located on the 7th floor of the William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. Project Number 21175, Rulemaking to Address the Provision of Advanced Services by Electing Companies, COA or SPCOA Holders in Rural Service Areas , has been established for this proceeding. No later than June 15, 2001 a staff draft will be made available under this project number in the commission's Central Records Division, located on the ground floor of the William B. Travis Building and on the commission's website at www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/21175/21175.cfm.

Questions concerning the workshop or this notice should be referred to Don Ballard, Chief Attorney, Policy Development Division, at (512) 936-7255. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-200103015

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: May 29, 2001


Stephen F. Austin State University

Notice of Availability of Consulting Services Contract

This request for consulting services is filed under the provisions of the Government Code, Chapter 2254.

PURPOSE: Stephen F. Austin State University is seeking consulting services to provide inspection and budget forecasting for all educational and support facility roofs for a period of five years, beginning September 1, 2001 and ending August 31, 2006. Proposed inspection and documentation will provide the following: 1. physical inspection of all campus facility roofs 2. documentation of observed conditions with emphasis on known roof problems, reported leak conditions and preventative maintenance 3. summary of conditions requiring manufacturer warranty notification 4. summary of conditions requiring roof related repair 5. summary of roofs projected for replacement for the fiscal years 2002 through 2006 6. final reports to be presented in CPU Windows 95/98 environment, including building history of roof type, age, construction, flashing type, square footage, insulation, material manufacturer, etc., current conditions, budget forecast of repairs and replacements, roof plans, excel spread sheet, photographs and warranties. Additional roof inspections shall be provided during repair or construction as required by the University, with the price to be negotiated depending on specific requirements for each job.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: All governmental, public, nonprofit private, or for-profit private entities that can demonstrate the expertise necessary to carry out the required consultant services are encouraged to submit proposals.

PROPOSAL FORMAT: Interested parties must submit proposal with the following information: experience, qualifications, cost for inspection services to be provided the first year; subsequent years to be negotiated annually, the name, address, and phone number of the individual assigned to the account, and the vendor identification number/tax identification number of the applicant.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Evaluation will be made by the Director of Purchasing and the Associate Director of Facilities Services based upon evidence of the applicant's knowledge and experience in performing the specified services and costs.

DEADLINES: Proposal must be received in the office of Diana Boubel, Director of Purchasing, PO Box 13030, 2124 Wilson Drive, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 by June 12, 2001, 5:00 p.m. A decision will be made at the regularly scheduled Board of Regents meeting July, 2001. Contract to be effective September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2006 up to an estimated amount not to exceed $80,000. Please contact Diana Boubel at (936) 468-2206 or John Rulfs at (936) 468-4341 for more information.

TRD-200103006

R. Yvette Clark

General Counsel

Stephen F. Austin State University

Filed: May 29, 2001


The Supreme Court of Texas

Notice of Supreme Court of Texas Advisory Council Meeting

Pursuant to Supreme Court of Texas Misc. Docket Order No. 99-9167, the Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee publishes notice of the following meeting open to the public. The Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee will meet June 15, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. and June 16, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. at the State Bar Building, Room 101, 1414 Colorado, Austin Texas, 78701

The agenda for the meeting includes: (1) call to order; (2) discussion relating to previous advisory committee proposals submitted to the Supreme Court, including discussion of the status of proposals submitted to the Supreme Court relating to changes in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Texas Parental Notification Rules; (3) reports related to proposals to amend, change, or modify the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to issues involving the finality of judgments; Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47 relating to the issuance and use of appellate opinions; Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 on the types of U.S. mail service which may serve as service of appellate process, that portion of the Parental Notification rules relating to the manner of implementing appeals, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 103 relating to the service of citation and process; and (4) other business, including review of public comments or other proposals to amend, change, or modify the rules and procedures for the courts of the state of Texas.

Additional information related to this meeting may be obtained from Chris Griesel, Rules Attorney, at (512) 463-6645 or by e-mail at chris.griesel@courts.state.tx.us. Comments on any rule change proposal, including a rule proposal made at this meeting, may be submitted to: Rules Attorney, Supreme Court of Texas, P.O. Box 12248, Austin , Texas 78711 or by email to chris.griesel@courts.state.tx.us .

Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need auxiliary aids or services or others who may need additional assistance are requested contact Chris Griesel at (512) 463-6645 at least two (2) working days before the meeting so that the appropriate arrangements may be made.

TRD-200103040

John T. Adams

Clerk

The Supreme Court of Texas

Filed: May 30, 2001


Texas A&M University, Board of Regents

Request for Proposal

Texas A&M University System seeks proposals from consulting firms to assist in the assessment, review and policy development of the health needs of communities throughout Texas.

Information can be obtained by contacting Rex Janne, Director of Purchasing Services, Texas A&M University, P.O. Box 30013, College Station, Texas 77842-0013 or e-mail at r-janne@tamu.edu.

Selection criteria will include competence, experience, knowledge, qualification and reasonableness of price. Historically Underutilized Businesses are encouraged to participate in this request for proposal. All things being equal, a preference will be given to a consultant firm whose principal place of business is within the State of Texas. Proposals must be received on or before 2:00 p.m., June 21, 2001.

TRD-200103004

Vickie Burt Spillers

Executive Secretary to the Board

Texas A&M University, Board of Regents

Filed: May 29, 2001