ADOPTED RULES 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 1. General Procedures Subchapter E. Advisory Committees 4 TAC sec.sec.1.200-1.203 The Texas Department of Agriculture (the department) adopts new sec.sec.1. 200-1.203, concerning the continuation of the Egg Marketing Advisory Board, Pest Management Zone Administrative Committees and Texas-Israel Exchange Fund Board without changes to the proposed text as published in the November 4, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 8741). The new sections are adopted to prescribe the purposes and duties of committees created by statute to advise the department, the expiration date of each committee and the manner in which each committee will report to the agency in accordance with the provisions of Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6252-33 (Vernon Supplement 1994). The new sections provide required information for the department Egg Marketing Advisory Board, Texas-Israel Exchange Fund Board and the Department's Pest Management Zone Administrative Committees. No comments were received regarding adoption of the new sections. The new sections are adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6252-33 (Vernon Supplement 1994), which requires the Texas Department of Agriculture to adopt rules regarding its advisory committees. 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 December 27, 1994. TRD-9452873 Dolores Alvarado Hibbs Chief Adminstrative Law Judge Texas Department of Agriculture Effective date: January 17, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 4, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 463-7583 TITLE 30. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Part I. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 305. Consolidated Permits Subchapter D. Amendments, Renewals, Transfers, Corrections, Revocation, and Suspension of Permit 30 TAC sec.305.71 The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("commission" or "TNRCC") adopts new sec.305.71 with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 4, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 7874). This section is proposed to implement portions of Senate Bill 818, 72nd Legislature, 1991, known as the Texas Clean Rivers Act. Accordingly, this section is established as part of a program for the comprehensive evaluation of the combined effects of permitted discharges on water quality within each watershed. Public comment was solicited and received until November 4, 1994. A public hearing on these rules was held in Austin on November 14, 1994. Several groups and authorities submitted comments on the proposed rules. All suggested changes to the proposed rules have been considered and have been incorporated into the rules where appropriate. One commenter suggested that the proposed sec.305.71(b) schedule should reflect the agency's fiscal year rather than the calendar year. The commission agrees with this comment. The renewal schedule has been revised to reflect the fiscal year rather than calendar year. This change will enable better allocation of resources for agency programs. One commenter suggested that the schedule should be revised to align those segments within the bays, estuaries and coastal river basins with their corresponding river basins. The TNRCC agrees with this suggestion. All segments within the Bays and Estuaries basin have been placed next to the corresponding river basin which contributes a majority of the upstream flows. The schedule has been revised to allow for the simultaneous review and evaluation of the river basins and their coastal segments. Several comments were received proposing that the renewal schedule should support the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program and that consideration should be given to grouping the renewal schedule for basins such as the Nueces, the San-Antonio-Nueces and the Nueces-Rio Grande, which are all interrelated by the same estuarine system. The TNRCC agrees with these commenter's suggestions. The TNRCC has revised the renewal schedule to compliment the National Estuary Program's initiatives. Several commenters suggested that the basin schedule should be revised to allow for a concentrated effort on one-third of the Neches River Basin for a three month period by subdividing the basin into sub-basins. Supposedly, subdividing river basins would provide interested parties with better opportunities for public comment, more time for scientific analysis and satisfy the intent of this proposed rule. The commission disagrees with these commenters. More than six river basins will be addressed within the first year of implementing this rule. Hence, a revision of the schedule to reflect such requests is very difficult to do for each basin. While there is a cognizable impact on the Angelina and Neches River Authorities, the TNRCC is able to address those comments in part. In response to the suggestion that the evaluation of the Neches River should be spread over a longer review period, the TNRCC notes that there are not enough dischargers to warrant splitting the Neches into sub-basins. Instead, the Neches-Trinity Coastal basin and it's associated Bays and Estuaries segments have been moved to the 1998 fiscal year in support of the National Estuary Program's initiatives. Several commenters raised the question of how a comprehensive review of permits should occur. Basin permitting is part of the agency's Watershed Texas program. The watershed approach is a reorientation of our water quality program from a point specific approach to a comprehensive watershed approach. A coordinated effort between different agencies is being proposed because no new programs are proposed through Watershed Texas. The intent of developing a comprehensive approach to watershed planning is to address the combined effect of discharges upon water quality within each river basin. The basin permitting rule is just one aspect of how the agency is moving toward a comprehensive watershed approach. The basin rule is the implementable portion of a program which will enable a restructuring of resources to accomplish a comprehensive review of water quality permitting. The water quality permitting program as well as other agency programs will incorporate a comprehensive approach. Areas which can be restructured to complement this effort could include data collection, problem identification, assessment, basin plan development and implementation of the basin plans. A number of comments were received asking for clarification on how this rule will affect the term of permit renewals. Another commenter asked whether the term of existing permits can be extended to get the permits into the desired cycle or whether the life of existing permits will be cut short. The proposed rule does not affect existing permits issued prior to adoption of this rule. The terms for existing permits will not be altered and the effective date of expiration will remain as issued. When a permittee requests renewal, amendment or issuance of a permit, Watershed Management's Permitting Section will prepare permits in accordance with the appropriate basin schedule. Upon adoption of these proposed rules, a term of two to five years may be permitted. However, it may take more than one renewal cycle before some permits will be on the new renewal schedule. The intent of this proposed rule is not to force all permittees directly into the new schedule. Instead, the intent of these proposed rules is to change into a comprehensive watershed approach to permitting. If the schedule indicates that a permit would be renewed with a term of less than two years, then the TNRCC will utilize two successive terms of two to five years to bring that permit into the basin cycle. Permits will be renewed for the appropriate length of time to get them into the basin cycle if that can be done with a renewal period between two and five years. Comments were received regarding the additional costs of preparing permit applications and negotiating new permits if a permit is issued for less that the current five year period. The commission acknowledges that there may be additional costs incurred when a permit term shorter than five years is required; however, such costs are unavoidable. Watershed Management's Permitting Section will make every effort to minimize the burden upon the applicant as much as possible and to insure that each applicant is placed into the new renewal schedule as soon as practicable. One comment was received regarding applications which were received prior to the effective date of this rule and are in various stages of staff review. The suggestion is to modify the language in the rule to apply to those applications which were received after the effective date of the rule. The TNRCC disagrees that the rule needs to be modified to include applications that are being reviewed by staff. Clearly, sec.481.143 of the Government Code does not allow the agency to apply more stringent rules that are not effective at the time the original application for permit is filed. A number of comments were received suggesting that it would be more reasonable to extend the life of existing permits beyond the usual five years to get the permits into the appropriate renewal cycle. This suggestion was intended as a solution to assist the smaller communities such that no municipality would be required to renew its permit in less than the existing five year cycle. Currently, the TNRCC does not have the authority to extend permits for a term longer than the terms of permits previously issued by the Commission. Another commenter suggested that for existing permits which expire two years or less before the proposed expiration dates, the commission should issue permits with a future expiration date that is consistent with the proposed expiration dates. The commission disagrees with this commenter. Currently, the TNRCC rules do not allow terms greater than five years for most permits. By using two shorter terms, the TNRCC will be able to place the permits on the correct cycle with minimum impact to the permittee. The current terms of existing permits are not affected by this rule. Several comments were received asking for clarification on how this rule will affect requests for amendments. The commission's standard practice requires that requests for amendments will be processed upon receipt. Major amendments, renewals and new permit actions will be prepared in compliance with the new schedule unless such action will result in issuance of a permit with a term of less than two years. Once a permit is on the new schedule, all requests for amendments will be processed according to Chapter 305 of this title; however, the permit will be issued to reflect the new schedule. Further, minor amendments will be issued to retain the current term of the permit. Another commenter raised a question regarding whether the reference to wastewater "renewal" applications in proposed 30 TAC sec.305.71(a) includes all applications. The TNRCC agrees with this commenter. The language in the rule has been clarified to show that the rule applies to all applications. Several comments were received regarding the $3,000 cost estimate of preparing a renewal application that was referenced within the preamble. In the public comments, cost estimates ranged from $10,000 to $330,000. The TNRCC recognizes that renewal costs associated with certain types of permits vary greatly. While the cost for some larger facilities may exceed the $3,000 cost estimate, the majority of the agency permit holders such as small municipalities complete renewal applications at minimal costs. A comment was received regarding TNRCC coordination of the basin schedule with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The TNRCC has been working with the EPA Region 6 office regarding the agency's reorientation of our water quality program and associated affects upon various agency programs. The EPA has agreed to utilize the renewal schedule in this rule for issuing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits. In addition, as the commission moves forward, the EPA has agreed to work with this agency as the TNRCC develops and implements a program for the comprehensive evaluation of the combined effects of permitted discharges on water quality within each watershed. EPA and TNRCC permits issued on a common renewal schedule would better serve the needs of our customers. One commenter suggested that implementation of this rule should be delayed until the State of Texas receives delegation of NPDES permitting authority from EPA or until TNRCC permits are on the same cycle as EPA's NPDES permits. The commission disagrees with this commenter. This rule is proposed to implement portions of Senate Bill 818, 72nd Legislature, 1991, known as the Texas Clean Rivers Act and is required regardless of whether the State of Texas receives delegation of NPDES permitting authority from the EPA. The TNRCC has been working with the EPA Region 6 office regarding the agency's reorientation of our water quality program and associated effects upon various agency programs. Several commenters have asked for clarification as to whether the proposed regulation applies to both "discharge" and "no discharge" permits. The TNRCC is responsible for issuing permits for all discharges into or adjacent to waters in the state. "No discharge" permits discharge wastewater adjacent to waters in the state. Therefore, "no discharge" permits will be included in the renewal schedule. Similarly, commenters have asked whether these rules include permits issued to concentrated animal feeding operations ("CAFO's"). Another commenter noted that TNRCC is currently considering a "general" permit for some members of the CAFO industry, that consideration of the basin permitting rule will add confusion at this time, and that CAFO's should be excluded from the basin rule. Generally, the basin permitting rule applies to all permitted facilities. However, the schedule has been revised to address other comments regarding the matching of bays and estuaries and coastal basins with the respective river basins. Consequentially, changes in the staff workload associated with these revisions forces the executive director to look closely at the permitting resources at hand in the Agricultural and Rural Assistance Division dedicated to permitting activities. Hence, the commission has decided to exclude permits for CAFO's at this time; however, these may be subject to inclusion under these rules at a later date depending on the availability of staff permitting resources. To address the other portion of this comment, any municipal, industrial or CAFO facilities authorized by rule will not be subject to the basin permitting rule at this time. Several comments were received regarding whether sec.305.127(c)(ii)(III) was in conflict with 30 TAC sec.305.71(e) in respect to the 10 year term for "no discharge" permits. Although 30 TAC sec.305.127(c)(ii)(III) allows for a permit term of up to ten years, the TNRCC recognizes that it has been a practice of this agency to issue "no discharge" permits with a five year term that is consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act. One commenter suggested that the schedule be reconsidered for areas where there will be a large number of required permit renewals in the same basin and questioned the agency's ability to process a large number of permits in the 180 day time frame. Another commenter specifically referenced the San Jacinto River segments 1001-1007 and the five month time frame for which those segments are scheduled. The commission agrees with these commenters. Permitting workloads were a factor in developing the schedule. The schedule was developed to provide an even flow of permits to the commission. Two commenters have suggested that there may be a conflict between sec.305. 71(c) and sec.305.63. These commenters have asked whether the language within the proposed rule should allow the commission the ability to grant a later submittal date as stated in sec.305.63. The TNRCC agrees with this suggestion. Section 305.71(c) has been revised to allow the TNRCC the ability to grant a later submittal date for applications to be consistent with sec.305.63. One commenter suggested that in developing regulations and permitting procedures that TNRCC acknowledge the limited budgets of municipalities and give careful consideration to the financial impacts on taxpayers and their perception of the system that improves water quality. The commenter noted that the limited resources of municipalities could best be spent on treatment and collection system improvements rather than renewal of permits. The commission acknowledges these comments. Nevertheless, a period of transition is necessary to bring all permittees into the revised schedule. Permittees who have shorter terms on their water quality permits may incur some additional costs, however, these additional costs will be incurred for a limited time only. Also, there will be instances where permits may be renewed in accordance with the revised schedule. The change to a comprehensive approach to water quality permitting is a positive change overall and will allow for a better management of both permittee and agency resources in order to evaluate water quality impacts. One commenter states that a client city would be required to submit applications for renewal of existing permits within less than four years of issuance and slightly more than one year after renovation of its wastewater treatment plant ("WWTP"). The commission disagrees with this comment. The proposed rule does not affect the term of existing permits. Also, the requirement to submit renewal application 180 days prior to expiration is not a new requirement. A comment was received inquiring whether a ceiling could be placed on the number of permits one company can renew in a given year. The TNRCC strongly disagrees with this suggestion and will not include this type of limit in the proposed rule. The intent of the Clean Rivers Act is to establish a program for the comprehensive evaluation of the combined effects of permitted discharges on water quality within each watershed. One commenter asked how this schedule will affect contested permits. By establishing expiration dates for all wastewater permits, the agency is establishing a practicable date of permit issuance for a watershed in compliance with the Texas Clean Rivers Act. Once adopted, the new expiration date assigned to a permit will be in accordance with the schedule regardless of whether or not a hearing is contested unless the commission decides to issue a permit for a shorter term. One commenter suggested that TNRCC consider reducing costs by utilizing an abbreviated renewal application form without technical report or analytical monitoring requirements. Currently, the TNRCC does not use short form applications. However, the agency is investigating the possibility of a short form renewal application as part of the agency's on-going streamlining efforts. Another commenter suggested that the TNRCC should allow submission of data that is older than two years if there is no change in the quantity and quality of effluent. The commission strongly disagrees with this commenter. It is a standard practice of this agency not to accept data over two years old. The purpose of the staff permit review is to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Submission of data older than two years may not reflect toxics which have been added to the waste stream or the true nature of the wastewater at the time of renewal. Another commenter suggests that the TNRCC should prorate the application fee if a term of less than five years is approved. The commission disagrees with this suggestion. Regardless of the term assigned, the amount of effort required in processing an application is the same. Current application fees do not cover the cost of service. Prorating the application fee would only slightly reduce costs to the applicants. The commission will, however, investigate the possibility of reducing the application fees at a later date as part of the overall effort to streamline the permitting process. A comment was received questioning whether the appropriate notice had been given to inform the public of this proposed rule. The TNRCC presented the draft rule to various public and private interest groups including the Task Force 21 for comment prior to publishing notice in the Texas Register . The proposed rule also was the subject of several newspaper articles. A public hearing to receive comments was held on November 14, 1994. Current policies require that proposed rules be published in the Texas Register . The TNRCC has satisfied those notice requirements. The above comments were received from the following groups, associations, businesses, and industries: Angelina & Neches River Authority; Waid and Associates; Freese & Nichols Inc.; City of Cleburne; Texas Utilities Services, Inc.; Lower Colorado River Authority; Texas Chemical Council; Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Coastal Bend Council of Governments; Houston Lighting and Power Company; Nueces River Authority; and City of Corpus Christi. The new section is adopted under the Texas Water Code, sec.5.103, sec.5.105, and sec.26.011, which provide the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the code and all other laws of the State of Texas and to establish and approve all general policies of the commission. sec.305.71. Basin Permitting. (a) Upon receipt of wastewater discharge permit applications, excluding permits for confined animal feeding operations, the commission, to the greatest extent practicable, will evaluate all future applications within a single river basin within the same year. The future expiration dates for all permits issued after the effective date of this section shall be in accordance with the basin schedules in sec.305.71(b). However, no permit shall be issued for a term of less than two years. If the schedule indicates a term of less than two years, then two terms between two and five years in length will be utilized in order to coincide with the schedule. There may be instances where two permit cycles are needed for some permits before they are on the basin cycle. (b) The expiration dates of wastewater discharge permits issued after the effective date of this rule will be in accord with the following schedule: See Figure 1: 305.71(b) (c) Renewal applications for permits expiring on or after September 1, 1995 shall be due at least 180 days before the expiration date of the effective permit. The executive director may grant permission for a later date, however, applications must be submitted prior to the expiration date of the permit. (d) The executive director may require submission of a renewal application sooner than the dates set out in sec.305.71(b) and (c) of this section upon a determination that a particular waste disposal activity necessitates a more frequent evaluation. (e) Permits generally will be issued to maintain a five year cycle of the expiration date schedule in subsection (b) of this section. The commission may issue a permit for less than a five year term if it determines that a shorter term is necessary. 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 December 23, 1994. TRD-9452881 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Effective date: January 17, 1995 Proposal publication date: October 4, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640 TITLE 37. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Part III. Texas Youth Commission Chapter 91. Discipline and Control Disciplinary Practices 37 TAC sec.91.9, sec.91.11 The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) adopts amendments to sec.91.9 and 91.11, concerning parole revocation consequence and disciplinary transfer/assigned minimum length of stay consequenc. Section 91.11 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the November 4, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 8756). Section 91.11 has been edited to include a requirement for executive director approval for a reduction in a minimum length of stay. Section 91.9 is adopted without changes and will not be republished. The justification for amending the section is to reduce assaults on TYC staff. The amendments will allow youth to be assigned a minimum length of stay and be transferred to another program as consequence of assault on a TYC staff member. Currently only one or the other consequence may occur. No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendments. The amendments are adopted under the Human Resources Code, sec.61.034, which provides the Texas Youth Commission with the authority to make rules appropriate to the proper accomplishment of its functions. The proposed rules implement the Human Resource Code, sec.61.034. sec.91.11. Disciplinary Transfer/Assigned Minimum Length of Stay Consequence. (a) Policy. A youth may, for disciplinary reasons, be transferred to an appropriate placement and/or assigned a minimum length of stay except that a youth on parole shall not be transferred into a placement of high or maximum restriction. Disciplinary transfer and assignment of a minimum length of stay are considered major consequences and require a level II hearing. (b) Rules. (1) Restrictions. (A) The youth's halfway house superintendent, parole supervisor, case manager supervisor or institutional caseworker (primary service worker) may request that the regional director or institutional superintendent schedule a level II hearing. (B) The appropriate regional director or institutional superintendent may schedule a level II hearing and may cancel the hearing at any time. (C) A level II hearing will not be held if TYC staff receive information that criminal or delinquent proceedings against the youth are planned or anticipated by local authorities. Exceptions may be made in writing by the deputy executive director or designee when the behavioral incident considered for discipline is clearly separate from the behavioral incident considered by the court and when justified by the staff requesting the hearing. (D) If a felony offense is found at a level II hearing, it must be documented in the hearing manager's report which is filed in the casework subfile. (E) A level II hearing should be held prior to a disciplinary transfer. When good cause compels a prehearing movement of the youth, the hearing shall be held within three consecutive days after the movement. (F) A high risk offense is any major rule violation which may result in a classification other than general or violator of CINS probation. (2) Criteria. A youth may be transferred and/or assigned a minimum length of stay if it is found at a level II hearing that the youth has committed: (A) a high risk offense; (B) a felony offense; (C) escape by a youth assigned to a high restriction facility operated by TYC staff; (D) any major rule violation and has previously been classified for a high risk offense; (E) any major rule violation causing substantial bodily injury; (F) the sum of two or more major rule violations within 30 days at the most recent permanent placement and any subsequent temporary placement; or (G) the sum of three or more major rule violations at the most recent permanent placement and any subsequent temporary placement. (3) Disposition. (A) If criteria are met, a youth may be: (i) transferred to a placement of equal or more restriction than the youth's most recent permanent placement; and/or (ii) assigned a minimum length of stay. (B) If the hearing manager determines there are extenuating circumstances incident to the violation(s) proved at a level II hearing, the youth is neither transferred nor assigned a minimum length of stay, but the hearing manager shall notify the administrator responsible for the program to which the youth is assigned so appropriate disciplinary action may be taken. (4) Assigned Minimum Length of Stay. (A) At a level II hearing, a youth's primary service worker may request that the youth be assigned a specific minimum length of stay and/or transferred to another program. (B) An assigned minimum length of stay under this policy shall not exceed six months and shall be approved by the executive director or a designee. (C) Following a level II hearing at which a youth is assigned a minimum length of stay, the institutional superintendent or regional director shall request executive director approval for assignment of a minimum stay. (i) The institutional superintendent or regional director submits the following to the director of institutions or director of community services: (I) Hearing Manager's Report of a Level II Hearing; (II) Cover memo including the administrator's recommended mini-mum length of stay; and (III) Background information on the youth; (-a-) date of arrival (-b-) committing offense (-c-) grounds for the hearing (explain) (-d-) current classification (-e-) description of precipitating incident (-f-) youth's adjustment in the program (-g-) net impact on length of stay if in an institution. (ii) The director of institutions or director of community services reviews the material, comments, and provides a recommendation and all information to the executive director or designee. (iii) The executive director or designee reviews the assigned stay and may approve, disapprove, or modify the length of stay. Materials submitted for review are returned to the appropriate central office program director to be forwarded to the field along with the decision of the executive director or designee. (5) Completing/Reducing Assigned Minimum Length of Stay. (A) A youth assigned a minimum length of stay may remain in the current program or be transferred and remain in the new placement until the assigned length of stay and other program completion criteria are completed. (B) The institutional superintendent or the regional director of the location where the youth is placed to complete the assigned minimum length of stay may submit to the executive director or designee a reduction in the assigned stay based on the youth's behavior and progress toward ICP objectives. 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 December 23, 1994. TRD-9452828 Steve Robinson Executive Director Texas Youth Commission Effective date: January 20, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 4, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 483-5244 TITLE 40. SOCIAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE Part XIX. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services Chapter 725. General Licensing Procedures The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) adopts the repeal of sec.sec.725.4003, 725.4014, 725.4015, and 725.4021; amendments to sec.sec.725.2008, 725.2019, 725.3044, 725.4001, 725.4010-725.4012, 725.4017, 725. 4019, 725.7002, and 725.7003; new sec.sec.725.1804, 725.3077, and 725.4021, concerning administrative procedures, day care licensing procedures, residential child care licensing, appeals of licensing staff decisions, and abuse and neglect investigations in child care facilities, in its General Licensing Procedures rule chapter. The amendment to sec.725.4010 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the November 1, 1994, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 8669). The repeal of sec.sec.725.4003, 725. 4014, 725.4015, and 725.4021; amendments to sec.sec.725.2008, 725.2019, 725.3044, 725.4001, 725.4011, 725.4012, 725.4017, 725.4019, 725.7002, and 725.7003; and new sec. sec.725.1804, 725.3077, and 725.4021 are adopted without changes to the proposed text and will not be republished. The justification for the repeals, amendments, and new sections is to incorporate requirements from recently enacted legislation regarding liability insurance for licensed facilities, notification of parents during abuse and neglect investigations in licensed facilities, prohibition from applying for a license for two years after the current license has been revoked, allowances for the administrative suspension of a license and closure of a facility, and the substitution of the administrative law judge for the peer review panel in appeal hearings. These changes also streamline procedures. The repeals, amendments, and new sections will function by increasing the protection for parents due to the requirement that facilities have liability insurance, increasing protection for children by allowing timely administrative closure of a facility, improving the notification to parents whose children are in care where there has been an abuse and neglect investigation, and expediting the process of appeal hearings through the use of an administrative law judge. During the public comment period TDPRS received one comment. The commenter suggested that appeals of licensing staff decisions be handled through outside mediation and there was a concern that the licensing representative had a wide range of discretion in making determinations about non-compliances with standards. The commenter was also concerned that liability insurance was difficult to obtain and that the requirement should apply equally to the public as well as the private sector. In response, the comments regarding mediation and investigations were not part of the rule material and will be handled administratively. Section 725. 1204, regarding liability insurance was prescribed by House Bill 1114 and excluded certain types of facilities. Facilities operated by the state are exempt from liability insurance by having tort immunity. Discussions with insurance agents indicated that liability insurance was widely available. TDPRS is adopting the rules as proposed. TDPRS believes the rules follow the statutes as written. TDPRS is adopting sec.725.4010(a) with an editorial change for clarification that deletes the words "depending on the circumstances." Subchapter S. Administrative Procedures 40 TAC sec.725.1804 The new section is adopted under Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapter 42, which authorizes the department to administer general child-placing and child care licensing programs; and under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 4413 (503) historical note (Vernon Supplement 1993) 72nd Legislature, which transferred all functions, programs, and activities related to the child protective services programs from the Texas Department of Human Services to TDPRS. 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 December 28, 1994. TRD-9452887 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services Effective date: January 18, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 1, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter U. Day Care Licensing Procedures 40 TAC sec.725.2008, sec.725.2019 The amendments are adopted under Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapter 42, which authorizes the department to administer general child-placing and child care licensing programs; and under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 4413 (503) historical note (Vernon Supplement 1993) 72nd Legislature, which transferred all functions, programs, and activities related to the child protective services programs from the Texas Department of Human Services to TDPRS. 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 December 28, 1994. TRD-9452888 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services Effective date: January 18, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 1, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter EE. Residential Child Care Licensing Procedures 40 TAC sec.725.3044, sec.725.3077 The amendment and new section are adopted under Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapter 42, which authorizes the department to administer general child-placing and child care licensing programs; and under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 4413 (503) historical note (Vernon Supplement 1993) 72nd Legislature, which transferred all functions, programs, and activities related to the child protective services programs from the Texas Department of Human Services to TDPRS. 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 December 28, 1994. TRD-9452889 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services Effective date: January 18, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 1, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter OO. Appeals of Licensing Staff Decisions 40 TAC sec.sec.725.4001, 725.4010-725.4012, 725.4017, 725.4019, 725.4021 The amendments and new section are adopted under Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapter 42, which authorizes the department to administer general child- placing and child care licensing programs; and under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 4413 (503) historical note (Vernon Supplement 1993) 72nd Legislature, which transferred all functions, programs, and activities related to the child protective services programs from the Texas Department of Human Services to TDPRS. sec.725.4010. Defaults, Postponements, and Continuations. (a) If the appellant does not appear at the hearing, the administrative law judge may enter a default decision in favor of the department. (b) (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 December 28, 1994. TRD-9452890 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Effective date: January 18, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 1, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 40 TAC sec.sec.725.4003, 725.4014, 725.4015, 725.4021 The repeals are adopted under Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapter 42, which authorizes the department to administer general child-placing and child care licensing programs; and under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 4413 (503) historical note (Vernon Supplement 1993) 72nd Legislature, which transferred all functions, programs, and activities related to the child protective services programs from the Texas Department of Human Services to TDPRS. 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 December 28, 1994. TRD-9452886 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Effective date: January 18, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 1, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765 Subchapter NNN. Abuse and Neglect 40 TAC sec.725.7002, sec.725.7003 The amendments are adopted under Human Resources Code, Title 2, Chapter 42, which authorizes the department to administer general child-placing and child care licensing programs; and under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 4413 (503) historical note (Vernon Supplement 1993) 72nd Legislature, which transferred all functions, programs, and activities related to the child protective services programs from the Texas Department of Human Services to TDPRS. 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 December 28, 1994. TRD-9452891 Nancy Murphy Section Manager, Media and Policy Services Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services Effective date: January 18, 1995 Proposal publication date: November 1, 1994 For further information, please call: (512) 450-3765