The Texas Animal Health Commission (commission) will review and consider for readoption, revision, or repeal of Chapter 39, concerning "Scabies," in accordance with the Texas Government Code, Section 2001.039. The rules to be reviewed are found in Chapter 39, which is located in Title 4, Part II, of the Texas Administrative Code and contain the following sections: §39.1, Definitions; §39.2, Psoroptic Scabies in Infested Herds; §39.3, Sarcoptic Scabies in Infested Herds; §39.4, Livestock Exposed to Psoroptic or Sarcoptic Scabies; §39.5, Quarantines and Release; §39.6, Duties of Owners or Caretakers of Livestock Infested with or Exposed to Scabies; §39.7, Livestock at Shows, Fairs, and Exhibitions; §39.8, Permitted Dips for Scabies and Mange Mite Eradication; §39.9, Chorioptic Mange; and §39.10, Interstate Movement Requirements for Livestock.

The commission finds reason for the rule to continue to exist but will consider comments related to whether reasons for re-adoption of these rules continue to exist, whether amendments or changes are needed, or whether repeal of the chapter is appropriate. Any changes to the rules will be proposed by the commission after reviewing the rules and considering the comments received in response to this notice. Any proposed rule changes will then appear in the "Proposed Rules" section of the Texas Register and will be adopted in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Texas Government Code Annotated, Chapter 2001. The comment period will last for 30 days beginning with the publication of this notice of intention to review. Comments or questions regarding this notice of intention to review may be submitted in writing, within 30 days following the publication of this notice in the Texas Register , to Edith Smith, P.O. Box 12966, Austin, Texas 78711-2966. They may also be sent by facsimile to (512) 719-0721 or by e-mail to "comments@tahc.state.tx.us." Comments will be reviewed and discussed in a future commission meeting.

TRD-200304695

Gene Snelson

General Counsel

Texas Animal Health Commission

Filed: August 4, 2003

Title 16, Part 9

The Texas Lottery Commission files this notice of intent to review 16 TAC Chapter 401, concerning General Administration. This review is in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Government Code, Section 2001.039.

Comments on the review may be submitted in writing to Kimberly L. Kiplin, General Counsel, Texas Lottery Commission, P.O. Box 16630, Austin, Texas 78761-6630. The Commission will accept comments for 30 days after publication in the Texas Register .

TRD-200304782

Kimberly L. Kiplin

General Counsel

Texas Lottery Commission

Filed: August 6, 2003

Title 16, Part 1

The Railroad Commission of Texas files this notice of completion of the review and readoption of 16 TAC Chapter 1, relating to Practice and Procedure. This review and consideration was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039. The proposed review was published in the June 27, 2003, issue of the Texas Register (28 TexReg 4935).

The agency's reasons for adopting these rules continue to exist; however, the Commission recognized that some of the provisions in Chapter 1 needed to be revised and updated, and in the proposed review, asked current practitioners, consultants, and other interested persons who do business with the Commission, or who are interested in Commission proceedings or administrative proceedings generally, for comments and suggestions regarding possible changes to Chapter 1, to be considered in a future rulemaking.

The Commission received one comment from the Texas Propane Gas Association (TPGA). Regarding §1.62(3) and (4), TPGA stated that if agency staff wishes to participate as a party in a contested case, staff should be required to file a motion to intervene and have the motion adjudged by the hearing officer, just as any other proposed intervention. Similarly, if agency staff wishes to protest, staff should be required to file a protestant statement in the same manner and under the same rules as a public protestant. TPGA's reasoning for these comments is that due process would seem to militate that petitioners must be given notice as to the role, intent, and objective of all parties, intervenors and protestants. If these paragraphs are not the appropriate place to add the suggested wording, TPGA requested it be added in the proper place.

Concerning §1.63, TPGA requested that considerable limitation should be in the rules clarifying who is a valid protestant--i.e., one who has a bona fide justiciable interest in the adjudicatory proceeding. TPGA commented that it historically understood that the "500-foot rule" (16 Tex. Admin. Code §9.102, relating to Notice of Stationary LP-Gas Installations) was the limitation on who was a proper party before the Railroad Commission, and cited a recent contested case hearing in which 39 protestants were given party status, even though only one property owner protestant had premises (land) within 500 feet of the outermost point of a proposed rural propane tank installation. In TPGA's view, designating as parties at the beginning of the hearing all protestants who request that status not only vitiates APA discovery rights of the applicant but also prohibits "separation of witnesses" sanctions. TPGA's technical and standards committee has found that the Commission's forms (500 series) adequately describe the procedure for filing a protest, including a requirement for stating the nature and grounds of a personal objection to an application, not just a blanket objection filed by a lawyer for everybody who signed a protest petition in a convenience store 15 miles from a proposed installation. Commission rules provide for intervention and that should be the procedure for those protestants who do not have the characteristics of a proper party, including, TPGA stated, agency staff.

Regarding §1.64(b), TPGA stated that there should be specificity for notice to parties, as well as the hearing officer, as to what constitutes an "improper admittance." TPGA suggested that rather than allowing an arbitrary ruling on a motion to strike an intervention, both petitioner and respondent should be availed of the grounds, under subsection (a) of the rule, on which the motion is granted or denied.

Regarding §1.141(a), TPGA stated that a proposal for decision should contain only those findings of fact that are supported by evidence adduced at the contested case hearing. Conclusions of law must be formulated and based only on those findings. TPGA offered an example for this recommendation: A party's closing argument asserted that a prior Commission case, not considered or introduced in evidence at hearing, should be ruled as precedential in the extant case. When the opposing counsel investigated the matter, the prior case file was located on a staff attorney's desk--presumably for staff assistance in writing the proposal for decision. The prior case was more than five years old, but remarkably had been withdrawn from the file room by a staff attorney only during the process time in preparing the impending proposal for decision. Neither party should have to be wary of the source of what results in a proposal for decision, and the rules should provide explicit and stringent standards.

As proposed, the Commission's review of Chapter 1 did not include any concurrent proposed amendments; therefore, the Commission is precluded from adopting any changes to the rules in Chapter 1 at this time. The Commission will review these recommendations for inclusion in a possible future rulemaking with respect to the agency's rules of practice and procedure.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 5, 2003.

TRD-200304760

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Filed: August 5, 2003

The Railroad Commission of Texas files this notice of completion of the review of §7.45, relating to Quality of Service. This review was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039. The agency's reasons for adopting this rule continue to exist. The proposed review was published in the June 27, 2003, issue of the Texas Register (28 TexReg 4936).

The Commission received one comment on the proposed review from the Texas Council on Family Violence (TCFV). TCFV recognized that the proposed review did not include any proposed rule changes to §7.45, known as the "quality of service rule." TCFV recommended that the rule be amended to add language allowing victims of domestic violence to receive a gas deposit waiver. TCFV stated that this waiver would be of great assistance to victims of family violence seeking to establish a safe and independent residence, and cited rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission allowing waiver of electric and telephone utility deposit requirements for victims of family violence. TCFV cited proposed amendments to §7.45 that were published in the June 21, 2002, issue of the Texas Register , in which a proposed addition to the rule stated that a gas utility should not require an applicant for gas utility service to pay a deposit if the applicant has been determined to be a victim of family violence, as defined in Texas Family Code, §71.004, by a family violence center or by treating medical personnel, and that such determination should be evidenced by submission of a certification letter developed by the TCFV. At the time of that proposal, TCFV submitted comments to the Commission in support of this rule language. TCFV continues to advocate inclusion of this language and suggested additional language to add law enforcement agency personnel to the list of organizations with the authority to determine whether an individual has been a victim of family violence.

The Commission will consider this suggested language for possible inclusion in a future rulemaking to amend the quality of service rule.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 5, 2003.

TRD-200304761

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Filed: August 5, 2003

The Railroad Commission of Texas files this notice of the completion of the review of §§7.70-7.74, and §§7.80-7.87, relating to the Commission's pipeline safety regulations. This review was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039. The agency's reasons for adopting the rules continue to exist. The proposed review was published in the June 27, 2003, issue of the Texas Register (28 TexReg 4936).

The Commission received no comments on the proposed review of these sections and therefore readopts them.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 5, 2003.

TRD-200304762

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Filed: August 5, 2003

The Railroad Commission of Texas (Commission) files this notice of completion of the review of Chapter 20, relating to Administration. The review was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039. The agency's reasons for adopting these rules continue to exist. The proposed review was published in the June 27, 2003, issue of the Texas Register (28 TexReg 4937).

The Commission received no comments on the proposed review and therefore readopts 16 TAC Chapter 20.

Issued in Austin, Texas on August 5, 2003.

TRD-200304763

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Filed: August 5, 2003