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 16. ECONOMIC REGULATION Part VIII. Texas Racing Commission Chapter 321. Pari-mutuel Wagering Subchapter C. Simulcast Wagering General Provisions 16 TAC sec.sec.321.204, 321.206-321.208, 321.209 The Texas Racing Commission adopts amendments to sec. sec.321.204, 321. 206- 321.208, and new sec.321.209, concerning pari-mutuel wagering on simulcast races. Section 321.208 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 9, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 927). Sections 321.204, 321.206-321.207, and 321.209 are adopted without changes and will not be republished. Section 321.208 is adopted with changes to correct a minor grammatical error. The amendments and new section are adopted to ensure pari-mutuel wagering will be fair to the patrons, effectively regulated, and of the highest integrity. The amendments and new section modify the procedures approving certain simulcast races, modify the responsibilities of the sending and receiving racetracks, modify the emergency procedures for simulcasting, and establish the officials for supervising simulcasting. No comments were received regarding the proposal. The amendments and new section are adopted under the Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179e, sec.3.02, which authorize the commission to adopt rules for conducting racing with wagering and for administering the Texas Racing Act; sec.6.06, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules relating to all aspects of the operation of pari-mutuel racetracks; sec.11.01, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules to regulate pari-mutuel wagering; and sec.11.011, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules to regulate pari-mutuel wagering on simulcast races. sec.321.208. Emergency Procedures. (a) If an association is unable to establish or to maintain the audio or video signal from the sending racetrack, the association shall immediately notify the sending racetrack of the lost signal and may continue to accept wagers while attempting to establish the signal. (b) If the audio or video signal cannot be established or maintained, the association may continue to accept wagers on the signal provided: (1) an announcement is made to the public informing them that due to technical difficulties the audio or video signal has been lost; (2) the totalisator system licensee transmits the odds on the affected race to the video department to be displayed to the patrons; and (3) the totalisator system licensee locks all wagering on the affected race no later than one minute before post to ensure the integrity and transfer of the wagering pools. (c) If the sending racetrack loses the ability to transmit the audio or video signal, the sending racetrack: (1) shall notify all receiving locations of the technical difficulties being experienced; (2) may continue to accept wagers from the receiving locations on that day's races; (3) may not accept wagers from the receiving locations for subsequent race days until the technical difficulties have been corrected. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 3, 1996. TRD-9604742 Paula Cochran Carter General Counsel Texas Racing Commission Effective date: May 1, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 833-6699 Part IX. Texas Lottery Commission Chapter 402. Bingo Regulation and Tax 16 TAC sec.402.545 The Texas Lottery Commission adopts an amendment to sec.402.545, relating to licenses, fees and bonds for conduct of bingo occasions and for commercial lessor with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 23, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 564). One change is to subsection (c)(1) of this section and is designed to minimize the burden to a non-annual licensee obtaining a temporary license. Another change is to delete the last sentence of subsection (a)(3)(B) of this section. This sentence, "A group may not conduct bingo more than three times per calendar week and not more than four hours per 24-hour period", is being deleted because it is in conflict with recent statutory amendments to the Bingo Enabling Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179d, ("Act"). The rule, as amended, is necessary to ensure that bingo conductors and commercial lessors know what requirements exist to obtain and maintain, renew, or amend a license. Further, amendments are necessary to be consistent with the changes made to the Bingo Enabling Act ("Act"), by virtue of House Bill (HB) 3021, 74th Legislature, Acts 1995 ("HB 3021"). Also, the amendments are designed to reflect current agency practice regarding licensing matters. The rule sets out specific requirements for an annual license to conduct bingo, the commercial license to lease bingo premises, temporary license to conduct bingo, amendments, notification of changes, representation and personal receipt of documents, voluntary cancellation, and voluntary suspension. The agency received 14 written comments during the comment period and three oral comments at the February 6, 1996 public comment hearing. Two commenters want language added to the rule so the bond will be released upon notification to the Commission from the licensee that bingo has ceased permanently, thereby allowing the organization to receive the bond earlier than the license expiration date. One commenter is opposed to the rule requiring the application to be correct and complete. This commenter believes the denial of an application because the application is incomplete and/or inaccurate is onerous. This same commenter wants subsection (f)(1) of the rule deleted because the commenter believes the Bingo Enabling Act, sec.14(b) is sufficient and the rule language is unnecessary. Another commenter wants the process of the issuance of a temporary license simplified so an organization that already possesses an annual license and is in good standing could submit a postcard to obtain a temporary license. One commenter believes the language concerning transfer of license should be clarified because the rule is unclear whether such language refers to a conductor or lessor license. Some commenters believe that the amendments to subsection (c)(1) and (3) should not be adopted because the commenter believes temporary licensing should be limited. Several commenters want the rule to require a copy of the lease agreement be filed with the application for a commercial lessor license so the "real party of interest" can be identified. One commenter wants language in subsection (b)(3)(B) and (C) which is proposed to be deleted to remain in the rule. This particular language references a rule which expired by operation of law on April 1, 1995. The commenter suggests the language refer to 402.541, the rule relating to definitions. Another commenter wants the rule to prohibit a charity from playing bingo at a commercial lessor hall if that charity has a building sufficient and suitable for bingo games. This commenter believes the money saved per session could be used for charitable purposes. At the February 6, 1996 public comment hearing, some persons did not testify but did indicate support for or opposition to the rule. The names of groups and associations making comments for and against the section. In favor of: Dallas County REACT, Inc., Bingo Advisory Committee, River City Bingo, North Austin Foundation, Inc., and VFW Post 6008. Against: Unicorn Centers, Inc., Caring and Sharing Foundation, Thompson Allstate Bingo Supply, Inc., I.O.R. White Mountain #12, Brownsville Jaycees, Zonta Club of Brownsville, I.O.R. Omaha #25, Boys and Girls Club of Brownsville, I.O.R. Ramona #5, I.O.R. War Eagle #5, I.O.R. Buffalo #13,I.O.R. Cheyenne #14, I.O.R. Blackcrow #16, Fort Worth Bookkeeping, Military Order of the Cooties Pup Tent #3, LULAC Council #616, Family and Bluebonnet Bingo, and Bingo Advisory Committee. The agency disagrees with the comments concerning early release of the bond because the Bingo Enabling Act ("Act"), sec.38(c) requires the licensee to affirmatively relinquish its license and further, requires the agency to make a final determination of any outstanding tax and prize fees due and payable under the Act. Therefore, the agency believes early release should not be automatic. The agency believes the rule adequately provides for early release of the bond provided the licensee meets the requirements set out subsection (a) (4)(D) of the rule. The agency disagrees with the commenter who believes the agency will deny an application if the application is incomplete and/or inaccurate. The rule does not provide that an application which is incomplete and/or inaccurate will automatically be denied. The agency disagrees with the commenter who wants subsection (f)(1) deleted because the Act, sec.14(b) is sufficient and therefore such rule language is unnecessary. Subsection (f)(1) of the rule is not a restatement of the Act, sec.14(b) because the rule language requires the licensee to file an amendment on a "form approved by the Commission." The Act, sec.14(b) is not as specific as the rule language. Further, the rule language provides that the amendment application will be processed in the same manner as an original application. The statutory provision is silent regarding this matter. The agency disagrees with the commenter who believes temporary license applications should be allowed to be submitted on a postcard because the agency believes that the content of the application should dictate the form of the application, not the size of the form. The agency agrees with the commenter who wants the process of the issuance of a temporary license simplified and is working to achieve this goal and, therefore, language has been deleted from the rule to achieve this goal. The agency disagrees with the commenter who believes the rule is unclear as to whether the deletion of the prohibition of transfer of licenses applies to conductor and/or lessor licenses. The Act, sec.13(j) is clear that only commercial lessor licenses may be transferred and any language in the rule can not expand on the prohibition set out in the Act. The agency disagrees with the commenter who believes there would be a limitless number of temporary licenses issued because of the deletion of subsection (c)(1) and (3). The Act, sec.12(d) expressly prohibits the issuance of more than six temporary licenses in a calendar year to an authorized organization. Since the statute clearly prohibits this activity, there is no reason for such language in the rule. The agency disagrees with the commenter who wants language added to the rule which will require lease agreements to be filed with an application. There is no requirement in the Act for such a requirement and the agency believes requiring such lease agreements be filed and reviewing them to determine who is the "real party of interest" will dramatically slow down the license processing time and is unnecessary. The agency also disagrees with the commenter who wants subsection (b)(3)(B) to remain in the rule. The agency believes the Act, sec.18 adequately addresses the issues raised by this subparagraph. Further, the agency disagrees with the commenter who wants a provision in the rule to reference another rule. The agency believes such rule references is impractical because rules are subject to amendment which may require a domino-type effect of rulemaking. The agency disagrees with the commenter who wants to include a prohibition on a charity playing at a commercial lessor hall if that charity has a building sufficient and suitable for bingo games. Similar language contained in the Bingo Enabling Act was expressly deleted by House Bill 2771, 71st Legislature, Acts 1993, and therefore, the agency believes adding such a requirement would be contrary to legislative intent. The amendment is adopted under the provisions of Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179d, sec.16, which authorize the Texas Lottery Commission to adopt rules for the enforcement and administration of the Bingo Enabling Act and the provisions of Texas Government Code, sec.467.102, which authorize the Texas Lottery Commission to adopt rules for the enforcement and administration of Texas Government Code, Chapter 467 and the laws under the Commission's jurisdiction. sec.402.545. Licenses, Fees and Bonds for Conduct of Bingo Occasions and for Commercial Lessor. (a) Annual license to conduct bingo occasions. (1) Application. An organization that intends to conduct bingo on a regular basis shall apply to the commission for an annual license to conduct bingo occasions. The application must be made on a form prescribed by the commission and all the information required must be correct and complete. (2) Fee. An application for an annual license to conduct bingo occasions must be accompanied by a license fee in accordance with the Bingo Enabling Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179d, sec.13. (3) License. (A) An annual license to conduct bingo occasions expires one year from the date of issuance. (B) A conductor may hold only one annual license to conduct bingo occasions, and that license is valid for only that specific location indicated on the face of its license. (C) A conductor holding an annual license may receive a temporary license under subsection (c) of this section. (D) An organization must conduct regular bingo to be eligible to sell pull tabs, instant tickets or break open bingo tickets. (4) Bond or other security. Each application for an annual license to conduct bingo occasions must be accompanied by a bond or other security equal to the applicant's estimated quarterly tax liability. If the amount is estimated to be less than $1,900, no bond or other security will be required, unless the commission determines a bond or other security is necessary based on the applicant's history at record keeping, reporting, and payment of tax. No new bond will be required upon renewal if the licensee would be eligible to have an existing bond released under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. If a bond or other form of security is required, no license will be issued until such bond or other security has been posted. (A)-(C) (No change.) (D) Release. If the licensee ceases to conduct bingo occasions and relinquishes its license or if the license is revoked by the commission for any reason, the commission will release any bond or security on its determination that no amounts of tax, penalty, or interest remain due and payable under the Act. If the licensee has filed all required returns, has no outstanding amounts of tax, penalty, or interest due and payable under the Act, and has completed seven consecutive quarters without a deficiency determination becoming final, the bond or security will be released at the time the licensee next renews its license. (E)-(F) (No change.) (5) Application to conduct bingo occasions at premises of a commercial lessor. An organization applying to conduct bingo occasions at premises other than those used by it for its general activities shall submit with its application a certified copy of the minutes of the governing board of the local unit of the applicant voting to conduct bingo occasions at a location other than the premises used by the organization for its general activities. If the articles of incorporation, by laws, or other organizing instrument of the applicant requires approval by one or more of the state, national, or other higher governing bodies of the organization for the local unit to conduct any of its activities at a separate location, then the applicant shall also submit certified copies of the required approval by those governing bodies. (b) Commercial license to lease bingo premises. (1) Application. Any commercial lessor who intends to lease premises to a licensed authorized organization for the purpose of conducting bingo occasions must apply to the commission for a commercial lessor's license. The application must be made on a form prescribed by the commission and all information required must be correct and complete. (2) (No change.) (3) License. (A) A license to lease bingo premises expires one year from the date of issuance. (B) Each location to be leased as a bingo premises must be separately licensed pursuant to separate applications. (C) Except as required by the Bingo Enabling Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179d, sec.13(n)(1) and (2), the commission may not issue more than one license to lease bingo premises for any one location. (D) (No change.) (E) In order to determine eligibility for purposes of the Bingo Enabling Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179d, sec.13(q) the commission shall conduct a complete background investigation of each employee, owner, officer and director of, each person active in, and each person with a substantial interest in, any corporation that holds a license under the provisions of the Bingo Enabling Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 179d, sec.13(j). (4) Bond or other security. Each application for an annual license to lease bingo premises must be accompanied by a bond or other security equal to the applicant's estimated quarterly tax liability. If the quarterly tax liability is estimated to be less than $100.00, no bond or other security may be required unless the director determines that a bond or other security is necessary to ensure payment. No new bond will be required upon renewal if the licensee would be eligible to have an existing bond released under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. If a bond or other form of security is required, no license will be issued until such bond or other security has been posted. (A)-(E) (No change.) (c) Temporary license to conduct bingo occasions. (1) Any authorized organization not holding an annual license to conduct bingo that intends to conduct bingo occasions must apply to the commission for a temporary license. The application must contain the same information used by applicants for an annual license. The complete application with required attachments should be filed with the commission at least 30 days in advance of the first bingo occasion that will be played under the temporary license. An organization holding an annual license to conduct bingo shall apply no less than seven working days in advance of the proposed occasion, provided that the only proposed change is the date, time and/or location. (2) Fee. An application for a temporary license to conduct bingo occasions must be accompanied by a $25 license fee. A conductor intending to obtain a temporary license shall pay the $25 license fee from the conductor's bingo bank account. (3) License. A temporary license is valid for no more than four consecutive hours during any 24-hour period. (d) License to operate. Each applicant for a license to operate bingo occasions must demonstrate that it is organized and operated primarily for purposes other than the operation of bingo activities. (e) Payment of fees. The proper license fee must accompany each application. License fees will not be prorated. The fee and any cash bond must be in the form of cash, cashier's check, money order, or check made payable to the state treasurer. After the filing of the application, fee, and any required bond, the commission will promptly investigate the qualifications of the applicant and either; (1) notify the applicant in writing if additional information is required before a license can be granted; (2) notify the applicant in writing why a license is being denied and refund any license fee payment and bond; or (3) issue a temporary authorization or license authorizing the applicant to conduct bingo at the times and place applied for or to lease premises for the conduct of bingo. (f) Amendments. (1) Applications. A license may be amended if the subject matter of the amendment properly and lawfully could have been included in the original license. An application for an amendment must be filed on a form approved by the commission and will be processed in the same manner as an original application. No amendment to the location, the days or the times of a bingo conductor's license will be effective until the existing license has been surrendered to the commission and an amended license has been issued by the commission. An application for an amendment must be accompanied by a $25 amendment fee. (2) Effective period. An amended license is only effective for the remainder of the period under the original license. (g) Notification of changes. Each licensee has a continuing responsibility to promptly notify the commission in writing of any changes to information in a filed application, when information filed with the commission becomes inaccurate in any way, or when additions or deletions are necessary to reflect changes in the circumstances of the licensee. Examples of such changes include the name of the organizational officers, the amount of rent charged for leased premises, the name of a member responsible for the conduct of games, or the name of an individual connected with a commercial lessor that would affect its eligibility to hold a license and, in the case of lessors, the name of a new authorized organization that intends to lease premises from it for the purpose of conducting bingo. (h) Representation; personal receipt of documents. For purposes of this subsection, an individual shall be recognized by the commission as an applicant's or licensee's authorized representative only if the commission has on file written authorization in the form of a resolution of the applicant's or licensee's governing body, that such individual has the authority to act on behalf of the applicant or licensee, and the extent of such authority. Written authorization furnished by an applicant or licensee under this section shall apply only to the specific individuals listed in the authorization. Agents or employees of an authorized representative are not authorized representatives of the applicant or licensee unless specifically named in the written authorization on file with the commission. Only the applicant, licensee, or those individuals specifically named in the applicant's or licensee's resolution as authorized representatives shall be recognized by the commission concerning any matter relating to the licensing process or any corrective measures to be taken after an audit or field investigation. Only the applicant or its authorized representative may personally receive from the commission documents relating to an applicant's license. (i) Voluntary cancellation of license. A licensee shall be able to surrender its license for cancellation. The cancellation of the license shall be final and effective upon receipt by the director of a certified copy of the resolution, or other authoritative statement of the licensee, requesting cancellation of the license. Cancellation of the license does not relieve the licensee from filing the reports, returns and remittances required by law. The license shall be surrendered to the agency at the time of request. (j) Voluntary suspension of license. A licensee shall be able to voluntarily suspend its license. The suspension shall be effective upon receipt by the director of a certified copy of the resolution, or other authoritative statement of the licensee, requesting suspension of the license. A license that has been voluntarily suspended may be reactivated during the term of the original license. Suspension of the license does not relieve the licensee from filing the reports, returns and remittances required by law. Suspension of the license does not relieve the licensee from the requirement of filing a timely and sufficient application for renewal of the license. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 10, 1996. TRD-9605005 Kimberly L. Kiplin General Counsel Texas Lottery Commission Effective date: May 1, 1996 Proposal publication date: January 23, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 323-3791 TITLE 22. EXAMINING BOARDS Part IV. Texas Cosmetology Commission Chapter 89. General Rules and Regulations 22 TAC sec.89.15 The Texas Cosmetology Commission adopts an amendment to sec.89.15(i), concerning adding hairbraiding and extensions to the hairweaving specialist certificate, without changes to the proposed text as published in the November 17, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 9527). The reason for and purpose of the rule is to provide trained and duly certificated hairbraiders to perform this service to the public and ensure that proper safe and sanitary practices are provided to the general public. Comments were received from the Hairbraiding Committee which was created by the commission to study this matter. The committee report to the commission recommended that the commission include hairbraiding as part of hairweaving. The amendment is adopted under Section 4(a), Article 8451a, Texas Civil Statutes, which provide the Texas Cosmetology Commission with the authority to issue rules consistent with this Act after a public hearing, including the rule governing hairweaving specialist certificates. 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 April 3, 1996. TRD-9604642 Dick Strader Executive Director Texas Cosmetology Commission Effective date: April 24, 1996 Proposal publication date: November 17, 1995 For further information, please call: (512) 454-4674 TITLE 28. INSURANCE Part II. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Chapter 140. Dispute Resolution/General Provisions 28 TAC sec.140.5 The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (the commission) adopts an amendment to sec.140.5, concerning correction of clerical error, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 19, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 498). The amendment eliminates the hearing provision of the rule. The executive director of the commission is authorized by the Texas Labor Code, sec.402.042(b)(8) and sec.410.206 to correct clerical errors. Rule 140.5(f) previously provided that a party may challenge a correction of clerical error made by the executive director by requesting a hearing pursuant to Chapter 145 of this title (relating to Dispute Resolution Hearings Under the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act). There is no requirement in either section of the statute that a hearing process for challenging correction of a clerical error be provided. Hearings under the Administrative Procedure Act are now conducted on behalf of the commission by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Elimination of the option to request a hearing on correction of clerical errors will reduce the expense to the state and others for such hearings. A hearing is not necessary because the authority of the executive director exists for correction of clerical errors and there should be no dispute with regard to such. Comments regarding the amendment to the rule were solicited through the Texas Register. No comments were received. The amendment is adopted pursuant to the Texas Labor Code, sec.402.061, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to administer the Act, the Texas Labor Code, sec.402.042, which sets out the general powers and duties of the executive director; and the Texas Labor Code, sec.410.206, which allows the executive director to revise a decision in a contested case hearing on a finding of clerical error. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 8, 1996. TRD-9604915 Susan Cory General Counsel Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Effective date: May 1, 1996 Proposal publication date: January 19, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 440-3700 Chapter 165. Rejected Risk: Injury Prevention Services 28 TAC sec.sec.165.1-165.5 The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (the commission) adopts the repeal of sec.sec.165.1-165.5, concerning Identification and Notification of a Policyholder Insured Under the Rejected Risk Fund Requiring Injury Prevention Services; Safety Consultation and Formulation of the Accident Prevention Plan; Follow-up Inspection by the Division; Report of Follow-up Inspection; and Approval of Safety and Accident Prevention Program for Employers Identified as Extraordinary Risk by the Facility, respectively, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 19, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 499). The Texas Insurance Code, Articles 5.76-2, Part 4 created the Texas Workers' Compensation Employers' Rejected Risk Fund which required the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (the Facility) to provide coverage to employers who were unable to obtain insurance in the voluntary market or through a small premium plan. As a part of the rejected risk program, policyholders who met certain criteria were required to obtain safety consultations not later than 30 days after the effective date of their policies. The Facility contracted with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission to provide these safety consultations for employers insured by the Facility through the rejected risk fund. In 1991, the 72nd Legislature enacted Articles 5.76-3 and 4 which created the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (TWCIF) as an insurance company for purposes of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and required it to act as the insurer of last resort. The legislation also provided for the phase out of the Facility and prohibited the Facility from writing policies under the rejected risk program on or after January 1, 1994: "TRANSITION. (a) Workers' compensation insurance may not be written through the Texas workers' compensation insurance facility under the employers' rejected risk fund on or after January 1, 1994. (b) The Texas workers' compensation insurance facility shall contract with the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund to assume all claim liabilities of the facility no later than January 1, 1999. (Acts 1991, 72nd legislature, second called session, Chapter 12, Section 18.24)." Pursuant to this provision, no policies have been written by the Facility since December 31, 1993. The one-year policies that were written have by this date expired and the Facility's function is essentially one of auditing and servicing claims. The Facility will be in a "winding up" mode until it is dissolved, which must occur by January 1, 1999. Since there are no current policies, there is no need for accident prevention services. Chapter 165 of this title is entitled "Rejected Risk: Injury Prevention Services". Rules 165.1-165.5 provide the procedure for delivery of accident prevention services to employees insured by the Facility through the employers' rejected risk fund. Rules 165.6 through 165.9 were adopted and remain in effect to implement the program under the Fund. The purpose for sec.sec.165.1-165.5 of the rules no longer exists and these rules are repealed. Comments regarding the repeal of these rules were solicited through the Texas Register. No comments were received. The repeals are adopted pursuant to the Texas Labor Code, sec.402.061, which requires the commission to adopt rules necessary for the implementation and enforcement of the Texas Workers Compensation Act; and the Texas Insurance Code, Articles 5.76-2, 5.76-3, and 5.76-4, which established the Facility and the Fund and their respective duties as an insurer of last resort. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 8, 1996. TRD-9604914 Susan Cory General Counsel Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Effective date: May 1, 1996 Proposal publication date: January 19, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 440-3700 TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION Part II. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Chapter 53. Finance Commercial Fishing Licenses and Tags 31 TAC sec.53.6 The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a regularly scheduled public hearing, March 14, 1996, adopts amended sec.53.6, concerning sport oyster boat license, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 9, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 944). The amendment as adopted corrects an error in the fee amount for the nonresident sport oyster boat license. The amount of this license is set in Parks and Wildlife Code sec.76.104 at $40 or a fee determined by the Commission, whichever is more. The adoption provides consistency between 31 TAC sec.53.6 and Parks and Wildlife Code, sec.76.104 concerning sport oyster boat license price. The department received no public comment concerning the proposed rule. The amendment is are adopted under authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, sec.76.104, which sets the fee for nonresident sport oyster boat licenses. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604959 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 Stamps 31 TAC sec.sec.53.11-53.13 The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a regularly scheduled public hearing, March 14, 1996, adopts amendments to sec. sec.53.11-53.13, concerning stamps, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 9, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 944). Amended sec.53.11 (concerning Stamp Form) removed the wording which prescribes the exact stamp size. Amendment of sec.53.12 (concerning stamp design) adds flexibility for the executive director to prescribe stamp designs. Amended sec.53.13 (concerning stamp manner of issuance) removes the wording which prescribes the time period for stamps because it is considered an unnecessary restatement of statutory language. Implementation of the automated point of sale system greatly facilitates ease in obtaining required licenses and associated stamps. The new rules provide consistency between regulations concerning stamp issuance and the form of the stamps. The department received no public comment concerning the proposed rules. The amendments are adopted under authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, sec.sec.43.012, 43.201, 43.252, 43.303, 43.403, 43.4035, 43.503, 43.508, and 43. 582, which provides authority for the department or commission to set valid periods, and prescribe the form, design, and manner of issuance of hunting and fishing stamps. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604960 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 Vessel Registration Agents and Surety Bonds 31 TAC sec.53.18 The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a regularly scheduled public hearing, March 14, 1996, adopts amended sec.53.18, concerning surety bond requirements, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 9, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 945). Amended sec.53.18 corrects an error in reference to county clerks, which should refer to county tax assessor-collectors. Additionally, the amendment corrects reference to the Texas Department of Insurance. The amended section provides correct reference to county tax assessor- collectors and to the Texas Department of Insurance. The department received no public comment concerning the proposed rule. The amendment is proposed under authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, sec.31. 0341, which provides the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department with the authority to promulgate rules. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604961 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 License Deputies The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a regularly scheduled public hearing, March 14, 1996, adopted repeal of sec.53.21 and sec.53.24, and amendment of sec.sec.53.22-53.23, and sec.53.25 (concerning License Deputies), without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 9, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 946). Repeal of sec.53.21 (concerning responsibility for issuance of licenses) removes an unnecessary restatement of statutory language. Section 53.24 (concerning cancellation of license deputies) was repealed because the wording contained in the section was incorporated into amended sec.53.22. Adopted amendments to sec.53.22 (concerning license deputy appointment and cancellation procedures) consolidates wording formerly contained in sec.53.24 and eliminates unnecessary wording about forms. Amendments to sec.53.23 (concerning surety bond requirements for license deputies) adds an expiration provision of August 31, 1996 for bond requirements and change the reference to the Texas Department of Insurance. Amendments to sec.53.25 (concerning license deputy collection and issuance fees) simplify rules to provide a 5.0% license deputy collection and issuance fee for all items issued for the license year beginning September 1, 1996, and thereafter, and retains existing rates for those licenses and stamps issued for the license year which began on September 1, 1995. For the remainder of Fiscal Year 1996, 5.0% collection and issuance fees will apply for items issued via the automated point-of-sale system and which do not currently have specified collection and issuance fee amounts. The amended sections provide fair compensation to license deputies for the services they provide to customers. Profit margins on licenses, stamps, permits, and tags will be sufficient to cover costs of credit card transactions if individual license deputies choose to accept credit card payments. The department received no direct public comment concerning the proposals. However, the department's license deputy advisory committee recommended that the commission approve the proposed rules. 31 TAC sec.53.21, sec.53.24 The repeals are adopted under authority of several sections of the Parks and Wildlife Code. Section 12.701 and sec.12.707, authorize issuance of licenses, stamps, permits, and tags by the Department. Section 12.702(a) allows the department to designate persons as license deputies. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604965 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 31 TAC sec.sec.53.22, 53.23, 53.25 The amendments are adopted under authority of several sections of the Parks and Wildlife Code. Section 12.701 and sec.12.707, authorize issuance of licenses, stamps, permits, and tags by the Department. Section 12.702(a) allows the department to designate persons as license deputies. Section 12. 702(b) allows the Commission to set collection and issuance fees for licenses, stamps, tags, permits or other similar items issued under any chapter of the Parks and Wildlife Code. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604964 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 Commercial Fishing Boat Numbers The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a regularly scheduled public hearing, March 14, 1996, adopted the amendment to sec.53.41 and repeal of sec.53. 42, concerning Commercial Fishing Boat Numbers, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 9, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 946). Repeal of sec.53.42 removes an unnecessary restatement of statutory language. Amendments to sec.53.41 simplify wording and cross-reference duplicate license plate fees to sec.53.6. The repealed and amended sections clarify in rules related to commercial fishing boat numbering requirements. The department received no public comment concerning the proposed rule. 31 TAC sec.53.41 The amendment is adopted under authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, sec.47.031, provides authority to the commission to prescribe fees for transfers and duplicate plates for commercial fishing boat licenses. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604963 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 31 TAC sec.53.42 The repeal is adopted under authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, sec.47. 007, which directs the commission to provide rules for the issuance and use of commercial fishing boat numbers. Section 47.031 provides authority to the commission to prescribe fees for transfers and duplicate plates for commercial fishing boat licenses. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 9, 1996. TRD-9604962 Bill Harvey, Ph.D. Regulatory Coordinator Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 9, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 389-4642 or 1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 TITLE 37. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Part III. Texas Youth Commission Chapter 81. Administrative Provisions 37 TAC sec.81.25 The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) adopts new sec.81.25, concerning concealed handguns, without changes to the proposed text as published in the March 5, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 1753). The justification for the new section is increased safety for TYC staff and youth and the public. The new section provides rules which prohibit the possession of handguns on the premises of TYC buildings, offices, facilities, or programs unless specifically authorized by the executive director. No comments were received regarding adoption of the new rule. The new rule is 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. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, April 9, 1996. TRD-9604976 Steve Robinson Executive Director Texas Youth Commission Effective date: April 30, 1996 Proposal publication date: March 5, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 483-5244 TITLE 40. SOCIAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE Part XX. Texas Workforce Commission Chapter 803. Skills Development Fund 40 TAC sec.803.1 The Texas Workforce Commission adopts new sec.803.1, concerning the operation of the skills development fund with changes to the proposed text published in the February 27, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 1518). The Labor Code, as amended by Chapter 655, Acts of the 74th Legislature, 1995, establishes the skills development fund (SDF) and provides that the Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission, or his appointee, shall be responsible for the distribution of money from the fund. Comptroller John Sharp proposed the SDF in his 1994 report, Gaining Ground, and the Comptroller's office has certified $25 million from general revenue for the fund during the 1996-1997 biennium. The SDF is intended to aid public community and technical colleges in meeting industry and workforce training needs. The Texas Workforce Commission will award grants for training programs designed for specific business needs and carried out through grants to public community and technical colleges throughout the state. These rules are designed to implement the program and guide the executive director in the oversight of the program. The Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rule on March 12, 1996. Oral comments received at that hearing were replicated in substance within the written comments received. The following parties submitted written and/or oral comments prior to or following publication of the proposed rule: Brenda F. Arnett, Executive Director, Texas Department of Commerce; Ronda Baughman, Vice President of Texas Association of Businesses and Chambers of Commerce; Kemble G. Bennett, Texas Engineering Extension Service; Sheri Burkette, Association of General Contractors of Texas; Roland E. Cordobes, Private Industry Council of Dallas; Marie Dalton, President of Texas Administrators of Continuing Education for Community/Junior Colleges; Luis De La Garza, Laredo Community College; Sandy Dochin, Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce; Paul Edwards, Deputy Executive Director for Middle Rio Grande Development Council; Steve E. Ellis, Collin County Community College; Margaret L. Ford, Houston Community College; Juliet V. Garcia, University of Texas at Brownsville; Ronnie Glasscock, Chair of Texas Association of Community Colleges Workforce Committee; Dr. W. A. Griffin, Jr., Frank Phillips College; Chancellor Cecil L. Groves, Texas State Technical College System; Ron Harris, County Judge, Collin County; Homer Hayes, San Antonio College; Kim Kirchoff, Texas Association of Regional Councils; Robert E. Lahti, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Lane Lanford, Texas Department of Commerce; Laurie Larrea, Private Industry Council of Dallas, Inc.; J. Gilbert Leal, President, Texas State Technical College; Rick Levy, Texas AFL-CIO; Jim Loyd, Texas Workforce Development Network; Charles F. Nielson, Vice President, Texas Instruments; Representative Rene O. Oliveira, State Representative; Robert Perry, Plano; Robert Prock, Texas Engineering Extension Agency; Gene Ramsey, Plano Chamber of Commerce; Marcia Strieber, Chairman, Workforce Development Board of Central Texas; Carroll Thomas, Permian Basin Industry Council; Richard A. Viktorin, Austin; Dr. Tommy Walter, GTE Telephone Operations; James Watson, TwinStar Semiconductors; Chancellor J. William Wenrich, Dallas County Community College, and President, Texas Association of Community Colleges; Holly Woelber, Upper Rio Grande Tech Prep Consortium. One commenter suggested that community and technical colleges should be joint partners on the contract with the private grantee. The same commenter would limit the definition of training provider to the community and technical college. The Commission has determined that the best arrangement for fiscal accountability to fund customized training programs is through the current control system set up for the use of state funds by community and technical colleges. Additionally, the Commission believes that community and technical colleges may need to subcontract with a third-party, including an individual to provide specialized training in a timely manner. Another commenter urged the Commission to avoid problems that the business community perceives are associated with access to the Smart Jobs Fund by relying on outcome measures to evaluate program success. The same commenter suggested that training program success could be tracked by matching training close-out reports and Unemployment Insurance wage records. The Commission has authorized the executive director to review and evaluate outcome measures before making a final payment on a training contract. Additionally, the Commission added a requirement that trainee information be gathered after the program completion to allow the TWC to track employees in the wage record system. One commenter urged the Commission to limit training programs to one year. The same commenter urged the Commission to review all contracts associated with the Skills Development Fund to verify appropriate use of funds. It is not anticipated that customized training programs will take as long as a year; however, the Commission believes that the executive director should be free to exercise his business judgment in determining which proposals for funding are appropriate uses of the Skills Development Fund. Furthermore, the legislature provided for the Higher Education Coordinating Board to provide a review of the expenditure of training dollars. One commenter suggested that the public community college should be non-local but not duplicate training available at the local level. The Commissioners agree with this comment and made every effort to clarify that customized training programs funded by the Skills Development Fund should not be duplicative of training programs already available in the locality of the private partner. One commenter noted that the initial publication of the proposed rules were numbered incorrectly. The Commission has intentionally reserved a Chapter in its Texas Administrative Code numbering system as recommended by the Secretary of State. Section 803.1 is the designated number for the Skills Development Fund Rule. Another respondent reiterated that there was no legislative intent to make the SDF available to entities other than community and technical colleges. The Commission believes that it has drafted rules regarding the use and administration of the SDF that are consistent with legislative intent. One commenter noted that performance objectives should be included in each plan and outcomes should be reviewed before the grants are completely funded and companies should be required to provide a match for dollars from the SDF. The Commission has authorized the executive director to use his discretion when funding proposals, including the authority to require contributions from the business partner and to make final payment after outcomes have been evaluated. Several commenters urged that the SDF rules should allow the executive director to respond quickly to requests for funding. The Commission believes that it has drafted rules that strike a healthy balance between flexibility and accountability. One commenter noted that documentation of actual or projected labor shortages should be more clearly specified. The Commission has included a requirement that proposals include an explanation of the actual or projected labor shortage in the occupation targeted by the proposed training program. The statute requires that there be such a determination, and the Commission believes that the requirement included in the rules adequately responds to the statutory mandate. One commenter expressed concern regarding the inclusion of the word "person" under the definition of Training Provider. The Commission believes that it may be reasonable and necessary for a community college to subcontract with an individual who has specialized knowledge in order to respond to a business partner's training needs. One respondent urged a portion of the Skills Development and Smart Jobs resources be allocated on a reasonable formula basis to the Local Workforce Development Board. He further suggested that a certain level of funding from the Skills Development and Smart Jobs should be retained at the state level for support of large scale, multi-regional opportunities existing from state level marketing and recruitment efforts. The Skills Development Fund is a training tool to be utilized in efforts to raise the skills level of Texans. Smart Jobs is a fund operated by the Texas Department of Commerce as an economic development tool. The legislature has given each agency authority over its administration of each program under its care. The Skills Development Fund will be used by community and technical colleges to build their capacity to provide training to Texas employers. Several commenters felt that definition of training provider should not exclude a state agency. The Commission agreed that in some cases an agency may be the best provider of training services and so the exclusionary language was struck from the definition of training provider. One commenter suggested an expanded list of criteria upon which to judge proposals. The Commission believes that the rules as drafted provide the executive director with sufficient guidance on factors that should be considered when evaluating a training proposal. One respondent noted that there are existing statutes and administrative rules regarding the provision of non-local services by a community college and suggested that the executive director should designate a non-local public community college as a training provider. The Commission believes that the issue of whether adequate training is available in the community for a particular private partner must be decided by the community college and its business partner. Several respondents expressed concern regarding verbal proposals. An efficient, straight-forward and inexpensive application was also suggested. A majority of the commission determined that there may be instances in which the executive director would want to consider a proposal received verbally. However, no program will be funded until a written contract with the terms and conditions of the training proposal has been executed. Therefore, the Commission believes that the rules in their entirety provide a system of checks and balances to ensure fiscal integrity while allowing flexibility. Several respondents voiced concerns regarding the definition of non-local community and technical colleges. The Commission agrees that the intertwined issues of the locality of the community or technical college and the duplication of available local training programs caused some problems with the definition of a non-local community college. Therefore, the Commission revised the definition of non-local and adds language prohibiting the duplication of training programs. Several people expressed an interest in including the local workforce development board in the process of approving a proposal for funding from the SDF. One commenter suggested adding language to indicate a preference to proposals reflecting area coordination of workforce training efforts between community and technical colleges and local workforce development boards. Although the Commission believes that there will be great community interest in training proposals funded by the SDF, the legislation authorizing the fund supports customized training programs for specific employers who intend to place or retrain the trainees in particular jobs. Therefore, the SDF is limited to joint proposals between community and technical colleges and private businesses needing customized training, or the sponsorship of small and medium sized business consortia and is to be administered by the executive director of the Texas Workforce Commission. One commenter supported the inclusion of "employee committees" in the definition of Trade Unions. The Commission appreciates all comments in support of its rules. One commenter disagrees with the limitation of grants to community colleges and disagrees with the purpose of the fund as stated because it restricts opportunities for other institutions. The Commission believes that its rules regarding the use of the SDF are faithful to legislative intent for use of the fund. Several commenters suggested that the executive director should give additional consideration to applicants which leverage industry, educational institutions and government resources. These commenters urged that such could help encourage funding for strategic development and planning for high growth jobs. The Commission believes that the rules as drafted give the executive director wide latitude in the administration of the fund and in the evaluation of proposals that will support the fund's goals and objectives. Another commenter suggested having the director develop a formula for equitable statewide allocation and a manner to report annually to the commission on the distribution of the fund. Pursuant to statute, the SDF is available for use in all areas of the state to the greatest extent practicable. The executive director is authorized to use his best business judgment in determining which projects to fund and evaluating the regional economic impact of funding requests. One commenter suggested having the director develop an operating plan over the biennium. The Commission has authorized the executive director to allocate the funds available through the SDF throughout the biennium in any manner that furthers the goals and objectives of the fund. Several commenters questioned whether the fund was available to large businesses. The executive director may fund any customized training program as guided by the rules, regardless of the size of the employer. However, the statute authorizing the fund, limits use of the fund for the sponsorship of business consortia to groups comprised of small or medium-sized businesses. One individual felt that the purpose of the fund should be replaced with a goal or objective section. The Commission revised the purpose section and included a specific goal for the fund. Several respondents were supportive of the SDF rules as drafted and commended the Commission on the rules consistency with spirit and intent of legislation for flexibility and rapid response capability. The Commission appreciates those comments made in support of its efforts to draft rules that comply with the Legislature's intent. One commenter felt that a review, on a biennial basis, should be implemented to verify the appropriate use of state funds distributed to public community and technical colleges by the Texas Workforce Commission. The Legislature provided for a review of training programs use of the SDF by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The new rule is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Labor Code, sec.303. 001ff, as amended by Chapter 655, Acts of the 74th Legislature, 1995, which establishes the skills development fund; sec.302.002, which authorizes the Executive Director to obligate funds from the skills development fund in a manner consistent with rules adopted by the Commission for that program; and sec.301.061, which directs the Commission to adopt rules as necessary for the administration of Title 4 of the Labor Code. No other statute, article or code will be affected by this rule. sec.803.1. Requirements for Skills Development Fund. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the skills development fund is to enhance the ability of public community and technical colleges to respond to industry and workforce training needs and to develop incentives for public community and technical colleges to provide customized assessment and training in a timely and efficient manner. (b) Goal. The goal of the fund is to increase the skills level of the Texas workforce. (c) Uses of the Fund. (1) The skills development fund may be used by public community and technical colleges as start-up or emergency funds for either of the following: (A) to develop customized training programs for businesses and trade unions; and, (B) to sponsor small and medium-sized business networks and consortiums. (2) The skills development fund may not be used (A) to pay the training costs and related costs of an employer who relocates the employer's worksite from one place in Texas to another; or, (B) for the purchase of any proprietary or production equipment required for the training program of a single local employer; or, (C) for wages for trainees. (d) Definitions (1) Assessment-The evaluation of an employer's workforce needs and requirements. (2) Customized Training Program-A program designed by a private business or trade union in partnership with a public community or technical college for the purpose of providing specialized workforce training to employees or prospective employees of the private business or members of the trade union with the intent of either adding to the workforce or preventing a reduction in the workforce. (3) Director-The Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission. (4) Grant Recipient-Any public community or technical college awarded a grant from the skills development fund. (5) Non-Local Public Community and Technical College -A public or community technical college providing training outside of its local taxing district. (6) Prospective Private Partner-Any person, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, consortium, or private organization that submits a joint proposal for a customized training program in partnership with a public community or technical college. (7) Public Community Colleges-Two-year institutions primarily serving their local taxing districts and service areas in Texas and offering vocational, technical and academic courses for certification or associate degrees. Public community colleges also provide continuing education, remedial and compensatory education consistent with open-admission policies, and counseling and guidance programs. (8) Public Technical Colleges-Coeducational institutions of higher education offering courses of study in vocational and technical education, for certification or associate degrees. (9) Trade Union-Any organization, agency, or employee committee, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. (10) Training Provider-Any public community or technical college that provides training; or, any person, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, consortium, governmental subdivision or public or private organization with whom a public community or technical college has subcontracted to provide training. (e) Program Administration. (1) Grant Administration. The director is responsible for the distribution of money from the skills development fund. The director may designate an employee or employees of the Texas Workforce Commission who are knowledgeable in the administration of grants to administer the program. The director is not required to fund all proposals for customized training programs that are submitted. The director may allocate the use of funds throughout the biennium in any manner that in his judgment furthers the goals and objectives of the fund. The director may limit the amount of funds awarded under any specific grant. (2) Procedure for requesting funding, evaluating proposals, administering the contract, and evaluating the training program. (A) A prospective private partner and a public community or technical college shall present to the director a joint proposal requesting funding for a customized training program or other appropriate use of the fund. The public community or technical college that is a partner to a joint training proposal for a grant from the Skills Development Fund may be non-local, but the training proposal must not duplicate a training program available in the local workforce development area in which the prospective private partner is located. (B) Proposals should be written, but may be verbal if circumstances require, and should contain the following information: (i) a brief outline of the proposed training program; (ii) a brief description of the measurable training objectives; (iii) a budget summary, including anticipated program costs and resource contributions; (iv) an outline of the agreement between the prospective private partner and the public community or technical college; (v) a statement explaining the basis for the determination that there is an actual or projected labor shortage in the occupation in which the proposed training program will be provided that is not being met by an existing institution or program in the local workforce development area; (vi) a statement describing the prospective private partner's equal opportunity employment policy; and, (vii) any additional information as requested by the director. (C) The director shall consider the following information when evaluating proposals: (i) the number of proposed jobs created or preserved; (ii) the proposed initial wages for trainees who complete the program; (iii) the prevailing wage for that occupation in the local labor market; (iv) the proposed wage increase over duration of employment; (v) the proposed employment benefits; (vi) the proposed duration of employment, favoring longer duration; (vii) the transferability of skills gained through training; (viii) the nature of skills acquired through training; (ix) a comparison of program costs per trainee to the public community or technical college's costs for similar instruction; (x) any resources that the prospective private partner is willing to commit to the project; (xi) the financial stability of the prospective private partner; and, (xii) the regional economic impact. (D) The director shall evaluate each proposal considering the above-listed factors along with any other factors unique to the circumstances which the director determines are appropriate. If the director determines in his best business judgment that a proposal is appropriate for funding through the skills development fund, the director shall enter into a contract with the grant recipient on behalf of the Commission. (E) The grant recipient shall serve as fiscal agent, shall administer the contract and, in cooperation with the private partner and any separate training provider, submit financial and performance reports to the Commission. (F) Contract Completion. No later than 90 days following completion of a customized training program, a public community or technical college that is a party to an executed contract shall provide the Commission with the following information: (i) fiscal data needed for independent verification and/or copies of any audits performed on the customized training program; (ii) an evaluation of the number of jobs created/preserved and the wages paid as a result of the training program along with a description of the methodology used to prepare the evaluation; (iii) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the training program in furthering the outcomes considered by the director along with the methodology used to prepare the evaluation; (iv) average cost per program trainee; (v) the identity and social security number of all trainees; and, (vi) a detailed breakdown reflecting the expenditure of funds received. (G) Final payment under a contract will be contingent upon the director's evaluation of the program using the outcome objectives specified in the contract. (3) The Texas Workforce Commission will inform the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board that a grant from the skills development fund has been made to a public community or technical college to provide a customized training program in order that it may conduct its review of the training program pursuant to sec.303.004, Labor Code, V.T.C.A. (4) The director shall promote the following program objectives when administering the skills development fund: (A) the growth of industry and emerging occupations in Texas; (B) creation and attraction of high value, high skill jobs for Texas; (C) retention of jobs by providing retraining in response to new or changing technology; and, (D) expansion of the state's capacity to respond to workforce training needs. This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 8, 1996. TRD-9604913 J. Ferris Duhon Legal Counsel Texas Workforce Commission Effective date: April 29, 1996 Proposal publication date: February 27, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 463-8812