Adopted Sections
An agency may take final action on a section 30 days after a proposal has been 
published in the Texas Register. The section becomes effective 20 days after the 
agency files the correct document with the Texas Register, unless a later date 
is specified or unless a federal statute or regulation requires implementation 
of the action on shorter notice.
If an agency adopts the section without any changes to the proposed text, only 
the preamble of the notice and statement of legal authority will be published. 
If an agency adopts the section with changes to the proposed text, the proposal 
will be republished with the changes.
TITLE 4. AGRICULTURE
Part I. Texas Department of Agriculture
Chapter 28. Texas Agricultural Finance Authority: Loan Guaranty Program
4 TAC sec.sec.28.1-28.7, 28.9, 28.10, 28.13
The Texas Department of Agriculture adopts amendments to  sec.sec.28.1-28.7, 28. 
9, 28.10, and 28.13, concerning procedures for participation in the Texas 
Agricultural Finance Authority (TAFA) Loan Guaranty Program. Section 28.10 is 
adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the December 27, 1991, 
issue of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 7685). Sections 28.1-28.7, 28.9, and 
28.13 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The sections are amended to generally clarify existing procedures, add some new 
application requirements to facilitate screening of applicants by the TAFA Board 
and the Credit Review Committee, and restructure the Credit Review Committee. 
Section 28.10 is adopted with a change to correct a publication error. In the 
publication of proposed amendments to this section, the amount of the 
application fee was omitted. The section, as adopted, includes the $100 fee 
amount.
The sections, as amended, clarify existing definitions, eliminate the 
requirement that a fee for photocopying must accompany a request for copies of 
records, clarify that correspondence to the program should be directed to the 
TAFA authority, clarify what monies are to be included in the fund, and 
eliminate exceptions to the $2 million limit on a loan guaranty. In addition, 
the sections establish preference for applicants that are Texas corporations 
with majority ownership by Texans, require disclosure of real or potential 
conflict of interest of applicant, require that the loan guaranty fee is to be 
paid within 30 days of closing, provide that legal fees are to be paid by 
applicant, and require that the lender notify the authority in the event of any 
breach or default.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendments.
The amendments are adopted under the Texas Agriculture Code Annotated, sec.58. 
023, which provides the TAFA Board of Directors with the authority to adopt 
rules to establish criteria for eligibility of applicants and lenders under the 
TAFA Loan Guaranty Program; and sec.58.022, which provides the board with the 
authority to adopt rules and procedures for administration of the TAFA Loan 
Guaranty Program.
sec.28.10. General Terms and Conditions of the Texas Agricultural Finance 
Authority's Financial Commitment.
(a)-(b) (No change.)
(c)  Maximum amount of loan guaranty. The Authority shall not provide a loan 
guaranty to an applicant, including its affiliates, that at any one time, 
exceeds $2 million. The assistance in the form of a loan guaranty shall not 
exceed 90% of the total loan.
(d)-(e) (No change.)
(f)  Maturity. The maturity of the loan guaranty approved by the Authority must 
not exceed the useful life of the collateral and may be negotiated between the 
Authority and the lender.
(g) (No change.)
(h) Fees. The board shall adopt a fee schedule which can be used to calculate 
the loan guaranty fee payable by the applicant to the Authority within 30 days 
of closing. A nonrefundable application fee will be required in the amount of 
$100 with the application. If the application is approved, the application fee 
will be considered as part of the loan guaranty fee. Any and all legal fees 
incurred by the board in issuing a guarantee or participating in any loan will 
be an obligation of the applicant.
(i) Closing the loan guaranty. The lender, the applicant, and the commissioner 
of agriculture or his designee may attend the verification and signing of the 
closing documents as prepared by staff and the lender at the date, time, and 
location determined by the Authority.
(j)  Reporting requirements.
(1) The lender shall report in writing to the Authority as follows:
(A) notification if the loan is placed on a watch list;
(B) quarterly monitoring reports indicating loan balance, repayment status, and 
any credit changes reported to lender as indicated on the prescribed form; and
(C) notification in the event of any breaches or defaults in the terms, 
conditions, or covenants of the note, loan agreement, or other loan documents.
(2) (No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202425
Dolores Alvarado Hibbs
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Texas Department of Agriculture
Effective date: March 10, 1992
Proposal publication date: December 27, 1992
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7583
       
Chapter 30. Young Farmers Endowment Program
4 TAC sec.sec.30.1-30.12
The Texas Department of Agriculture adopts new sec.sec.30.1-30.12, concerning 
procedures for participation in the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority (TAFA) 
Young Farmer Endowment Program. Sections 30.3, 30.6, 30.9, and 30.10 are adopted 
with changes to the proposed text as published in the December 17, 1991, issue 
of the  Texas Register (16 TexReg 7297). Sections 30.1, 30.2, 30.4, 30.5, 30.7, 
30.8, 30.11, and 30.12 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The new sections provide procedures for participation in the TAFA Young Farmers 
Endowment Program. Section 30.3 is adopted with changes. The definition of 
"eligible borrower" has been changed based on comments received from the Farm 
Credit Bank of Texas to clarify that more than four years' experience does not 
make one an ineligible borrower. In addition, the Future Farmers of America 
(FFA) has been added to this definition by the TAFA board as an example of a 
vocational agriculture program that counts towards practical farm or ranch 
experience, and language has been added by the TAFA board to clarify when the 
application cycles end.
The definition of "first farm or ranch operation" has been changed at 
subparagraph (C) to increase the requirement for the maximum amount of adjusted 
gross income that can come from farming or ranching for each of the four years 
preceding application from 15% to 20%. This change was made based on public 
comments received stating that the 15% requirement would disqualify many 
otherwise eligible young farmers who had over the 15% income requirement, but 
did not have a full scale farming or ranching operation.
Section 30.6 is adopted with changes. Subsection (b) has been changed by the 
TAFA board to clarify who may assist in staff review of a plan submitted by an 
applicant. Subsection (e) has been changed by the TAFA board to provide that 
notice of future consideration of an application will include designation of the 
cycle during which the application will be considered. In addition, based on 
comments received from the Farm Credit Bank of Texas, subsection (e) has been 
changed to clarify that an applicant may apply during any future application 
cycle.
Section 30.9 is adopted with changes. Subsection (g) has been added to clarify 
that the program will be providing an interest free loan. This change was made 
based on comments received from the Farm Credit Bank of Texas. Section 30.10 is 
adopted with changes and has been changed by the TAFA board to clarify that 
financial and cash flow statements are to be provided every six months.
The new sections provide a general statement of the authority and purpose of the 
Young Farmers Endowment Program. In addition, the new sections provide 
definitions, general project eligibility requirements, application requirements 
and procedures for filing of applications, general terms and conditions of 
TAFA's financial commitment, and criteria for approval of a loan under the 
program.
Several comments were received that were not incorporated into the sections as 
adopted. Two comments were received from individuals regarding sec.30.4(4) and 
the requirement for a 20% equity injection into the operation. Those commenting 
expressed concern that this requirement cannot be met by first-time farmers and 
ranchers. The TAFA board disagrees with these comments and believes that the 20% 
requirement is realistic.
Three comments were received from individuals regarding  sec.30.12(5) and the 
collateral requirement for a loan. Those commenting expressed concern that the 
first-time farmer or rancher would have a difficult time accumulating collateral 
for the loan. The TAFA board disagrees with these comments and believes that 
collateral must be obtained for the loan.
In addition to the comments previously discussed, other general comments and 
inquiries regarding the proposed sections were received from the public. The 
Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council submitted general comments regarding the 
continuity of the program and concerns as to whether the program would be able 
to maintain a consistency of operation from year to year. The department and the 
TAFA Board agrees that the program must be standardized and be consistent over 
time in its application in order to preserve the intent of the legislation, 
which is to assist young, first-time farmers and to bring more young, qualified 
individuals into the agricultural sector.
Several comments were received from individuals concerning some provisions of 
the proposed sections which are required by the statutory authority establishing 
the program. These comments are: that the program does not provide sufficient 
financing and will therefore have a limited impact; that the age limitation of 
40 years for eligible borrowers will eliminate many otherwise eligible first 
time farmers; and that the $5.00 fee that will provide revenue for the program 
combined with the proof of insurance requirement for each vehicle in order to 
get license plate tags renewed adds to the already too heavy tax burden of 
farmers. While the TAFA board does not necessarily disagree with all of these 
comments, changes on these specific provisions cannot be made by the board 
through the rulemaking process, but rather, must be made through the legislative 
process with amendments to the statutory authority for the program.
The new sections are adopted under the authority of the Texas Agriculture Code 
(the Code), sec.253.004, which provides the Board of Directors of the Texas 
Agricultural Finance Authority the same authority in administering the Young 
Farmers Endowment Program as it has in the Code; Chapter 58; the Code, 
sec.58.023, which provides the TAFA board with the authority to adopt rules to 
establish criteria for eligibility of applicants and criteria for lenders; and 
sec.58.022, which provides the TAFA board with the authority to adopt rules and 
procedures for administration of the loan guaranty program.
sec.30.3. Definitions.  In addition to the definitions set out in the Texas 
Agriculture Code, sec.253.001, the following words and terms, when used in this 
chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates 
otherwise:
   Act-The Young Farmer Endowment Act, Texas Agriculture Code, Chapter 253.
   Agricultural science teacher-An individual employed by a Texas school 
district for the purpose of teaching agricultural science and technology.
   Applicant-An individual making application for financial assistance under the 
Act and this chapter.
   County agent-A county extension agent or agricultural program leader employed 
by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
   Credit review committee-A committee composed of three members of the Texas 
Agricultural Finance Authority, with two members being of the board and one 
member being the commissioner of agriculture or his designee.
   District-based agricultural economist-A district agricultural economist 
employed by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
   Eligible borrower -An individual who is at least 18 years of age but younger 
than 40 years of age and who has a minimum of four years of practical farm or 
ranch experience, with not more than two years of participation in a 4-H, Future 
Farmers of America (FFA), or vocational agriculture program counting as 
practical farm or ranch experience. The eligible borrower must remain younger 
than 40 throughout the application cycle for which the applicant has applied; 
such cycles end on the first Monday in February and on the first Monday in 
August of each year.
   First farm or ranch operation-An operation:
(A)  in which the owner/operator provides the management and labor for the 
operation;
(B) where the owner/operator provides or directly arranges for the financing of 
the operation; and
(C) where the owner/operator has not generated more than 20% of his adjusted 
gross income during each of the past four years from farming or ranching 
operations, provided that an exception will be allowed from the income 
limitation for those applicants who provide evidence that during the last four 
years, their taxable income from farming or ranching provided their education 
costs.
   Plan-A complete business plan which includes balance sheets, income 
statements, cash flow statements, and a management plan.
   Program-The Young Farmer Endowment Program.
sec.30.6. Filing Requirements and Consideration of Applications.
(a) Application forms. An applicant seeking financing must use application forms 
approved and distributed by the Authority and must include all information 
requested.
(b) Staff review. Upon submission of a full and complete application, the staff 
shall review the application, evaluate the technical and market feasibility of 
the project, and examine the benefits of the project for the economic growth of 
Texas agriculture. The staff may request and consider comments of the county 
agent or the agricultural science teacher who reviewed the plan. The district-
based agricultural economist may be requested to provide assistance in reviewing 
the plan.
(c) Credit review committee. The staff shall submit a credit memorandum to the 
credit review committee for each of the top 50 ranked applications. The credit 
review committee shall recommend to the board applications sufficient to award 
available funds. Any application not receiving a unanimous vote of the credit 
review committee will be recommended to the board for denial. The board will 
approve or deny applications by majority vote and may impose terms and 
conditions as part of its approval.
(d) Notification of approval. Upon approval by the board, the staff will notify 
each applicant in writing identifying the terms and conditions of the approval. 
The staff shall prepare or cause to be prepared all written agreements and 
documents necessary to close the financing in accordance with the terms and 
conditions set forth in the notice of approval.
(e) Denial of application. The staff will notify each applicant in writing of 
the denial of an application. Such notice will indicate whether the application 
will or will not be considered further under the program. Should an applicant be 
notified that his or her application will be considered further, such notice 
shall designate the loan cycle for such consideration. No appeal of the board's 
decision regarding an application will be allowed. Those applications not 
included in the 50 submitted to the credit review committee will not be 
considered further under the program. Applicants not considered further by the 
board may reapply for consideration during any future application cycle.
(f) Providing false information. An applicant who knowingly provides false 
information in an application shall be disqualified from obtaining a loan under 
the program and shall be liable to the Authority and the department for any 
expense incurred by the Authority or the department as a result of the falsity 
and any approved loan will be considered in default.
sec.30.9. General Terms and Conditions of Authority's Financial Commitment.
(a) Maximum amount of financial commitment. The Authority shall provide up to 
$50,000 in financial assistance to an approved applicant, to be disbursed 
according to the approved draw schedule.
(b) Security. Financial commitments approved under this program must be secured 
by a first lien on collateral of a type and value which, when considered with 
other criteria, in the judgment of the board affords reasonable assurance of 
repayment of the loan.
(c) Closing of the loan. The closing documents for an approved loan recipient 
shall be prepared and approved by an attorney. The applicant and the 
commissioner of agriculture or his designee may attend the verification and 
signing of such closing documents at the time, date, and location determined by 
staff.
(d) Closing costs. All closing costs associated with the closing of an approved 
application shall be the liability of the applicant.
(e)  Draw approval. All requests for draws for the approved financing must be 
taken with 90 days of the proposed date of draw submitted with the application. 
Extensions of the 90-day period may be approved by the board by requesting such 
in writing and upon the receipt of an approval confirmation from the board.
(f) Maturity. The maturity of an approved loan must not exceed 15 years unless 
extended by the board.
(g) Interest rate. The interest rate for the loan will be 0% for the term of the 
loan.
sec.30.10. Reporting Requirements.  Each recipient of a loan under this program 
shall provide bi-annual (every six months) financial and cash flow statements to 
the authority. Such statements must be presented in comparison with the budget 
information contained in the 10-year business plan submitted to the Authority 
with the application. Failure to provide such statements shall be considered a 
default on the loan and constitute grounds for demand for full and immediate 
repayment of the loan.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202424
Dolores Alvarado Hibbs
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Texas Department of Agriculture
Effective date: March 10, 1992
Proposal publication date: December 17, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 463-7583
       
Part II. Texas Animal Health Commission
Chapter 35. Brucellosis
Subchapter A. Eradication of Brucellosis in Cattle
4 TAC sec.35.2
The Texas Animal Health Commission adopts an amendment to sec.35.2 concerning 
general requirements, without changes to the proposed text as published in the 
November 5, 1991, issue of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 6251).
The amendment is necessary to provide the public with the option of using forms 
other than a Form 4-33 as a recognized test document for cattle entering a 
livestock market.
All test-eligible cattle must be tested at the market unless they are 
accompanied by a test document approved by the commission, such as Forms 4-33, 
4-54 or a health certificate showing the cattle were tested within 30 days prior 
to coming to the market.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Agriculture Code, Texas Civil Statutes, 
Chapter 161, which provides the commission with the authority to protect 
livestock in the state from disease.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1992.
TRD-9202436
Terry Beals, DVM
Executive Director
Texas Animal Health Commission
Effective date: March 15, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 5, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 479-6697
       
Chapter 51. Interstate Shows and Fairs
4 TAC sec.51.1
The Texas Animal Health Commission adopts an amendment to sec.51.1, concerning 
definitions, without changes to the proposed text as published in the November 
5, 1991, issue of the  Texas Register (16 TexReg 6251).
The amendment is necessary to clarify the definition of an "interstate"- 
"intrastate" show, fair, or exhibition.
An interstate show, fair or exhibition is one where livestock and poultry from 
other states entering a Texas show, fair, or exhibition are held in common 
facilities with Texas origin in livestock and poultry of the same species. An 
intrastate show, fair, or exhibition is one where Texas livestock and poultry 
entering a show, fair or exhibition are housed and exhibited separate and apart 
from livestock and poultry of the same species which have entered from out-of-
state.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Agriculture Code, Texas Civil Statutes, 
Chapter 161, which provides the commission with the authority to protect 
livestock in the state from disease.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1992.
TRD-9202435
Terry Beals, DVM
Executive Director
Texas Animal Health Commission
Effective date: March 15, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 5, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 479-6697
       
4 TAC sec.51.2
The Texas Animal Health Commission adopts an amendment to sec.51.2, concerning 
general requirements, without changes to the proposed text as published in the 
November 5, 1991, issue of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 6251).
The amendment is necessary to clarify the intent for entry of other livestock 
and poultry of in-state origin into show, fairs, and exhibitions.
Livestock and poultry of in-state origin entering interstate shows, fairs, and 
exhibitions must meet the same requirements as those entering from out-of-state 
and must be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Agriculture Code, Texas Civil Statutes, 
Chapter 161, which provides the commission with the authority to protect 
livestock in the state from disease.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1992.
TRD-9202434
Terry Beals, DVM
Executive Director
Texas Animal Health Commission
Effective date: March 15, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 5, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 479-6697
       
Chapter 59. General Practice and Procedures
4 TAC sec.59.2
The Texas Animal Health Commission adopts an amendment to sec.59.2, concerning 
general responsibilities, without changes to the proposed text as published in 
the November 5, 1991, issue of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 6252).
The amendment is necessary to provide the public an opportunity to comment 
before the commission.
At least twice a year the public may make comments at a commission meeting on 
any issue under the commission's jurisdiction.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Agriculture Code, Texas Civil Statutes, 
Chapter 161, which provide the commission with authority to protect livestock in 
the state from disease.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1992.
TRD-9202433
Terry Beals, DVM
Executive Director
Texas Animal Health Commission
Effective date: March 15, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 5, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 479-6697
       
TITLE 16. ECONOMIC REGULATION
Part II. Public Utility Commission of Texas
Chapter 21. Practice and Procedure
Docketing and Notice
16 TAC sec.21.24
The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.21.24, 
concerning the contents for notice in licensing proceedings, with changes to the 
proposed text as published in the September 10, 1991, issue of the Texas 
Register (16 TexReg 4915).
Section 21.24(c)(1) as amended will eliminate the requirement that applicants 
for a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) publish a map of the area 
for which the certificate is being requested. Additionally, pursuant to new 
subsection (c)(4), the intervention deadline for proceedings under subsection 
(c) (1) will be 60 days after completion of the published notice required under 
paragraph (1) or the landowner notice required under paragraph (3), whichever is 
later.
Section 21.24(c)(2) as amended will require applicants, before or upon filing an 
application, to provide a copy of the map required in sec.21.24(c)(3) to all 
cities and neighboring utilities providing the same utility service within five 
miles of the requested territory or facility. Applicants will also be required 
to notify county governments in all counties in which any portion of the 
proposed facility or requested territory is located. Additionally, before final 
approval of modifications in an applicant's proposed route(s), applicant must 
provide notice to cities, neighboring utilities, and county governments which 
have not already received such notice.
Section 21.24(c)(3) as adopted will require an applicant's notice to be more 
detailed. The notice to directly affected landowners must include a clear 
description of the area for which the certificate is being requested. This 
description must refer to geographic landmarks, municipal and county boundary 
lines streets, roads, highways, and any other readily identifiable points of 
reference. Applicants will also be required to provide to directly affected 
landowners either a map of the entire proposed route or maps on a county-
specific basis. For example, if a proposed facility were to be located in both 
Travis and Williamson Counties, an applicant choosing to provide county- 
specific maps will be required to furnish two maps. Directly affected landowners 
(as defined in sec.21.24(c)(3)) in Travis County would receive a map which 
clearly and conspicuously illustrated the preferred and any alternative sites of 
the proposed facility located in Travis County. Directly affected landowners in 
Williamson County would receive a map which illustrated the preferred and 
alternative sites of the facility to be located in Williamson County. Finally, 
the commission adopts minor wording modifications to subsection (c)(3) for 
purposes of clarification.
As noted previously, the commission has added new subsection (c)(4) to clarify 
the intervention deadline in electric certificate proceedings described under 
subsection (c). As a result of the addition of new subsection (c)(4), current 
subsection (c)(4) has been renumbered as subsection (c)(5).
The commission also adopts amendments to subsection (d) concerning the notice by 
applicants for new electric generating plants. As currently written, subsection 
(d) requires applicants for new electric generating plants to provide the 
identical notice required under subsection (c)(1). The notice in subsection 
(c)(1) is tailored to electric transmission line applications and is not 
entirely appropriate for either Notice of Intent (NOI) proceedings or 
certificate applications for new electric generating plants. Therefore, 
subsection (d) as amended sets forth the notice requirements for both NOI 
proceedings and certificate proceedings for new generating plants. Subsection 
(d) (1) lists the notice requirements for an NOI application while subsection 
(d)(2) sets forth the notice requirements for certificate applications for new 
generating plants. The requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2) are identical 
except that late invervention for good cause is not contemplated in proceedings 
under subsection (d)(2). Additionally, the commission has added new subsection 
(d)(3) to permit the commission to order that notice be provided to other 
affected persons or agencies.
Finally, subsection (d) as amended also eliminates the requirement of providing 
a map to directly affected landowners. Instead, the applicant's notice must 
identify the type of facility in general terms, including at least the site (if 
known), the fuel to be used, basic technology, size of plant and the estimated 
service date, and the estimated expense associated with the project.
Finally, the commission has added new subsection (e) which sets forth the notice 
requirements for telephone licensing proceedings, except for minor boundary 
changes. The issues developed in telephone certificate proceedings differ from 
those confronted in electric certificate cases. To avoid confusion, the 
commission has decided to segregate the notice requirements for telephone 
certificate cases from those for electric cases. Subsection (e) requires 
applicants to publish notice of the application for two consecutive weeks. The 
intervention deadline for cases under subsection (e) will be 60 days from the 
final publication of public notice. Applicants will also be required to furnish 
notice to cities, neighboring utilities, and county governments.
Comments on the proposed amendments were received from Central and Southwest 
Services, Inc.; Consumers Union; Houston Lighting & Power Company; Office of 
Public Utility Counsel; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company; Southwestern Public 
Service Company; Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.; and Texas Utilities Electric 
Company.
Central and South West Services, Inc. supported the proposed amendments and 
urged the commission to adopt the rule as published.
Consumers Union (CU) opposed elimination of the requirement of a map in the 
published notice in certificate proceedings. CU contended that the general 
public is interested in the location of new transmission lines or facilities and 
should be provided the same notice given to affected landowners. The commission 
disagrees with this suggestion. The commission does not intend through these 
amendments to exclude the public from participation in certificate proceedings. 
On the contrary, the rule as adopted represents a substantial improvement in the 
quality of notice provided to the general public. As amended sec.21.24 will 
require a detailed description of the proposed facility in the published notice. 
The commission believes that the published notice, together with the notice 
requirements for affected landowners, is sufficient to inform interested persons 
of proposed transmission lines or facilities.
CU also opposed the elimination of site information in  sec.21.24(d). As stated 
in sec.23.31 (relating to certification criteria), selection of a specific 
determined in an NOI proceeding, but instead is addressed in the subsequent 
certification proceeding. However, if site information is known at the NOI stage 
this can and should be included in the published notice. The commission has 
added language to subsection (d)(1) to require inclusion of site information, if 
known.
Finally, CU objected to the reduction in time for intervention in Notice of 
Intent proceedings from 60 to 15 days. CU contends 15 days is too short a time 
for intervention. CU suggested an intervention deadline of 45 days. CU further 
noted that under the rule as proposed, it is impossible to determine a precise 
deadline because it is tied to the final date of publication of the published 
notice. The commission agrees in part with these comments. The commission 
acknowledges that a 15-day intervention deadline may be unrealistically short. 
The commission has therefore changed the intervention deadline in NOI 
proceedings to 30 days. This should provide sufficient time for interested 
parties to intervene. Parties wishing to intervene after the 30-day deadline may 
do so on a showing of good cause and, if permitted to intervene, must take the 
proceeding as they find it. The commission agrees that under subsection (d) as 
proposed, the intervention date is not directly discernible from the notice 
alone. However, interested parties reading the published notice will know that 
the deadline will be no sooner than 30 days from the date of that notice. 
Additionally, any interested person may call either the commission or the 
utility contact listed in the notice to ascertain the precise intervention 
deadline. Finally, late intervention for good cause shown will also be permitted 
under the rule as amended. Given these considerations, the commission finds it 
unnecessary to alter this aspect of sec.21.24.
Finally, CU supported the language requiring the notice to state the type of 
facility involved and the estimated cost of the project.
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) supported the proposal and offered no 
changes to the rule as published.
The Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) noted its preference for maps in the 
published notice in certification proceedings, but did not object to the 
elimination of the maps provided the description was sufficiently inform normal 
readers of the location of the project. The commission believes the rule as 
adopted will accomplish these objectives.
Like CU, OPC objected to the shortening of the intervention deadline for NOI 
proceedings on the basis that the proposed 15-day deadline is too short a time 
for the public at large to respond. OPC further noted that the rule should be 
designed to encourage rather than discourage intervention. OPC maintained there 
should be no time limit on intervention in NOI proceedings. OPC requested that 
the present 60-day intervention deadline be retained, but in the alternative 
proposed a 45-day deadline for full participation in NOI proceedings. OPC 
observed that under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, timeliness is not an 
issue in intervention, unless it is raised by other parties. As previously 
discussed, the commission agrees that a 15-day intervention could prove unduly 
short and for that reason has adopted a 30-day intervention deadline for NOI 
proceedings. In establishing a 30-day intervention deadline the commission has 
attempted to balance the right of the public to be adequately informed of a 
pending NOI application, and the commission's statutory obligation to process 
such applications within 180 days.
OPC suggested language which would have permitted full intervention (subject to 
challenges for good cause) within 60 days. Intervention after the 60-day 
deadline would be permitted on a good cause showing with the rights of such 
parties being decided on a case-by-case basis. The commission disagrees with 
this proposed change. The commission is confident that a 30-day intervention 
deadline will provide adequate opportunity for interested parties to be apprised 
of the proceeding and exercise their right to intervene. The commission further 
believes that the good cause standard as stated in the proposal will protect the 
rights of prospective intervenors who fail to intervene within the 30-day 
deadline. The good cause standard will also prevent untimely, warrantless 
intervention which could prejudice the rights of timely intervenors.
Finally, OPC suggested that the description of the proposed plant include the 
type of fuel to be used, and the proposed technology as well as the size and 
estimated service date of the proposed facility. The commission agrees with this 
suggestion and has added this language to both subsection (d)(1) and (2).
Southwestern Bell Telephone made suggestions intended to clarify that the 
proposed amendments to sec.21.24(c) apply only to electric utilities. The 
commission agrees in principle with this suggestion. The issues in telephone and 
electric certificate cases are significantly different. Additionally, current 
subsection (c)(1), (2), and (4), though tailored to electric CCNs, also apply to 
telephone certificate applications. In recognition of these factors, the 
commission has decided to segregate the notice requirements for telephone and 
electric certificate cases. Under sec.21.24 as adopted, subsections (c) and (d) 
pertain to electric proceedings while subsection (e) applies to telephone 
certificate applications.
Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) supported elimination of the 
requirement for maps in the published notice under  sec.21.24(c)(1). However, 
SPS suggested that the benefit of furnishing maps of proposed facilities to 
cities, neighboring utilities, and county governments was questionable and 
recommended deleting this requirement. SPS contended that the detailed 
description required under sec.21.24(c)(1) would be sufficient to inform these 
entities of certificate proceedings. The commission believes that providing maps 
to cities, neighboring utilities, and county governments is a valuable means of 
informing these entities of a pending certificate proceeding and has therefore 
retained this requirement under the rule as adopted. The additional cost to 
utilities should not be unreasonable since they are required to furnish such 
maps to affected landowners anyway under subsection (c)(3).
SPS supported the requirement of providing affected landowners a map of the 
proposed facility, but noted that the cost of providing county-specific maps as 
required under sec.21.24(c)(3) was considerable. SPS requested that this cost be 
recognized and not be written off as "minimal." The cost of providing county-
specific maps obviously will vary, but the commission recognizes that in larger 
projects the costs of this requirement could be substantial. However, as 
discussed following, the commission has made the provision of county-specific 
maps optional. This should at least partially alleviate the cost concerns 
expressed by SPS.
Texas Electric Cooperatives (TEC) commented that the amendments as proposed fail 
to disclose the breadth of the commission's authority in certificate 
proceedings. TEC suggested language which would require an applicant's notice to 
describe only the preferred route chosen by the utility. TEC asserted that maps 
or written descriptions describing alternative locations should not be required.
TEC is correct in observing that the commission may consider routes other than 
the preferred route chosen by the utility. The commission, however, disagrees 
with TEC's suggested language. The applicant should provide appropriate notice 
of all locations examined by the commission including all routes proposed in the 
application and any others considered. Requiring notice of the preferred and 
alternative routes proposed in the application is fair and equitable as the 
commission will consider all such routes before making a final decision. If the 
commission considers a location which was not proposed in the utility's 
application, the applicant must provide notice as specified under 
sec.21.24(c)(2) and (3), to affected landowners, cities, neighboring utilities, 
and county governments along the proposed route before a final determination on 
the application can be made.
TEC also expressed concern that the notice required under sec.21.24(c)(1) must 
describe all conceivable routes of the proposed facility, regardless of how 
absurd, in order to be effective. The commission disagrees with this 
interpretation of the rule. The rule as amended, is intended to insure that the 
public and interested parties are made aware of all routes proposed by the 
utility and/or considered by the commission.
TEC also suggested that in certain instances a written description would be 
clearer than a map. TEC suggested that utilities be given the right to choose 
which form of notice would be most effective. The commission believes such an ad 
hoc approach to notice is inappropriate. TEC's proposal would, in all 
likelihood, lead to debates over the form of notice provided. To the extent 
possible, notice requirements should be consistent. Moreover, the commission 
believes that maps are a valuable and effective means of notifying interested 
persons of certificate applications. Under subsection (c) as adopted, applicants 
will be required to provide the same form of notice (except as noted following 
regarding county-specific maps) which should eliminate second guessing regarding 
the effectiveness of the notice provided.
Finally, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric), like TEC, suggested 
that applicants only be required to provide notice of the preferred route of the 
proposed facility. TU Electric contended that requiring notice of all 
alternative routes would be difficult in proceedings in which a number of 
alternatives were being considered. TU Electric suggested that the notice in 
such cases might actually confuse the public. While the commission is not 
unsympathetic to this point, it believes the benefits of providing adequate 
notice of all routes considered outweighs this concern. For reasons previously 
discussed in connection with similar concerns expressed by TEC, the commission 
has retained the requirement of providing notice of both preferred and 
alternative routes.
Regarding sec.21.24(c)(3), TU Electric suggested that utilities not be required 
to provide county-specific maps. TU Electric contended that it furnishes 
affected landowners with a map of the entire proposed route which, the company 
urged, is typically more beneficial than providing county-specific maps. TU 
Electric noted that in instances in which only a small portion of a proposed 
line traverses a particular county, a county-specific map would less useful than 
a map of the entire proposed route. TU Electric suggested that utilities be 
given the option of providing maps of the entire proposed route(s) or county-
specific maps. The commission's goal in proposing county-specific maps was to 
insure that directly affected landowners are provided sufficient notice of 
certificate proceedings. However, the commission believes TU Electric's proposal 
is reasonable and has added language to subsection (c)(3) to incorporate this 
suggestion. The commission stresses that applicants should choose the type of 
map which will provide the clearest and most effective notice to interested 
persons. Finally, TU Electric supported the proposed amendments to sec.21.24(d).
The commission also received oral comments from an individual concerning this 
proposal. The individual observed that it was not entirely clear what length of 
published notice was required for CCN applications for a new generating plant. 
The individual noted that subsection (d) as proposed could be read to require 
four weeks published notice for a CCN application for new generating plants. The 
commission believes this point is well taken and has therefore amended 
subsection (d) to clarify the notice required in NOI and certificate 
applications for new generating plants. The amendments to this subsection are 
intended to eliminate further confusion regarding the notice requirements for 
generating plant applications (both NOI and certificate) which differ from the 
notice requirements for transmission line applications. The commission believes 
fairness dictates that notice for a CCN for a new generating plant should be the 
same as that for the NOI proceeding. Therefore, under subsection (d) as adopted, 
published notice for both NOI applications and CCN applications for new 
generating plants will be four weeks. Finally, for reasons previously discussed, 
the intervention deadline for NOI proceedings will be 30 days while the 
intervention for CCN proceedings involving a new generating plant will be 60 
days.
The amendment is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a) 
which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to make 
and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and 
jurisdiction.
sec.21.24. Contents of Notice for Licensing Proceedings.
(a)-(b)  (No change.)
(c) Applicant notice in electric licensing proceedings. In all electric 
licensing proceedings except minor boundary changes and notice of intent and 
certificate proceedings for new electric generating plants, the applicant shall 
give notice in the following ways.
(1) Applicant shall publish in a newspaper having general circulation in the 
county or counties where a certificate of convenience and necessity is being 
requested, once each week for two consecutive weeks beginning with the week 
after the application is filed with the commission, notice of the applicant's 
intent to secure a certificate of convenience and necessity. This notice shall 
identify in general terms the type of facility if applicable, and the estimated 
expense associated with the project. The notice shall further describe in clear, 
precise language the area for which the certificate is being requested and the 
location of the preferred and alternative routes of the facility proposed in the 
application. This description should refer to area landmarks, including, but not 
limited to, geographic landmarks, municipal and county boundary lines, streets, 
roads, highways, railroad tracks, and any other readily identifiable points of 
reference. The notice shall also include the following statement: Persons with 
questions about this project should contact (name of utility contact) at 
(utility contact telephone number). Persons who wish to intervene in the 
proceeding or comment upon action sought, should contact the Public Utility 
Commission of Texas at 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78757, or call 
the Public Utility Commission Public Information Office at (512) 458-0256 or 
(512) 458-0221 for the telecommunications device for the deaf. The deadline for 
intervention in the proceeding will be no sooner than 60 days after the date of 
this notice. Proof of publication in the form of publisher affidavit(s) shall be 
submitted to the commission as soon as available. The affidavit(s) shall state 
with specificity each county in which the newspaper is of general circulation.
(2) Applicant shall, upon or before filing an application, also mail notice of 
its application, which shall contain the information as set out in paragraph (1) 
of this subsection and a map which clearly and conspicuously illustrates the 
location of the area for which the certificate is being requested, including the 
preferred and any alternative locations of the proposed facility, to cities and 
neighboring utilities providing the same utility service within five miles of 
the requested territory or facility. Applicant shall also provide notice to the 
county government(s) of all counties in which any portion of the proposed 
facility or requested territory is located. The notice provided to county 
government(s) shall be identical to that provided to cities and neighboring 
utilities. Before final approval of any modification in the applicant's proposed 
route(s), applicant must provide notice as required under this paragraph to 
cities, neighboring utilities, and county governments who have not already 
received such notice.
(3) Applicant shall, upon or before filing an application, mail notice of its 
application to the owners of land (as stated on the current county tax roll(s)) 
who would be directly affected by the requested certificate, including the 
preferred and any alternative location of the proposed facility. The notice must 
contain all information required in paragraph (1) of this subsection, a clear 
and conspicuous statement that the owner's land will be directly affected if the 
certificate is granted and a map which clearly and conspicuously illustrates the 
preferred and any alternative locations of the facility proposed in the 
application. Applicants may provide either a map of the entire proposed route or 
maps on a respective county basis as circumstances warrant. Before final 
approval of any modification in the applicant's proposed route(s), applicant 
must provide notice as required under this paragraph to all directly affected 
landowners who have not already received such notice. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, land is directly affected if an easement would be obtained over all 
or a portion of it or if it contains a habitable structure that would be within 
200 feet of the proposed facility. Proof of notice may be established by an 
affidavit affirming that the applicant sent notice by first-class mail to each 
of the persons listed as an owner of directly affected land on the current 
county tax roll(s). Upon the filing of such proof, the lack of actual notice to 
any individual landowner will not in and of itself support a finding that the 
requirements of this paragraph have not been satisfied.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the intervention deadline will be 60 days 
after final publication of the published notice required in paragraph (1) of 
this subsection or the date notice is mailed to directly affected landowners as 
required in paragraph (3) of this subsection, whichever is later.
(5) The commission may require the applicant to mail or deliver notice to other 
affected persons or agencies.
(d)  Notice by applicants for new electric generating plant. Those planning to 
apply for a certificate of convenience and necessity for a new electric 
generating plant must file a notice of such intent with the commission pursuant 
to the Act, sec.54(d). Applicants for new electric generating plants shall give 
notice in the following ways.
(1) Applicants for a Notice of Intent must provide notice of the application by 
publishing in a newspaper having general circulation in the county or counties 
in which the generating plant will be located, and in each county containing 
territory served by the utility, once each week for four consecutive weeks 
beginning with the week after the notice of intent is filed with the commission. 
This notice shall identify the site of the facility (if known). This notice 
shall further identify in general terms the type of facility, including at a 
minimum the fuel to be used, basic technology, size of the plant and estimated 
service date, and the estimated expense associated with the project. The notice 
shall also include the following statement: Persons with questions about this 
project should contact (name of utility contact) at (utility contact telephone 
number). Persons who wish to intervene in the proceeding or comment upon action 
sought, should contact the Public Utility Commission Public Information Office 
at (512) 458-0256, or 458-0221 for the telecommunications device for the deaf. 
The deadline for intervention in the proceeding will be 30 days after the final 
publication of this notice. Exceptions to the intervention deadline may be 
granted upon a showing of good cause. Proof of publication in the form of a 
publisher affidavit(s) shall be submitted to the commission as soon as 
available. The affidavit(s) shall state with specificity each county in which 
the newspaper is of general circulation.
(2) Applicants for a certificate of convenience and necessity for a new electric 
generating plant must provide notice of the application by publishing in a 
newspaper having general circulation in the county or counties in which the 
generating plant will be located, and in each in county containing territory 
served by the utility, once each week for four consecutive weeks beginning with 
the week after the application is filed with the commission. This notice shall 
contain the same information as required in paragraph (1) of this subsection 
with the exception of the language pertaining to late intervention for good 
cause. Proof of publication in the form of publisher affidavit(s) shall be 
submitted to the commission as soon as available. The affidavit(s) shall state 
with specificity each county in which the newspaper is of general circulation.
(3) The commission may require the applicant to mail or deliver notice to other 
affected persons or agencies.
(e) Applicant notice in telephone certificate proceedings. In all telephone 
certificate proceedings, except minor boundary changes, the applicant shall give 
notice in the following ways.
(1) Applicant shall publish in a newspaper having general circulation in the 
county or counties where a certificate of convenience and necessity is being 
requested, once each week for two consecutive weeks, notice of the applicant's 
intent to secure a certificate of convenience and necessity. This notice shall 
identify in general terms the type of facility if applicable, the area for which 
the certificate is being requested, and the estimated expense associated with 
the project. The notice shall also include the following statement: Persons with 
questions about this project should contact (name of utility contact) at 
(utility contact telephone number). Persons who wish to intervene in the 
proceeding or comment upon action sought, should contact the Public Utility 
Commission at 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78757, or call the 
Public Utility Commission Public Information Office at (512) 458-0256, or (512) 
458-0221 for the telecommunications device for the deaf. The deadline for 
intervention in the proceeding will be 60 days after the final publication of 
this notice. Proof of publication in the form of publisher affidavit(s) shall be 
submitted to the commission as soon as available. The affidavit(s) shall state 
with specificity each county in which the newspaper is of general circulation.
(2)  Applicant shall also mail notice of its application, which shall contain 
the information as set out in paragraph (1) of this subsection, to cities and 
neighboring utilities providing the same service within five miles of the 
requested territory or facility. Applicant shall also provide notice to the 
county government of all counties in which any portion of the proposed facility 
or territory is located. The notice provided to county governments shall be 
identical to that provided to cities and neighboring utilities.
(3) The commission may require the applicant to mail or deliver notice to other 
affected persons or agencies.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202458
Mary Ross McDonald
Secretary of the Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: March 10, 1992
Proposal publication date: September 10, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100
       
Miscellaneous
16 TAC sec.21.182
The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.21.182, 
concerning setting of utility assessment, without changes to the proposed text 
published in the October 25, 1991, issue of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 5941).
The amendment provides a process by which the commission adjusts the assessment 
provided under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.78.
Comments were received from Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), and AT&T 
Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T). All of the comments were reviewed 
by the commission staff.
OPC recommended that the commission take no further action on this proposal 
until the legality of the commission's proposal designated under 23.5 is 
established. Section 23.5 provides a mechanism to adjust utility rates after the 
assessment under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.78 is changed and the 
comptroller of public accounts notifies the utility of the change. OPC had 
recommended that the commission seek an attorney general opinion on the legality 
of the proposed sec.23.5. The commission has confidence in the legality of its 
proposals. Furthermore, an attorney general's opinion would not be determinative 
of the legality of the proposal.
AT&T commented that the rule should be modified to provide that the commission 
sets the assessment no more than once a year. The commission disagrees. Changes 
in the commission's and the office of public utility counsel's budgets seldom 
occur more often than once every two years, let alone more than once per year. 
Furthermore, the only way that the commission could ensure that the assessment 
will be sufficient, as required by sec.78, is to adjust it after there are 
budget changes.
The new section is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a) 
, which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to 
make and enforce the rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and 
jurisdiction.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202491
Mary Ross McDonald
Secretary
Public Utility Commission
Effective date: August 17, 1992
Proposal publication date: October 25, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100
       
Chapter 23. Substantive Rules
General Rules
16 TAC sec.23.5
The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts new sec.23.5, concerning Public 
Utility Commission assessment, with changes to the proposed text as published in 
the October 18, 1991, issue of the Texas Register (16 Tex Reg 5762).
The amendment provides a mechanism to adjust utility rates in an expedited 
manner if the commission adjusts the assessment provided under the Public 
Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), sec.78, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c 
(Supplement 1991).
Some of the comments received during the comment period opposed the adoption of 
the proposed amendment. Nearly all of the comments suggested clarifications and 
revisions. Each of the comments is discussed following.
Comments were received from Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric), El 
Paso Electric Company (EPEC), Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), Office 
of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), GTE Southwest Incorporated and Contel of Texas 
(the GTE Companies), Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (TSTCI), 
Centel, AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T), Texas Telephone 
Association (TTA), Sprint, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), and Central 
Telephone Company of Texas, who concurred in the comments filed by TTA.
All of the comments were reviewed by the commission staff.
SPS commented that the proposed amendment contradicts the Act in that it makes a 
sec.43 filing mandatory while such filings are solely in the discretion of the 
utility under the Act. The commission agrees with the comment and the proposed 
amendment has been changed to recognize that sec.43 proceedings are voluntary 
and that sec.42 proceedings are the mechanism to change a utility's rates when 
it does not volunteer to do so.
SPS also commented that the proposed amendment would cause a costly onslaught of 
rate cases under sec.43 and suggested instead that a "tax adjustment clause" be 
structured so as to not violate the Act, sec.43(g). EPEC also suggested that the 
commission may want to treat taxes in the same manner as it does fuel. TTA also 
commented that the rule would cause an enormous administrative burden of rate 
cases. The commission is unaware of any authority under the Act which would 
allow the suggested adjustment clause or to treat taxes in the same manner as 
fuel. As for the cost of the proceedings caused by this rule, the commission 
disagrees in part. Although there will be additional cost involved with a 
greater number of cases, the commission believes that such cases could, by and 
large, be handled in an expeditious manner.
TTA commented that the rule would mandate the revising of tariffs which has a 
cost and that the rule does not specify whether each tariff sheet would have to 
be changed or just an additional sheet added. The commission recognizes that 
tariff changes will be necessary and that such changes have a cost, but does not 
believe this calls for rejecting the rule. The commission does not desire to 
limit the utilities' flexibility in making tariff changes by specifying how the 
tariff change is to be made.
EPEC suggested that it was inappropriate to adjust a utility's rates in response 
to a change in a single cost of service item. Similarly, TSTCI commented that 
many of the small telephone companies that it represents have not had rate cases 
and therefore do not have rates in which the Public Utility Commission 
assessment has been explicitly included. It is suggested that such utilities be 
exempted from the requirement that they file a sec.43 rate case. Although the 
mandate to file a sec.43 rate case has been removed from the amendment, the 
amendment still mandates a change in the rates of the utility. The commission 
assumes that the gist of TSTCI's comment is against mandating a change in rates 
in response to a change in the rate of assessment. That being stated, the 
commission disagrees with TSTCI's and EPEC's comments. The utility should be 
indifferent to this process. The goal of the adjustment is to reflect changes in 
the amount of assessment that the utility is paying. If the comptroller starts 
collecting a lesser amount, the utility is put in no worse position than it was 
before when it has to adjust its rates to reflect the lesser cost. The 
commission does recognize, as discussed following, that a utility or any party 
has the right to raise any issue in a rate proceeding that is relevant to the 
reasonableness of the utility's rates.
Sprint stated that they were unaware of any need to begin adjusting the 
assessment now. Section 78 empowers the commission to adjust the assessment, and 
because it has not been done in the past is no reason to not start now.
TU Electric pointed out that for electric utilities, the retention of original 
jurisdiction by the cities makes it impossible to effectuate the rule's goal-the 
expeditious pass-through of any change in the assessment. The commission agrees 
that this hampers the commission's ability to pass-through changes in the 
assessment, but does not believe that this calls for rejection of the rule. The 
commission can still adjust utility rates in areas where it has original 
jurisdiction.
The GTE Companies commented that the proposal should be modified to clarify that 
if a hearing is held in response to a request for a hearing, that the hearing be 
"limited to the impact of the assessment adjustment on the utility's cost of 
service." TU Electric made a similar comment and also suggested that the filings 
be limited to changes in the assessment. In a similar vein, EPEC objected to 
allowing an affected person the right to request a hearing and noted a hearing 
would cause additional cost. AT&T expressed similar problems with the provision 
allowing for a hearing and suggested that there be minimum standards that must 
be met before a hearing is granted, that the hearing should be limited to the 
assessment, and that the hearing should be held no later than 60 days after the 
filing. TTA also suggested that discovery and the scope of the proceeding should 
be limited. Although the limitation on the scope of the hearing suggested by the 
GTE Companies, TU Electric, AT&T, and TTA would be desirable, the commission is 
not authorized to limit the scope of a general rate proceeding to one issue. The 
commission only has the authority granted to it by the legislature, and the 
legislature has authorized the commission to change the rates of a utility only 
after a general rate proceeding or other narrowly limited situations that are 
not applicable here. See for example Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, 
sec.43(g) and sec.43(j). In a general rate proceeding, which this by necessity 
must be, the commission must consider any issue relating to the reasonableness 
of rates that is raised by the parties because the commission is charged to set 
just and reasonable rates that allow the utility to recover its reasonable and 
necessary operating expenses and provide an opportunity to earn a reasonable 
return on invested capital. The goal of the rule is to allow the adjustment of 
utility rates in an expeditious manner to reflect changes in the assessment, but 
the process must be within the bounds of the commission's jurisdiction. Given 
that the scope of the issues can be greatly expanded by the parties, the 
commission does not believe that AT&T's suggestion that a hearing be held in 60 
days is advisable.
In a similar vein, OPC expressed concern over whether the mechanism provided in 
the rule was legal in that it could be considered piecemeal ratemaking and 
suggested that an attorney general's opinion be sought first. As discussed 
previously, the commission recognizes that a process that adjusts utility rates 
for a single cost of service item could be challenged as being piecemeal. The 
intent of the proposal was to set up a process that would entice cooperation in 
making the adjustment by making it rather expeditious. The commission is aware 
of the bounds of its jurisdiction and does not believe an attorney general's 
opinion would be useful.
OPC also commented that the rule should specify the allocation among the 
classes. TTA commented that the rule does not identify the customer base, the 
method to calculate the change in rates, nor the particular rates or services 
targeted. The commission believes that it is unnecessary to specify these 
matters in the rule. Because the assessment is a percentage of receipts from the 
ultimate consumer and it has been collected for many years already, it should be 
relatively straightforward to adjust the rates. If problems arise they will 
probably be limited to particular utilities and thus should be addressed on a 
case-by-case basis.
TTA also commented that the rule does not address how the assessment should be 
remitted when billing or collection services are performed. The commission is at 
a loss as to how the rule has any impact on the manner of collection; the 
commission believes this is a matter for the comptroller of public accounts to 
address.
TTA commented that the rule should specify an amount of time after the 
comptroller of public accounts notifies the utility of a change in assessment 
for the utility to file a proceeding. Such a deadline has merit, but the 
commission prefers to allow the utilities to have flexibility. If over time it 
becomes apparent that a deadline is necessary to prevent abuse, the commission 
can make an amendment to put in a deadline.
TTA raised questions about the term "gross receipt" used in subsection (b) of 
the proposal. Because that part has been reworded and the phrase is no longer in 
the rule, the comment is moot.
AT&T recommended that the rule allow the passthrough of the costs associated 
with complying with the rule as well as any changes in the assessment. The 
commission disagrees. The change in the assessment should be subject to little 
factual dispute, but the reasonableness of the cost incurred to comply may be 
subject to a great deal of dispute.
AT&T recommended that special accommodation be made in the rule for proprietary 
information. The commission finds this unnecessary. The commission recognizes 
privileges, but it is the burden of party that is claiming the privilege to 
establish that the privilege exists.
AT&T suggested adding a provision that modeled after sec.23.25(d). Given the 
nature of the subject of this proposal, that is, an adjustment in taxes that 
impacts all utilities by the same percentage, the commission sees no merit in 
affording different treatment for AT&T. Furthermore, the thresholds and time 
limits in the suggested language are too great.
TU Electric commented that the term "rate" as used in subsection (a), wherein it 
is required that the utility state in a conspicuous manner the rate of the 
assessment, could be interpreted to mean either the dollar amount that the 
individual customer pays or the percentage of the gross receipts that is 
applicable. TTA made a similar comment and suggested that separately listing an 
adjustment on the customer's bill would be costly, confusing, and create 
controversy. TU Electric suggested defining the term. AT&T suggested that the 
rule should require one consistent phrase and further suggested that it be "PUC 
ASSESS. RATE is .05%." Sprint commented that the statement required could be 
expensive and would not serve any purpose. Sprint stated that the statement in 
the preamble that there would be no cost for compliance is incorrect, because of 
the cost to place the statement on the bill. If the statement is required, 
Sprint suggested that the rule be clarified to eliminate any confusion in regard 
to what is required by IXCs, and Sprint offered some language. The commission 
believes that each of these comments has at least some merit, and the rule has 
been changed in response to them. The commission's intent was to require a 
statement somewhere on the bill of the percentage of gross receipts that was 
applicable. The commission did not intend for the amount applicable to each bill 
be listed and labeled. While the commission recognizes that there is cost 
associated with the statement, the commission believes that cost is outweighed 
by value of getting the information to the consumers. The change made to the 
amendment uses Sprint's language in combination with the definition proposed by 
TU Electric.
There were a number of comments in regard to subsection (b). MCI and Sprint 
commented that the language should be clarified in recognition that the 
commission does not have rate jurisdiction over non-dominant IXCs. This has been 
done. AT&T suggested that filings not be required for de minimus  changes. The 
commission disagrees and believes that any changes should be passed through.
Both TTA and TU Electric suggested that the reference to 2.0% in subsection (c) 
be changed so that it is consistent with Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, 
sec.43(b). That section defines major rate cases as increases in aggregate 
revenues more than the greater of 2.5% or $100,000. This has been done by 
removing the reference to 2.0% and simply referring to sec.43(b).
A number of other minor wording changes have been made to the proposed amendment 
to further clarify the intent and meaning.
The new section is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.16(a) 
, which provide the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority to 
make and enforce the rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and 
jurisdiction.
sec.23.5. Public Utility Commission Assessment.
(a) The percentage of the utility's gross receipts that is the basis for the 
assessment being collected by the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of 
Texas shall be stated in a conspicuous manner on the customer's utility bill. 
The statement shall be amended whenever the comptroller notifies the utility 
that a different rate is being assessed.
(b) Upon notification by the comptroller of a change in the assessment, each 
utility that is subject to the commission's rate setting jurisdiction may file a 
proceeding under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.43, to adjust rates to 
account for the change in the assessment unless the utility already has a 
proceeding pending before the commission in which the change in the assessment 
may be addressed. If a utility fails to file a proceeding, the commission shall 
initiate a proceeding pursuant to Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.42.
(c) If the only cost of service adjustment that the utility requests in its 
application is the adjustment to the assessment and if the request is not a 
major rate change under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c, sec.43(b), the 
limitation on the request shall constitute good cause under sec.43(b) to allow 
the rate to go into effect prior to the expiration of 35 days; however, the rate 
shall not go into effect prior to the effective date of the change in the rate 
of assessment.
(d)  If the only cost of service adjustment that the utility requests in its 
application is the adjustment to the assessment, the limitation on the request 
shall constitute good cause under sec.21.69(d) of this title (relating to 
Applications, Testimony, and Exhibits) for the waiver of the requirement that 
the utility file a rate filing package. In such case, the utility shall file 
testimony and calculations detailing the manner in which the adjustment to rates 
is being calculated to account for the change in the assessment.
(e) If the only cost of service adjustment that the utility requests in its 
application is the adjustment to the assessment and an affected person requests 
a hearing, a hearing shall be held and the case processed on an expedited basis.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202492
Mary Ross McDonald
Secretary
Public Utility Commission
Effective date: August 17, 1992
Proposal publication date: October 18, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100
       
TITLE 22. EXAMINING BOARDS
Part XXIII. Texas Real Estate Commission
Chapter 535. Provisions of the Real Estate License Act
Licensed Real Estate Inspectors
22 TAC sec.535.220
The Texas Real Estate Commission adopts new sec.535.220, concerning professional 
conduct and ethics for real estate inspectors, without changes to the proposed 
text as published in the December 20, 1991, issue of the Texas Register  (16 
TexReg 7435).
Adoption of the new section is necessary for the commission to establish 
guidelines for professional conduct and ethics for real estate inspectors. The 
new section provides minimum guidelines for an inspector to follow when dealing 
with clients, the public, other inspectors, and other professionals and related 
tradesmen. The new section was developed by the Texas Real Estate Inspector 
Committee, an advisory committee of inspectors appointed by the commission.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the new section.
The new section is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6573a, sec.5(h), 
which provide the Texas Real Estate Commission with the authority to make and 
enforce all rules and regulations necessary for the performance of its duties.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 12, 1992.
TRD-9202349
Mark A. Moseley
General Counsel
Texas Real Estate Commission
Effective date: March 6, 1992
Proposal publication date: December 20, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 465-3900
       
TITLE 28. INSURANCE
Part I. Texas Department of Insurance
Chapter 15. Surplus Lines of Insurance
Subchapter A. General Regulation of Surplus Lines Insurance
28 TAC sec.sec.15.2, 15.7, 15.8, 15.11-15.15, 15.19, 15.21, 15.25-15.27, 15.101
State Board of Insurance of the Texas Department of Insurance adopts amendments 
to sec.sec.15.2, 15.7, 15.8, 15.11-15.15, 15.19, 15.21, 15.25-15.27, and 15.101, 
concerning the regulation of surplus lines insurance, without changes to the 
proposed text as published in the November 29, 1991, issue of the Texas Register 
(16 TexReg 6906).
amendments are necessary to inform surplus lines agents on the manner to set up 
premium tax trust accounts, eliminate references to investigations by the 
Surplus Lines Stamping Office of Texas since that entity is no longer involved, 
clarify the intent of the sections, eliminate redundant provisions, and change 
the organization of the Board of Directors for the Surplus Lines Stamping Office 
of Texas to a nine-member board as required by House Bill 2, 72nd Legislature, 
1991.
amendments to sec.sec.15.2, 15.7, 15.8, 15.11-15.15, 15.19, 15.21, and 15. 25-
15.27 clarify the conditions regarding refusal and denial of a license, the 
stamping fee is set by the board, where to obtain forms and responsibility for 
copying forms, filing semiannual tax report, reporting of unauthorized 
insurance, the location of specified language, and the correct agency name for 
the deposit of tax monies. The amendments also eliminate provisions regarding 
investigations by the Surplus Lines Stamping Office of Texas, since that office 
is no longer involved in investigations. The amendments clarify the intention of 
the sections and eliminate redundant provisions. The amendment of sec.15.101 
incorporates the changes to the Insurance Code, Article 1.14-2, occasioned by 
the passage of House Bill 2 into law during the 72nd Legislature regarding the 
organization of the Board of Directors of the Surplus Lines Stamping Office of 
Texas, which requires a nine-member board with four members representing the 
general public.
comments were received regarding adoption of the amendments.
amendments are adopted under the Insurance Code, Articles 1.04 and 1.14-2. 
Article 1.04 authorizes the State Board of Insurance to determine rules in 
accordance with the laws of this state. Article 1.14-2, sec.3A, provides that 
the Texas Department of Insurance may promulgate rules to enforce Article 1.14-
2, and provides that the Texas Department of Insurance shall monitor the 
activities of surplus lines agents to the extent necessary to protect the public 
interest.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 19, 1992.
TRD-9202502
Linda K. von Quintus-Dorn
Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Effective date: March 11, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 29, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 463-6327
       
Part I. Texas Department Insurance
Chapter 19. Agents Licensing
Subchapter I. Licensing Fees
28 TAC sec.19.801, sec.19.802
State Board of Insurance of the Texas Department of Insurance adopts new 
sec.19.801 and sec.19.802. Section 19.802 is adopted with one change to the 
proposed text as published in the November 8, 1991, issue of the Texas Register  
(16 TexReg 6414). Section 19.801 is adopted without changes and will not be 
republished.
new sections concern procedures and requirements relating to licensing fees for 
various insurance agents, title agents, escrow officers, title attorneys and 
direct operations; insurance adjusters, life insurance counselors, risk manager, 
health maintenance organization agents, prepaid legal services agents and 
reinsurance intermediaries. The sections are necessary to defray administrative 
costs by establishing new fees for original applications, renewals, and 
appointments, and to provide readily accessible information regarding fees for 
various types of licenses. The sections also increase efficiency by simplifying 
the renewal of multiple licenses held by one license. Multiple licenses will be 
renewed at the same time.
19.801 sets forth general provisions allowing for the setting of expiration 
dates for multiple licenses, defines a completed application, and provides 
instructions for the submission of fees for licenses and appointments, and 
renewal of licenses. The section also provides that the original application fee 
must be submitted at the time of filing of the application for license and that 
the fee is fully earned at the time of application and shall not be reduced for 
any reason. Section 19.802 specifies the fees for each type of license.
for the sections was the Texas Association of Life Underwriters. Commenting 
against sec.19.802 as it relates to fees for reinsurance intermediaries was 
Long, Burner, Parks & Sealy representing four Texas domiciled reinsurance 
intermediaries.
association stated that it is committed to the protection of the insurance-
buying public and takes the position that adequate licensing requirements and 
fees play an important role in the enhancement of professional sales and 
services rendered by agents, and unanimously endorses the rules to increase 
agent licensing fees. Another commenter stated that the proposed fee for 
reinsurance intermediaries of $4,616 was almost 100 times greater than the 
highest fee set for any other license. The commenter also noted that the fee 
could not be justified as necessary to cover the cost of the licensing program 
because the only costs were the application and renewal of the license. If, the 
commenter noted, the staff were proposing that this fee covers the costs of the 
program, such costs were illegal and were particularly unnecessary for brokers 
because the only other portion of the licensing program was the review of 
contracts, etc. required by the statute for managers and only managers should 
bear those costs. The commenter also pointed out that the costs involved would 
not be just the licensing costs in Texas as other states would charge Texas 
intermediaries retaliatory fees based upon the Texas proposed fees. The 
commenter urged that the fee be set for brokers intermediaries commensurate with 
the cost of licensing only.
board agrees with the comments that the fees overall should be increased. The 
board responds to the comments that the fee for reinsurance intermediaries was 
too high as follows: The fees in other areas are generally set at or near the 
statutory maximum where there is such a maximum. Those fees are not necessarily 
commensurate with the costs of the program administration, but are the highest 
fees which can be set by law. The fees proposed for reinsurance intermediaries 
were proposed to cover the costs of the entire reinsurance intermediary 
licensing program as the costs of reviewing the contracts are legitimate costs 
of that program and are an integral part of the licensing process. If a contract 
is found to be in violation of the statute, the actions taken as a result will 
of necessity be actions involving the license of the particular entity involved. 
The statute appears to contemplate that charges for the licensing program shall 
be borne by both brokers and managers as the statute provides that the "board 
shall collect a nonrefundable licensing fee from each reinsurance intermediary 
who applies for an original or renewal license in this state." The stature does 
not distinguish between fees for brokers and those for managers. The statute 
does provide that the fees shall be set in "amounts that are reasonable and 
necessary to cover the costs of the licensing program." It also provides that 
the fees "shall be used to enforce this article." The board is of the opinion 
that the fees should cover the reinsurance intermediaries licensing program in 
all its aspects and should be set for both brokers and managers so that all 
reinsurance intermediaries would share equally in the costs of the program as a 
whole; however, the board is sensitive to the need to avoid retaliatory fees in 
other states and to allow Texas entities to be competitive on an interstate 
basis. The board therefore, has reduced the licensing fee for reinsurance 
intermediaries to $500, for both the application and renewal fees. This change 
occurs in sec.19.802(b)(21).
new sections are adopted under the Texas Insurance Code, Article 1.04, which 
authorizes the State Board of Insurance to issue rules in accordance with the 
laws of this state, and under the following articles of the Texas Insurance 
Code, which authorize the board to determine the amount of fees for various 
types of licenses, namely: Article 1.14-2, sec.4 (surplus lines agent); Article 
3. 75, sec.7 (variable contract agent); Article 9.36 (title insurance agent); 
Articles 9.42-9.43 (title escrow officer); Article 9.56 sec.6 (title attorney); 
Article 9.36A (direct operation); Article 20A.15 (health maintenance 
organization agent); Article 20A.15A (health maintenance organization agent for 
single health care service plans); Article 21.07 (Group II insurance agent); 
Article 21.07-1 (Group I legal reserve life insurance agent); Article 21.07-2 
(life insurance counselor); Article 21.07-3 (managing general agent); Article 
21. 07-4 (insurance adjuster); Article 21.11 (non-resident property and casualty 
agent); Article 21.14 (local recording agent and solicitor); Article 21.14-1 
(risk manager); Article 21.14-2 (agricultural agent); Article 23.23 (prepaid 
legal services agent); and Article 21.07-7 (reinsurance intermediary).
sec.19.802. Amounts of Fees.
(a) With each application for original license or renewal, notice of 
appointment, or request for qualifying examination, the applicant or licensee 
shall submit the amount shown in this section. The fees for qualifying 
examinations and re-examinations only apply if the Texas Department of Insurance 
does not contract with a testing service for the provisions of these 
examinations.
(b) The amounts of fees are as follows:
(1) Group I, legal reserve life insurance agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(D) qualifying examination-$20;
(E) in addition to the original application fee listed in Subparagraph (A) of 
this paragraph, an application filing fee for a temporary license, of $100;
(2) Group II insurance agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(D) qualifying examination-$50;
(E) in addition to the original application fee listed in subparagraph (A) of 
this paragraph, an application filing fee for a temporary license, of $100;
(3) health maintenance organization agent (basic health care plan):
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(D) qualifying examination-$20.
(4) health maintenance organization agent (single health care service plan):
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(5) insurance adjuster:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(C) qualifying examination-$50;
(6) insurance adjuster (emergency license): original application-$20;
(7) local recording agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$16;
(D) qualifying re-examination-$50;
(8) solicitor:
(A) original application-$20;
(B) renewal-$18;
(C) qualifying re-examination-$20;
$10;
(9) managing general agent:
(A) original application-$30;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(10) prepaid legal:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(D) qualifying examination-$20;
(11) surplus lines agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(C) qualifying examination-$20;
(12) title insurance agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(13) title insurance escrow officer:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(14) title attorney:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(15) direct operation license:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(16) variable contract agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
$10;
(17) risk manager:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(C) qualifying examination-$50;
(18) agricultural agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$50;
(19) life insurance counselor:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(C) qualifying Examination-$20;
(20) nonresident property and casualty agent:
(A) original application-$50;
(B) renewal-$48;
(21) reinsurance intermediary:
(A) original application-$500;
(B) renewal-$500.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 19, 1992.
TRD-9202504
Linda K. von Quintus-Dorn
Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Effective date: March 11, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 8, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 463-6327
       
TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
Part II. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Chapter 63. Administration
Nonprofit Organizations
31 TAC sec.sec.63.21, 63.23, 63.25, 63.27
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts new sec. sec.63.21, 63.23, 63.25, 
and 63.27 concerning nonprofit organizations with changes to the proposed text 
as published in the November 5, 1991, issue of the Texas Register  (16 TexReg 
6276).
Legislation enacted in 1984 requires the adoption of rules governing the 
relationship between nonprofit organizations and state agencies when nonprofits 
supporting a particular agency exist. The development of new support 
organizations which fit the statutory categories necessitates promulgation of 
these rules.
As a result of the comments received, the staff determined that an additional 
six organizations fit the definition of closely related organization. These six 
have been added to sec.63.23(b). The section on acceptance of gifts of under $1, 
000, sec.63.25(a)(1), was modified to give the executive director increased 
flexibility in delegating the acceptance of these gifts.
The adopted section will function to permit the department to define standards 
of conduct for state employees involved with nonprofits, to create uniform 
contracts provisions, and to establish some guidance in the acceptance of gifts.
In addition to the publication of these rules in the  Texas Register, a draft 
was sent to 238 organizations that had been identified by staff from all 
divisions as having made prior donations. Of these, 66 responded with copies of 
their organizational documents. The vast majority of these simply provided the 
documentation, without comment. A few organizations commented that they did not 
feel the rules applied to them, and staff concurred.
Names of those making comments against the section were Washington on the Brazos 
State Park Association; San Jacinto Museum of History Association; The Texas 
Wildlife Association; and Southwestern Cattleraiser's Association.
A representative of Washington-on-the-Brazos State Park Association stated that 
his organization did not fit the definition of closely related, but the 
organizational documents of the organization do meet the definition of "closely 
related".
San Jacinto Museum of History Association replied that it was not closely 
related, but did not send the documentation requested so that agency staff could 
make an independent assessment; they were not added to the list at this time.
The Texas Wildlife Association has been determined to not be closely related; 
they commented that we should raise the dollar values in the acceptance of gifts 
by a factor of five. These values reflect a consensus by public lands staff and 
also reflect current internal policies of the agency.
The Southwestern Cattleraiser's Association refused to provide documentation, 
but staff agreed that they are not a closely related organization. They 
commented that the gift acceptance should be by the commission rather than the 
executive director; however, the Parks and Wildlife Code specifies executive 
director and the commission cannot make a rule which contradicts the statute.
The new sections are adopted under the authority of Texas Civil Statutes, 
Articles 6352-11f and 6252-13a.
sec.63.21. Definitions.  The following words and terms, when used in this 
subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly 
indicates otherwise.
   Closely related nonprofit organization-A legally incorporated or otherwise 
associated nonprofit organization whose sole purpose is to benefit the 
department, its component facilities, or research and other activities within 
those component facilities, which is administered by a board of directors 
independent from the control and supervision of the commission.
   Commission-The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.
   Department-Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and all of its component 
facilities.
   Donor-A person as defined in the Government Code, sec.311. 005(2) other than 
a closely related organization, which from time to time may make contributions 
to the department.
   Executive Director -Executive director of the department.
   Improvement-A permanent addition to department held real property which is in 
the nature of a fixture, that is a chattel or other construction which is 
attached to the real estate and which becomes part of it upon attachment.
   Gift-Donation of money or property other than volunteer time.
sec.63.23. Closely Related Nonprofit Organizations.
(a) The department will maintain a list of closely related nonprofit 
organizations and periodically update said list.
(b) The following organizations have been identified as closely related:
(1) Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas, Inc;
(2) Operation Share a Lone Star Lunker, Inc;
(3) Washington-on-the-Brazos State Park Association;
(4) Kreische Brewery Docent Organization;
(5)  Admiral Nimitz Foundation;
(6) Mission Tejas State Park Association;
(7) Brazos Bend State Park Volunteer Organization;
(8) Fulton Mansion Docent Organization.
(c) Funds accepted by closely related nonprofit organizations on behalf of the 
department are to be managed as a reasonably prudent person would manage funds 
if acting on their own behalf and such funds are to be accounted for according 
to generally accepted accounting principles.
(d) All closely related nonprofit organizations must enter into a memorandum of 
agreement with the department which details their responsibilities and duties no 
later than six months after the effective date of these regulations.
sec.63.25. Conflict of Interest, Performance of Services, and Use of Department 
Facilities.
(a) Unless specifically authorized by law, no officer or employee of the 
department shall accept remunerations from or serve as an officer, director, 
employee, or agent of a closely related nonprofit organization or donor. This 
provision does not prevent officers or employees of the department from serving 
as officers or directors of closely related nonprofit organizations when a 
condition of membership in the organization is current employment or status as 
an official of the department. This provision does not prohibit the 
administration by the department of a bona fide employee awards program.
(b) No officer or employee of the department shall act as the agent for any 
closely related nonprofit organization or donor in the negotiation of the terms 
or conditions of any agreement relating to the provision of funds, services, or 
property to the department by such closely related nonprofit organization or 
donor.
(c) The utilization of equipment, facilities or services of employees and 
officers of the department by a closely related nonprofit organization or donor 
shall be permitted only in accordance with a negotiated agreement that provides 
for the payment of adequate compensation for such equipment, facilities or 
services.
sec.63.27. Gifts to the Department.
(a) The department may not accept or receive gifts or bequests from any source 
until such gifts or bequests have been approved for acceptance by the executive 
director or his delegee. Acceptance of gifts is hereby delegated as follows.
(1) Gifts or improvements valued at $1,000 or less and intended to aid a 
specific division or facility of the department may be approved for acceptance 
by the manager of the facility affected by the gift or other employees 
designated by the executive director.
(2) Gifts or improvements valued at greater than $1,000 and less than or equal 
to $5,000 may be approved for acceptance by the division director responsible 
for the facility affected by the gift or use of the gift.
(3) Gifts or improvements valued at greater than $5,000 and all gifts of real 
property or interests property must be approved for acceptance by the executive 
director.
(b) The department may not accept a proposed improvement unless it is consistent 
with the park or facility master plan or public use program.
(c) Neither a donor nor a closely related nonprofit organization may accept real 
property on behalf of the department unless previously approved by the executive 
director.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 6, 1992.
TRD-9202359
Paul M. Shinkawa
Director, Legal Services
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: March 6, 1992
Proposal publication date: November 5, 1991
For further information, please call: 1-800-792-1112, ext. 4863 or (512) 389-
4863
       
Chapter 69. Resource Protection
31 TAC sec.sec.69.41, 69.43, 69.45, 69.47, 69.49, 69.51, 69.53, 69.55, 69.57
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts new sec. sec.69.41, 69.43, 69.45, 
69.47, 69.49, 69.51, 69.53, 69.55, and 69.57 concerning resource protection 
without changes to the proposed text as published in the October 4, 1991, issue 
of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 5490).
The new sections will provide the department with enforceable standards for 
issuing, enforcing, and revoking wildlife rehabilitation permits.
The new sections will function as a way of regulating the temporary possession 
of protected wildlife for the purpose of rehabilitation for eventual release to 
the wild.
No written comments were received. Several telephone comments were received all 
of which were generally favorable and no substantive changes were suggested. A 
public meeting was held in Austin on October 25, 1991, at which comments were 
generally favorable and no substantive changes were suggested.
The new sections are adopted under the authority of the Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Code, sec.43.027, as amended by the 72nd legislature in House Bill 1771, 
effective September 1, 1991. The section authorizes the department to make 
regulations governing the taking and possession of protected wildlife for 
rehabilitation purposes.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 6, 1992.
TRD-9202358
Paul M. Shinkawa
Director, Legal Services
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: March 6, 1992
Proposal publication date: October 4, 1992
For further information, please call: 1-800-792-1112, ext. 4700 or (512) 389-
4700
       
TITLE 34. PUBLIC FINANCE
Part I. Comptroller of Public Accounts
Chapter 1. Central Administration
Practice and Procedure
34 TAC sec.1.3
The Comptroller of Public Accounts adopts an amendment to sec.1.3, concerning 
contested cases, without changes to the proposed text as published in the 
December 24, 1991, issue of the Texas Register (16 TexReg 7630).
The purpose of the amendment is to return penalty and interest waiver issues to 
the hearings process. The amendment will be applied prospectively. Only penalty 
and interest waiver denials occurring on or after the effective date of the 
amendment may be appealed through the hearings process.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Tax Code, sec.111.002, which provides the 
Comptroller with the authority to prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules relating 
to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Tax Code, Title 
2.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202466
Martin Cherry
Chief, General Law Section
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Effective date: March 10, 1992
Proposal publication date: December 24, 1991
For further information, please call: (512) 463-4028
       
Chapter 3. Tax Administration
Subchapter A. General Rules
34 TAC sec.3.5
The Comptroller of Public Accounts adopts the repeal of  sec.3.5, concerning 
settlement of tax, penalty, or interest, without changes to the proposed text as 
published in the January 7, 1992, issue of the Texas Register (17 TexReg 98).
The purpose of the repeal is to return penalty and interest issues to the 
hearings process.
The amendment will be applied prospectively. Only penalty and interest waiver 
denials occuring on or after the effective date of the amendment may be appealed 
through the hearings process.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeal.
The repeal is adopted under the Tax Code, sec.111.002, which provides the 
Comptroller with the authority to prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules relating 
to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Tax Code, Title 
2.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202464
Martin Cherry
Chief, General Law Section
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Effective date: March 10, 1992
Proposal publication date: January 7, 1992
For further information, please call: (512) 463-4028
       
The Comptroller of Public Accounts adopts new sec.3.5, concerning waiver of 
penalty or interest, without changes to the proposed text as published in the 
January 7, 1992, issue of the Texas Register (17 TexReg 98).
The new section returns the final consideration of penalty and interest waiver 
requests to the administrative hearings process and sets out factors that will 
be considered when reviewing waiver requests. The amendment will be applied 
prospectively. Only penalty and interest waiver denials occurring on or after 
the effective date of the new rule may be appealed through the hearings process.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the new section.
The new section is adopted under the Tax Code, sec.111.002, which provides the 
comptroller with the authority to prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules relating 
to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Tax Code, Title 
2.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 18, 1992.
TRD-9202465
Martin Cherry
Chief, General Law Section
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Effective date: March 10, 1992
Proposal publication date: January 7, 1992
For further information, please call: (512) 463-4028