IN ADDITION

Office of the Attorney General

Texas Health and Safety Code and Texas Water Code Settlement Notice

The State of Texas gives notice of the following proposed resolution of an environmental enforcement action under the Texas Water Code and the Texas Health and Safety Code. Before the State may enter into a voluntary settlement agreement, pursuant to Section 7.110 of the Texas Water Code, the State shall permit the public to comment in writing. The Attorney General will consider any written comments and may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the law.

Case Title and Court: State of Texas v. Larry Cathey and Waco Wood Recycle & Materials, LLC, Cause No. D-1-GN-17-000341; in the 98th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas.

Background: Defendants operated a recycling facility in Waco, Texas, that created mulch and compost from raw wood, and in the process, allegedly violated the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act and rules promulgated thereunder by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ"). Specifically, Defendants were cited for their failure to maintain an appropriate setback distance for the stored material for recycling at the facility; failure to maintain appropriate financial assurance; and failure to obtain TCEQ authorization to operate a recycling facility. In addition, the rock crushing operations at the facility allegedly led to the unauthorized emission of air contaminants, in violation of the Texas Clean Air Act and TCEQ rules. After the State filed suit, Defendants have ceased the recycling operations and removed the rock crusher from the facility.

Proposed Settlement: The parties propose an Agreed Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (AFJ) which provides for an award of civil penalties of $10,000 from Defendants, jointly and severally, plus attorney's fees to the State in the amount of $3,000. The AFJ also requires Defendants to cease accepting recyclable material for financial compensation and municipal solid waste at the facility. Defendants will submit documentation to TCEQ demonstrating their compliance with the AFJ.

For a complete description of the proposed settlement, the AFJ should be reviewed in its entirety. The proposed judgment may be examined at the Office of the Attorney General, 300 W. 15th Street, 10th Floor, Austin, Texas 78701, and copies may be obtained in person or by mail for the cost of copying. Requests for copies of the proposed judgment and settlement, and written comments on the same, should be directed to Ekaterina DeAngelo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Texas Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, MC 066, Austin, Texas 78711-2548, (512) 463-2012, facsimile (512) 320-0911. Written comments must be received within 30 days of publication of this notice to be considered.

TRD-201903622

Ryan L. Bangert

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

Filed: October 8, 2019


Comptroller of Public Accounts

List of States with Resident Bidder Preferences

The list of state preference statutes and regulations below is published pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2252.003. This list is current as of July 16, 2019, and may be used by Texas purchasing personnel in applying the "reciprocal preference" to bidders from other states. See Texas Government Code, §2252.002 and §2252.003(b). A "reciprocal preference" is a purchasing preference under which a purchasing entity gives a preference to its in-state bidders equivalent to what another state would give to its in-state bidders against a bidder from another state.

In compiling the list of other states' preference laws and regulations, citations to "in-state" preference programs similar to Texas Human Resource Code, Chapter 122 (Purchasing from People with Disabilities) and Texas Government Code, Chapter 497, (Industry and Agriculture; Labor of Inmates) have been omitted. Although these preferences theoretically favor "in state" bidders, there is no basis for applying reciprocal preference based on those state statutes since Texas has similar provisions. Citations to other preferences which do not discriminate based upon state of origin, such as recycled products preferences, have also been omitted.

If state purchasers, agency counsel, or other staff have questions or concerns regarding the list or its application, please contact the Statewide Procurement Division of the comptroller at (512) 463-3034.

ALABAMA

ALABAMA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Alabama Code, §41-16-57. In the purchase of or contract for personal property or contractual services, preference is given to commodities produced in Alabama or sold by Alabama persons, firms, or corporations provided there is no sacrifice or loss in price or quality.

Alabama Code, §41-16-27. In the purchase of or contract for personal property or contractual services, preference is given to commodities produced in Alabama or sold by Alabama persons, firms, or corporations provided there is no sacrifice or loss in price or quality. Preference is given to an Alabama business entity (defined as any sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation organized in the State of Alabama) in contractual services and purchases of personal property regarding the athletic department, food services, and transit services negotiated on behalf of two-year and four-year colleges and universities awarded without competitive bidding, unless the product or service supplied by a foreign corporation is substantially different or superior to the product or service supplied by the Alabama business entity.

Alabama Code, §23-1-51. All motor fuels, oils, greases and lubricants bought by or for the State Department of Transportation for use in the construction, maintenance and repair of the county roads and bridges in counties in which the construction, maintenance and repair of the county roads and bridges have been transferred to the State Department of Transportation shall be purchased from vendors and suppliers residing in the county where such motor fuels, oils, greases, and lubricants are to be used.

Alabama Code, §41-16-50. If a bid is received for personal property or services to be purchased or contracted for from a person, firm, or corporation deemed to be a responsible bidder, having a place of business within a "local preference zone" where a county, a municipality, or an instrumentality thereof is the awarding authority, and the bid is no more than 5.0% greater than the bid of the lowest responsible bidder, the awarding authority may award the contract to the resident responsible bidder.

Alabama Code, §41-16-20. If a bid is received for labor, services, work, or for the purchase or lease of materials, equipment, supplies, other personal property or other nonprofessional services involving $15,000 or more from a person, firm, or corporation deemed to be a responsible bidder and a preferred vendor where any state higher education institution, department, board, bureau, commission, committee, institution, corporation, authority, or office is the awarding authority and the bid is no more than 5.0% greater than the bid of the lowest responsible bidder, the awarding authority may award the contract to the preferred vendor. Preferred vendors are prioritized, as to the product, by producing or manufacturing within Alabama, having an assembly or distribution facility in Alabama, and having a certain organizational structure organized under Alabama law and maintaining a retail outlet or service center in Alabama for at least a year.

ALABAMA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Alabama Code, §39-3-5. Reciprocal preference provided in public contracts in which state, county, or municipal funds are utilized, except contracts funded in whole or in part with funds received from a federal agency.

ALASKA

ALASKA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Alaska Statutes, §35.27.020. Use of state cultural resources and selection of Alaska resident artists for commission of art works for public buildings and facilities is encouraged.

Alaska Statutes, §36.30.321. "Alaska bidder" is defined (in A.S. 36.30.990(2)) as a person who holds a current Alaska business license; submits a bid for goods, services, or construction under the name on the Alaska business license; has maintained a place of business in the state for at least six months prior to the bid; and is incorporated or qualified to do business in Alaska, is an Alaska resident if a sole proprietor, is organized under specific Alaska law and all members are Alaska residents if a LLC, is a partnership under specific Alaska law and all partners are Alaska residents; and, if a joint venture, is composed entirely of ventures that otherwise qualify. A 5.0% preference is applied to the price in the bid of an Alaska bidder. Except as to preferences provided in this section regarding persons with disabilities, a 15% preference is applied to the price in the bid of an Alaska bidder offering services through an employment program. A 5.0% preference is applied to the price in the bid of an Alaska bidder that is also an Alaska domestic insurer if the procurement is for an insurance-related contract. A 10% preference is applied to a price in the bid of an Alaska bidder that is owned by persons with disabilities (the sole proprietor, each partner of an partnership under Alaska law, each member of an LLC organized under Alaska law, each individual owner of corporation wholly owned by individuals, or a joint venture composed of ventures that otherwise qualify). A 5.0% preference not to exceed $5,000 is applied to the price in the bid of an Alaska bidder that is also a "qualifying entity," which is defined as a sole proprietorship owned by an Alaska veteran, a partnership or LLC under Alaska law if a majority of partners or members, respectively, are Alaska veterans, or a corporation wholly owned by individuals of whom a majority of Alaska veterans. This section does not apply to solicitations or contracts for lease space under Alaska Statute, §36.30.080, to procurements under Alaska Statute, §§36.30.305 -- 36.30.310 (limited competition procurements, innovative procurements, and emergency procurements) or, except as provided otherwise by regulation under Alaska Statute, §36.30.320, to small procurements under Alaska Statute, §36.30.320 (supplies or services of $100,000 or less, construction of $200,000 or less, and lease of space of 7,000 square feet or less).

Alaska Statutes, §36.15.010. Whenever practicable, only timber, lumber, and manufactured lumber products originating in Alaska from local forests shall be used when such products are required in a project financed by state money.

Alaska Statutes, §36.15.050. Agricultural products harvested in the state receive a price preference of not less than seven percent nor more than fifteen percent when purchased by the state or by a school district that receives state money. Fisheries products harvested or processed within the jurisdiction of the state receive a 7.0%-15.0% price preference when purchased by the state or by a school district that receives state money.

Alaska Statutes, §36.30.322. Only timber, lumber, and manufactured lumber products originating in Alaska from Alaska forests may be procured by an agency or used in construction projects of an agency unless the manufacturers and suppliers who have notified the commissioner of commerce, community, and economic development of their willingness to manufacture or supply Alaska forest products have been given reasonable notice of the forest product procurement needs and no such manufacturer or supplier is the low bidder after all applicable preferences have been applied to the price of the forest product.

Alaska Statutes, §36.30.324. Alaska products shall be used whenever practicable in procurements for an agency. Recycled Alaska products shall be used when they are of comparable quality, of equivalent price, and appropriate for the intended use.

Alaska Statutes, §36.30.328. In bid evaluation, a bid designating use of Alaska products identified in specifications and designated as Class I, Class II, or Class III state products under Alaska Statutes, §36.30.322 is decreased by the corresponding percentage of value under Alaska Statutes, §36.30.322.

Alaska Statutes, §36.30.332. Materials and supplies with value added in Alaska that are more than 25% and less than 50% produced or manufactured in Alaska are Class I products, which are given a 3.0% preference in bid evaluation. Those that are 50% or more and less than 75% produced and manufactured in Alaska are Class II products, which are given a 5.0% preference in bid evaluation. Those that are 75% or more produced and manufactured in Alaska are Class III products, which are given a 7.0% preference in bid evaluation.

Alaska Statutes, §36.30.336. The preferences provided in Alaska Statutes, §36.15.050 and Alaska Statutes, §§36.30.321 - 36.30.338 are cumulative.

Alaska Administrative Code, Title 2, §12.260. Except for solicitations or contracts for lease space under Alaska Statutes, §36.30.080, in evaluating price, the proposed price of an Alaska bidder is reduced by 5.0% and all other applicable preferences are applied. Except for solicitations or contracts for lease space under Alaska Statutes, §36.30.080, if a numerical rating system is used, an Alaska offeror's preference of at least 10% of the total possible rating system value must be assigned to an Alaska bidder's proposal.

ARIZONA

ARIZONA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Arizona Revised Statutes, §34-242. Preference is given to bidders on contracts paid for from public funds who furnish materials produced or manufactured in Arizona to construct a building or structure, or additions to or alterations of existing buildings or structures, to any political subdivision of Arizona, as long as the bid of a competing bidder is less than 5.0% lower. Bidders cannot claim a preference pursuant to both §34-242 and §34-243 and may not receive more than 5.0% total preference.

Arizona Revised Statutes, §34-243. Preference is given to bidders on contracts paid for from public funds who furnish materials supplied by a dealer who is a resident of Arizona and who paid property taxes for no fewer than the preceding two years to construct a building or structure, or additions to or alterations of existing buildings or structures, for any political subdivision of Arizona, whenever the bid of a competing bidder is less than 5.0% lower than that of the resident dealer.

ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Arkansas Code, §19-11-259. For projects designed to provide utility needs of a county or municipality, counties, municipalities and political subdivisions of Arkansas must accept the lowest qualified bid from a "firm resident in Arkansas," which is an individual, partnership, association, or corporation, domestic or foreign, who maintains at least one staffed office in Arkansas and has paid certain Arkansas taxes for not fewer than the two preceding years. The preference applies only if the bid does not exceed the lowest qualified nonresident firm bid by more than 5.0% and one or more "firms resident in Arkansas" made a written claim for preference. The preference is calculated by deducting 5.0% from the total of each bid of the Arkansas dealers who claimed the preference. If the resulting bid of any Arkansas bidder is lower than the nonresident firm, the award must be made to the Arkansas firm with the lowers bid, regardless of whether that firm claimed the preference. This provision does not apply when federal purchasing laws or bidding preferences conflict for water and wastewater utility work for federal military purposes

Arkansas Code, §19-11-304. In bidding for the sale of products for use by the state, preference is given to private industries located within Arkansas and employing Arkansas taxpayers over out-of-state penal institutions employing convict labor.

Arkansas Code, §19-11-305. In all bidding procedures involving a bid by at least one out-of-state penal institution and a bid by at least one private industry located within Arkansas, a preference is given to the sole or lowest Arkansas bidder if not underbid by more than 5.0%, as provided in Arkansas Code, §19-11-259, by a nonresident private industry bidder or not by more than 15% by an out-of-state correctional institution.

Arkansas Code, §19-11-803. In evaluating qualifications of firms for professional services, each firm's proximity to, and familiarity with, the area in which the project is located shall be considered.

CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

California Government Code, §4361. Preference is given in contracts and purchases for any public use to agricultural aircraft operators who are California residents if their bids do not exceed by more than 5.0% the lowest bids of nonresident agricultural aircraft operators.

California Government Code, §15813.3. In making contracts for the purchase, lease, or creation of works of art for California state buildings, preference may be given to artists who are California residents.

California Government Code, §§14835-14843. In solicitations where an award is to be made to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications, the preference to small business and microbusiness is 5.0% to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications. Definition of "small business" includes requirement that the principal office of the business is located in California, and that the businesses' officers are domiciled in California. The preference to non-small business bidders that provide for small business or microbusiness subcontractor participation is subject to rules and regulations of the Department of General Services and limited to a maximum of 5.0% to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications. In solicitations where an award is to be made to the highest scored bidder based on evaluation factors in addition to price, the preference to small business or microbusiness is 5.0% of the highest responsible bidder's total score. The preference to non-small business bidders that provide for small business or microbusiness subcontractor participation is subject to rules and regulations of the Department of General Services and limited to a maximum 5.0% of the highest responsible bidder's total score. The maximum small business preference shall not exceed $50,000 for any bid and the combined cost for preferences granted by law shall not exceed $100,000.

California Government Code, §4530-4535.3. Preferences are provided for California based companies submitting bids or proposals for state contracts to be performed at worksites in distressed areas by persons with a high risk of unemployment when the contract is for goods or services in excess of $100,000. Sections are discussed in more detail below.

California Government Code, §4533. When the state prepares a solicitation for contracts for goods in excess of $100,000, except a contract in which the worksite is fixed by the provisions of the contract, a preference of 5.0% is awarded to California-based companies for which at least 50% of the labor hours required to manufacture the goods and perform the contract shall be accomplished at a worksite or worksites located in a distressed area.

California Government Code, §4533.1. Where a bidder complies with §4533 or the worksite(s) where at least 50% of the labor required for contract performance is within commuting distance of a distressed area, percentage preferences are awarded for bidders that agree to hire persons with high risk of unemployment. The preference percentage is based on the percentage of such persons the bidder agrees to hire as a percentage of its work force during the period of contract performance: 1.0% preference for hiring of 5.0% to 9.0% of the bidder's workforce, 2.0% preference for hiring of 10% to 14% of the bidder's workforce, 3.0% for hiring of 15% to 19% of the bidder's workforce, and 4.0% preference for hiring of 20% or more of the bidder's workforce.

California Government Code, §4534. In evaluating proposals for contracts for services in excess of $100,000, except if the worksite is fixed by the provisions of the contract, a preference of 5.0% is awarded to California based companies for which no less than 90% of the total labor hours required for the contract is performed at a worksite or worksites located in a distressed area. Where a bidder complies with the provisions of subdivision (a), the state shall award the additional preferences as set forth in Section 4533.1 as appropriate.

California Government Code, §4535.2. The maximum preference a bidder may be awarded is 15%, not to exceed $50,000 or, if combined with other preferences and provisions of law, not to exceed $100,000. Small business bidders qualified in accordance with §14838 shall have precedence over non-small business bidders such that application of bidder preferences for non-small business bidders shall not result in denial of award to a small business bidder when the small business bidder is the lowest responsible bidder or when the small business bidder is eligible for the award due to the 5.0% small business bidder preference.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.101. When a state agency prepares an invitation for bid (IFB) for a contract for the purchase of goods exceeding $100,000, except a contract where the worksite will be fixed by the terms of the contract, the IFB must provide for a preference of 5.0% for California-based companies for which no less than 50% of the labor required to perform the contract shall be accomplished at a worksite or worksites located in a program area.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.102. Additional preferences awarded to bidder complying with §1896.71 (Commercially Useful Function) from 1.0% to 4.0% in accordance with California Government Code, §7095(b) if bidder to hire the specified percentage of persons living in a high intensity unemployment area or enterprise zone qualified employees during term of contract performance.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.104. When a state agency prepares an IFB or RFP for a contract for services exceeding $100,000, except an IFB or RFP where the worksite will be fixed by the terms of the contract, the IFB or RFP must provide for a 5.0% preference for California-based companies that shall perform the contract at a worksite or worksites located in a program area.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.105. Additional preferences awarded to bidder complying with §1896.74 (Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Participation) from 1.0% to 4.0% in accordance with California Government Code, §7095(b) if bidder to hire the specified percentage of persons living in a high intensity unemployment area or enterprise zone qualified employees during term of contract performance.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.6. Small businesses granted the 5.0% small business preference when non-small business has submitted lowest-priced, highest scored bid ranked pursuant to §1896.8. Non-small businesses granted a 5.0% preference when non-small business has submitted lowest-priced, highest scored bid ranked pursuant to §1896.8 and the non-small business has included in its bid a commitment to subcontract at least 25% of its net bid price with one or more small business(es).

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.8. When awarding to lowest responsible bidder, the 5.0% small business or non-small business subcontractor preference is computed from the lowest responsive and responsible non-small or non-small subcontractor business bidders bid and subtracted from the bid amount of the small business or non-small business subcontractor, as applicable. When awarding based on highest scored proposal with evaluation weighing factors other than price, the 5.0% small business or non-small subcontractor business preference is limited to bids deemed responsive and of acceptable quality and is computed as a number that represents preference point as specified in the solicitation. The amount of small business or non-small business subcontractor preferences awarded on a single bid shall not exceed $50,000 and the combined cost of the small business or non-small business subcontractor preference and preferences awarded pursuant to other law shall not exceed $100,000.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.12. In order to be certified as a small business for these preference statutes, a business must be independently owned and operated, have its principal office in California, and its officers, managers, partners, all members of an LLC, or owners be residents of California. The business must also not be dominant in its field of operations and; either (1) has 100 or less employees and annual gross receipts of 15 million dollars or less averaged over three years, or (2) a manufacturer that has 100 or less employees.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.31. When a state agency prepares an IFB for a contract for purchase of goods in excess of $100,000, except a contract where the worksite will be fixed by the terms of the contract, the IFB shall provide for a 5.0% preference for California based companies for which no less than 50% of labor shall be accomplished at a worksite or worksites located in a distressed area.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.32. Additional preferences from 1.0% to 4.0% in accordance with California Government Code, §4533.1 shall be awarded where a bidder complies with rule 1896.31 if the bidder will hire the specified percentage of persons with high risk of unemployment during the period of contract performance.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.34. When a state agency prepares an IFB or RFP for a contract for services in excess of $100,000, except an IFB or RFP where the worksite will be fixed by the terms of the contract, the IFB or RFP shall provide for a 5.0% price preference for California based companies that will perform the contract at a worksite or worksites located in a distressed area.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §1896.35. Additional preferences from one to four percent in accordance with California Government Code, §4534.1 shall be awarded where a bidder complies with rule 1896.34 if the bidder will hire the specified percentage of persons with high risk of unemployment during the period of contract performance.

CALIFORNIA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

California Public Contract Code, §6107. When awarding contracts for construction, a state agency shall grant a California company a reciprocal preference as against a nonresident contractor from any state that gives or requires a preference to be given contractors from that state on its public entity construction contracts. The amount of the reciprocal preference shall be equal to the amount of the preference applied by the state of the nonresident contractor with the lowest responsive bid, except where the resident contractor is eligible for a California small business preference, in which case the preference applied shall be the greater of the two, but not both. If the contractor submitting the lowest responsive bid is not a California company and has its principal place of business in any state that gives or requires the giving of a preference on its public entity construction contracts to contractors from that state, and if a California company has also submitted a responsive bid, and, with the benefit of the reciprocal preference, the California company's bid is equal to or less than the original lowest responsive bid, the public entity shall award the contract to the California company at its submitted bid price.

COLORADO

COLORADO RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Colorado Revised Statutes, §24-103-907. When purchasing agricultural products, contract shall be awarded to resident bidder who produces products in Colorado if of equal quality, suitable for required use, sufficient in quantity, and bid or quoted price either does not exceed or reasonably exceeds lowest bid or price quoted for products produced outside Colorado. Whether a bid or quoted price "reasonably exceeds" a lowest bid or price quoted is determined based on the existing budget without further supplemental or additional appropriation.

Colorado Revised Statutes, §8-18-101. When an IFB for a commodities contract results in a low tie bid, a resident bidder is given preference over a nonresident bidder.

Colorado Revised Statutes, §43-1-1406. In awarding a transportation project adjusted score design-build contract, greater value is assigned to a proposal in proportion to the extent the proposal commits to using Colorado residents to perform work on the transportation project. However, the preference is suspended to the extent necessary to prevent denial of federal moneys or to eliminate inconsistency with federal law resulting from application of the preference.

Colorado Revised Statutes, §24-30-1403. In the selection process for professionals required on projects to furnish professional services for which fees equal to or exceed $25,000, Colorado firms are given preference when qualifications appear to be equal. This preference does not apply to the state board of land commissioners in connection with contract expenditures from the board's investment and development fund or the commercial real property operating fund.

Colorado Revised Statutes, §24-103-902. When low tie bids are received in response to an IFB for a supply contract from a resident bidder and a nonresident bidder, the resident bidder is given preference. The preference is suspended to the extent necessary to prevent denial of federal moneys or to eliminate inconsistency with federal law resulting from application of the preference.

1 Code of Colorado Regulations, Article 111, R-24-111-102-02. In event of tie bids for commodities, preference is given to resident bidder.

COLORADO RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Colorado Revised Statutes, §24-103-96. Except as provided in §8-18-103 or when an IFB for commodities results in a low tie bid, in contracts for commodities or services awarded to a bidder, a Colorado resident bidder is allowed a preference against a nonresident bidder equal to the preference given or required by the state in which the nonresident bidder is a resident. If an IFB for commodities results in a low tie bid, §24-103-202.5 applies.

Colorado Revised Statutes, §24-103-908. When awarding a construction contract for a public project, a Colorado resident bidder is given a preference against a nonresident bidder from another state or foreign country equal to the preference given or required by the state or foreign country in which the nonresident bidder is a resident. This section is suspended to the extent necessary to prevent denial of federal moneys or to eliminate inconsistency with federal law resulting from application of the preference.

CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Connecticut General Statutes, §4a-59. All other factors being equal, preference is given to supplies, materials and equipment produced, assembled or manufactured in the state, and services originating and provided in the state.

Connecticut General Statutes, §4a-51. When purchasing dairy products, poultry, eggs, beef, pork, lamb, farm-raised fish, fruits, or vegetables, the Commissioner of Administrative Services shall give preference to those items grown or produced in Connecticut when comparable in cost to those that have not been grown or produced in Connecticut.

CONNECTICUT RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Connecticut General Statutes, §4e-48. State contracting agencies shall add a percent increase to the original bid of a nonresident bidder equal to the percent, if any, of the preference given to such nonresident bidder in the state in which such nonresident bidder resides. If, after application of such percent increase, the bidder that submits the lowest responsible qualified bid is a resident bidder, the state contracting agency shall award the contract to the resident bidder provided the resident bidder agrees to meet the original lowest responsible qualified bid. A "nonresident bidder" means a business that is not a Connecticut resident and a "resident bidder" means a business that has paid unemployment or income taxes in Connecticut during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding bid submission and has a business address in Connecticut.

DELAWARE

DELAWARE RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Delaware Code, Title 29, §6962. Preference in employment is given for Delaware laborers, workers or mechanics in the construction of all public works for the State of Delaware or any political subdivision thereof, or by firms contracting with the State or any political subdivision thereof. Each public works contract for the construction of public works for the State of Delaware or any political subdivision thereof shall contain a stipulation that any person, company or corporation who violates this section shall pay a penalty equal to the amount of compensation paid to any person in violation of this section.

FLORIDA

FLORIDA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Florida Statutes, §287.082. Whenever two or more competitive sealed bids are received, one or more of which relates to commodities manufactured, grown, or produced within Florida, and whenever all things stated in such received bids are equal with respect to price, quality, and service, such commodities are given preference.

Florida Statutes, §287.092. Any foreign manufacturing company with a factory in Florida employing over 200 employees working in Florida shall have preference over any other foreign company when price, quality, and service are the same, regardless of where the product is manufactured.

Florida Statutes, §255.04. Every official board in Florida charged with erecting or constructing any public administrative or institutional building shall give preference in purchase of material and in letting of contracts for construction to material men, contractors, builders, architects, and laborers who reside in Florida when such material can be purchased or services employed at no greater expense than purchasing from, letting contract to, or employing a person residing outside of Florida.

Florida Statutes, §283.35. In awarding a contract to have materials printed, preference is given to the lowest responsible and responsive vendor with a principal place of business in Florida. The preference is 5.0% if the lowest bid is submitted by a vendor with a principal place of business outside of Florida and the printing can be performed in Florida at a quality level comparable to that from the vendor submitting the lowest bid located outside Florida.

Florida Statutes, §295.187. When considering two or more bids for commodities or services which are equal with respect to all relevant considerations, a state agency shall award such procurement or contract to a certified veteran business enterprise, status which requires domicile in Florida. If a veteran business enterprise entitled to a preference under this section and one or more businesses entitled to this or another vendor preference submit bids, proposals, or replies for procurement of commodities or contractual services which are equal with respect to all relevant considerations, a state agency shall award to the business with the smallest net worth.

Florida Administrative Code, §25-25.009. Preference is given to bidders located within Florida if when awarding contracts, whenever commodities bid can be purchased at no greater expense and of comparable quality level to those by a bidder located outside of Florida. This is only applicable to the Florida Public Service Commission.

FLORIDA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Florida Statutes, §287.084. When an agency, university, college, school district, or other political subdivision of the state is required to make purchases of personal property through competitive solicitation and the lowest responsible and responsive bid, proposal, or reply is by a vendor whose principal place of business is in a state or political subdivision thereof which grants a preference for the purchase of such personal property to a person whose principal place of business is in such state, then preference is awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive vendor having a principal place of business within Florida, which preference is equal to the preference granted by the state or political subdivision thereof in which the lowest responsible and responsive vendor has its principal place of business. In a competitive solicitation in which the lowest bid is submitted by a vendor whose principal place of business is located outside Florida and that state does not grant a preference in competitive solicitation to vendors having a principal place of business in that state, the preference to the lowest responsible and responsive vendor having a principal place of business in Florida shall be 5.0%.

GEORGIA

GEORGIA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Georgia Code, §8-5-5. In purchases, leases, or commissioning of works of art in state buildings, preference may be given to artists who are Georgia residents.

Georgia Code, §50-5-60. When contracting for or purchasing supplies, materials, equipment, or agricultural products, excluding beverages for immediate consumption, preference is given as far as may be reasonable and practicable to such supplies, materials, equipment, and agricultural products as may be manufactured or produced in Georgia, but the preference shall not sacrifice quality. In determining the reasonableness of such preference where the value of such a contract exceeds $100,000, consideration shall be given to information submitted by the bidder which may include the bidder's estimate of the multiplier effect on gross state domestic product and the effect on public revenues of the state and the effect on public revenues of political subdivisions resulting from acceptance of a bid or offer to sell Georgia manufactured or produced goods as opposed to out-of-state manufactured or produced goods.

Georgia Code, §50-5-60.4. Entities responsible for public land maintenance must give preference to the use of compost and mulch in all road building, land maintenance, and land development activities. Preference is given to compost and mulch made in the State of Georgia from organics which are source separated from the state's nonhazardous solid waste stream.

Georgia Code, §50-5-61. State and local authorities shall give preference in purchasing and contracting, as far as may be reasonable and practicable, to supplies, materials, equipment, and agricultural products, excluding beverages for immediate consumption, manufactured or produced in Georgia, but the preference shall not sacrifice quality. In determining the reasonableness of such preference where the value of such a contract exceeds $100,000, consideration shall be given to information submitted by the bidder which may include the bidder's estimate of the multiplier effect on gross state domestic product and the effect on public revenues of the state and the effect on public revenues of political subdivisions resulting from acceptance of a bid or offer to sell Georgia manufactured or produced goods as opposed to out-of-state manufactured or produced goods.

Georgia Code, §50-5-63. Contracts for the publicly funded construction of, addition to, or repair or renovation of any facility shall not be let unless the contract contains a stipulation providing that the contractor or any subcontractor shall use exclusively Georgia forest products when forest products are to be used if Georgia forest products are available.

GEORGIA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Georgia Code, §50-5-60. Resident Georgia vendors are to be granted the same preference over vendors resident in another state in the same manner, on the same basis, and to the same extent that preference is granted in awarding bids for the same goods or services by such other state, or by any local government of such state, to vendors resident therein over resident Georgia vendors.

HAWAII

HAWAII RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §201-4. The department of business, economic development and tourism may contract with qualified private and public agencies, associations, firms, or individuals within or without Hawaii provided that preference is given to contractors within Hawaii and that preference is given to qualified parties who agree to match funds as provided by statute and rules.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §103D-1002. Where a bid or proposal contains both Hawaii and non-Hawaii products, for the purpose of selecting the lowest bid or purchase price only, the price or bid offered for a Hawaii product item shall be decreased by subtracting 10% for Class I Hawaii product items bid or offered, or 15% for Class II Hawaii product items bid or offered. The lowest total bid or proposal, taking the preference into consideration, shall be awarded the contract unless the bid or offer provides for additional award criteria. The contract amount of any contract awarded, however, shall be the amount of the bid or price offered, exclusive of the preferences. "Hawaii products" is defined in §103D-1001 as products that are mined, excavated, produced, manufactured, raised, or grown in Hawaii and where the cost of the Hawaii input towards the product exceeds 50% of the total cost of the product, provided that where the value of the Hawaii materials input exceeds 50% of the total cost, the product is classified as Class I and where any agricultural, aquacultural, horticultural, silvicultural, floricultural, or livestock product is raised, grown, or harvested in Hawaii, the product is classified as Class II.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §103D-1003. All bids submitted for printing, binding, or stationery in which all work will be performed in-state shall receive a 15% preference for purposes of bid evaluation. Where bids are for work performed in-state and out-of-state, for the purpose of selecting the lowest bid submitted only, the bid amount for work performed out-of-state shall be increased by 15%.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §103D-1006. In any expenditure of public funds for software development, the use of Hawaii software development businesses shall be preferred. For the purpose of selecting the lowest bid or purchase price only, the bid or offer by a non-Hawaii software development business shall be increased by a preference percentage pursuant to rules adopted by the policy board.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-5. With regard to the preference for Hawaii products, should more than one preference allowed by statute apply, the evaluated price shall be based on application of applicable preferences in the order specified with preferences applied to the original prices: (1) Hawaii products list, pursuant to section 103D-1002, HRS; (2) Tax adjustment for tax exempt offerors, pursuant to section 103D-1008, HRS; (3) Preferred use of Hawaii software development businesses, pursuant to section 103D-1006, HRS; (4) Recycled products, pursuant to section 103D-1005, HRS; (5) Reciprocal preference, pursuant to section 103D-1004, HRS; (6) Printing, binding, and stationery work within the State, pursuant to section 103D-1003, HRS; (7) Preference for persons with disabilities, pursuant to section 103D-1009, HRS. The sum of the preferences, where applicable, shall be added to the original price, except that preferences (1) and (4) shall be subtracted from the Hawaii products or recycled products price.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-12. With regard to application of the preference for printing, binding, and stationery work, should more than one preference allowed by statute apply, the evaluated price shall be based on application of applicable preferences in the order specified with preferences applied to the original prices: (1) Hawaii products list, pursuant to section 103D-1002, HRS; (2) Tax adjustment for tax exempt offerors, pursuant to section 103D-1008, HRS; (3) Preferred use of Hawaii software development businesses, pursuant to section 103D-1006, HRS; (4) Recycled products, pursuant to section 103D-1005, HRS; (5) Reciprocal preference, pursuant to section 103D-1004, HRS; (6) Printing, binding, and stationery work within the State, pursuant to section 103D-1003, HRS; (7) Preference for persons with disabilities, pursuant to section 103D-1009, HRS. The sum of the preferences, where applicable, shall be added to the original price, except that preferences (1) and (4) shall be subtracted from the Hawaii products or recycled products price.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-18. With regard to the application of the reciprocal preference, should more than one preference allowed by statute apply, the evaluated price shall be based on application of applicable preferences in the order specified with preferences applied to the original prices: (1) Hawaii products list, pursuant to section 103D-1002, HRS; (2) Tax adjustment for tax exempt offerors, pursuant to section 103D-1008, HRS; (3) Preferred use of Hawaii software development businesses, pursuant to section 103D-1006, HRS; (4) Recycled products, pursuant to section 103D-1005, HRS; (5) Reciprocal preference, pursuant to section 103D-1004, HRS; (6) Printing, binding, and stationery work within the State, pursuant to section 103D-1003, HRS; (7) Preference for persons with disabilities, pursuant to section 103D-1009, HRS. The sum of the preferences, where applicable, shall be added to the original price, except that preferences (1) and (4) shall be subtracted from the Hawaii products or recycled products price.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-34. With regard to the application of the software development business preference, a price preference will be given to Hawaii software development businesses in the amount of 10% of the price, and will be used for evaluation. When a solicitation specifies that because of federal requirements, the Hawaii software development business preference will not be considered, the price preference shall not apply.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-35. With regard to the application of the software development business preference, should more than one preference allowed by statute apply, the evaluated price shall be based on application of applicable preferences in the order specified with preferences applied to the original prices: (1) Hawaii products list, pursuant to section 103D-1002, HRS; (2) Tax adjustment for tax exempt offerors, pursuant to section 103D-1008, HRS; (3) Preferred use of Hawaii software development businesses, pursuant to section 103D-1006, HRS; (4) Recycled products, pursuant to section 103D-1005, HRS; (5) Reciprocal preference, pursuant to section 103D-1004, HRS; (6) Printing, binding, and stationery work within the State, pursuant to section 103D-1003, HRS; (7) Preference for persons with disabilities, pursuant to section 103D-1009, HRS. The sum of the preferences, where applicable, shall be added to the original price, except that preferences (1) and (4) shall be subtracted from the Hawaii products or recycled products price.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-55. With regard to the application of the tax exempt bidder preference, should more than one preference allowed by statute apply, the evaluated price shall be based on application of applicable preferences in the order specified with preferences applied to the original prices: (1) Hawaii products list, pursuant to section 103D-1002, HRS; (2) Tax adjustment for tax exempt offerors, pursuant to section 103D-1008, HRS; (3) Preferred use of Hawaii software development businesses, pursuant to section 103D-1006, HRS; (4) Recycled products, pursuant to section 103D-1005, HRS; (5) Reciprocal preference, pursuant to section 103D-1004, HRS; (6) Printing, binding, and stationery work within the state, pursuant to section 103D-1003, HRS; (7) Preference for persons with disabilities, pursuant to section 103D-1009, HRS. The sum of the preferences, where applicable, shall be added to the original price, except that preferences (1) and (4) shall be subtracted from the Hawaii products or recycled products price.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-64. With regard to the application of the qualified community rehabilitation program preference, should more than one preference allowed by statute apply, the evaluated price shall be based on application of applicable preferences in the order specified with preferences applied to the original prices: (1) Hawaii products list, pursuant to section 103D-1002, HRS; (2) Tax adjustment for tax exempt offerors, pursuant to section 103D-1008, HRS; (3) Preferred use of Hawaii software development businesses, pursuant to section 103D-1006, HRS; (4) Recycled products, pursuant to section 103D-1005, HRS; (5) Reciprocal preference, pursuant to section 103D-1004, HRS; (6) Printing, binding, and stationery work within the state, pursuant to section 103D-1003, HRS; (7) Preference for persons with disabilities, pursuant to section 103D-1009, HRS. The sum of the preferences, where applicable, shall be added to the original price, except that preferences (1) and (4) shall be subtracted from the Hawaii products or recycled products price.

HAWAII RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §103D-1004. The chief procurement officer may impose a reciprocal preference against bidders from other states which apply preferences. The amount of the reciprocal preference shall be equal to the amount by which the non-resident preference exceeds any preference applied by Hawaii. In determining whether a bidder qualifies as a resident bidder, the definition used by the other state in applying a preference shall apply.

Code of Hawaii Rules, §3-124-17. In the absence of any conflict with federal laws, a reciprocal preference may be imposed against bidders from states that apply preferences. In competitive sealed bidding proposals, a Hawaii resident bidder may be given a reciprocal preference equal to the preference the out-of-state bidder would be given in its own state, which must be equal to the amount the out-of-state preference exceeds Hawaii's preference if the two states' preferences are comparable.

IDAHO

IDAHO RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Idaho Code Ann., §60-103. All printing, binding (excluding binding for state supported libraries), engraving and stationery for which the state or county contracts shall be executed within Idaho except as to compilations, publications or codifications of Idaho laws. However, work may be executed outside of Idaho under certain circumstances, including those in which the lowest bid proposing to execute the work within Idaho is more than 10% more than the lowest bid proposing to execute the work outside of Idaho.

Idaho Administrative Code, §38.05.01.082. To discourage tie bid, may award to an Idaho resident or an Idaho domiciled bidder.

IDAHO RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Idaho Code, §67-2349. In the letting of bids for contracts for the purchase of any materials, supplies, services, or equipment, bidders domiciled outside of Idaho are required to submit a bid the same percent less than the lowest bid submitted by an Idaho-domiciled responsible bidder as would be required for the latter to succeed in the out-of-state bidder's domiciliary state. A bidder domiciled outside of Idaho may be considered an Idaho domiciled bidder if it has a significant Idaho economic presence for one year preceding the date of the bid.

Idaho Code, §67-2348. In the letting of bids for public contracts, contractors domiciled outside of Idaho are required to submit a bid the same percent less than the lowest bid submitted by an Idaho-domiciled responsible contractor as would be required for the latter to succeed in the out-of-state contractor's domiciliary state.

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

30 Illinois Compiled Statutes, §520/2. In purchasing commodities from vendors in another state, preference is given to vendors in states whose preference laws do not prohibit the purchase of commodities grown or produced in Illinois.

30 Illinois Compiled Statutes, §500/45-50. In awarding contracts requiring procurement of agricultural products, preference may be given to an otherwise qualified bidder or offeror who will fulfill the contract through the use of agricultural products grown in Illinois.

30 Illinois Compiled Statutes, §555/1. Institutions authorized and required to purchase coal for fuel purposes that are state-funded or owned by a municipal corporation or political subdivision of Illinois must purchase and use coal mined in Illinois if the cost, including the cost of transportation, is not more than 10% greater than the cost of coal mined in any other state or states.

44 Illinois Administrative Code, §1.4510. In breaking a tie bid or proposal, the award is given to an Illinois resident vendor, which means a person authorized to transact business in Illinois (including a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in Illinois) that has a bona fide establishment for transacting business in Illinois at which it was transacting business on the date the competitive solicitation was first advertised. An Illinois resident vendor is allowed a preference over a non-resident equal to any in-state vendor preference given or required by the state of the non-resident.

ILLINOIS RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

30 Illinois Compiled Statutes, §500/45-10. When awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, a resident bidder is allowed a preference against a non-resident bidder or offeror from any state that gives or requires a preference to bidders or offerors from that state, with the preference being equal to that of the non-resident's state. A resident bidder or offeror is a person authorized to transact business in Illinois (including a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in Illinois) that has a bona fide establishment for transacting business in Illinois at which it was transacting business on the date the competitive solicitation was first advertised.

44 Illinois Administrative Code, §500.1110. When awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, a resident bidder is allowed a preference against a non-resident bidder from any state that gives or requires a preference to bidders from that state, with the preference being equal to that of the non-resident's state.

INDIANA

INDIANA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Indiana Code, §5-22-15-20. A governmental body, except the Indiana state lottery commission, may adopt rules to give preference to Indiana businesses submitting offers for purchase if an out-of-state business submits and offer and the out-of-state business is from a state that gives purchase preferences unfavorable to Indiana businesses. The rules may not give preference that is more favorable to Indiana business than the other state's preference to that same state's businesses. The rules must also provide that a contract must be awarded to lowest responsive and responsible offeror, regardless of these preferences, if the offeror is Indiana business or is a business from a state bordering Indiana that does not provide a preference to its own businesses that is more favorable than is provided by Indiana law to Indiana businesses.

Indiana Code, §5-22-15-20.5. Price preferences are provided by state agencies for supplies purchased from Indiana businesses as follows: 5.0% for a purchase expected to be less than $500,000, 3.0% for a purchase expected to be at least $500,000 but less than $1,000,000, and 1.0% for a purchase expected to be at least 1,000,000. In addition to this price preference, if an Indiana business offers to provide supplies manufactured, assembled, or produced in Indiana and two or more bids are the same, the following price preference is available to the Indiana business: 3.0% for a purchase expected to be less than $500,000, 2.0% for a purchase expected to be at least $500,000 but less than $1,000,000, and 1.0% for a purchase expected to be at least 1,000,000. For these preferences, an "Indiana business" is one whose principal place of business is in Indiana, one that pays a majority of its payroll to Indiana residents, one that employs a majority of Indiana residents, one that makes significant capital investments in Indiana, or one that has a "substantial positive economic impact on Indiana" as defined by criteria established by the Indiana department of administration. Businesses must take certain specified actions to claim these preferences.

Indiana Code, §5-22-15-22. Whenever a purchasing agent purchases coal for use as fuel, the purchasing agent shall give an absolute preference to coal mined in Indiana except under circumstances in which federal law requires the use of low sulphur coal.

Indiana Code, §5-22-15-23. Governmental body must give a 15% preference for supplies to Indiana small businesses (defined as independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field, and satisfying other criteria relating to size or veteran ownership).

State Policy: Establishment of the "Buy Indiana" presumption, Indiana Executive Order No. 05-05 (January 10, 2005). State procurement is subject to a "Buy Indiana" presumption requiring state agencies to buy their supplies and services from "Indiana businesses." The Department of Administration is required to undertake efforts to increase the percentage of state procurement from Indiana businesses to 90% of state's total procurement volume. The Department of Administration utilizes five guidelines for a company to qualify as an Indiana business: one whose principal place of business is in Indiana, one that pays a majority of its payroll to Indiana residents, one that employs a majority of Indiana residents, one that makes significant capital investments in Indiana, or one that has a "substantial positive economic impact on Indiana" (is in the top 500 companies for number of employees, unemployment taxes, payroll withholding taxes, corporate income taxes, or other impact as determined by the Department of Administration). Bids are subject to Indiana Code 5-22-15-20.5. Requests for proposals and professional services use a revised scoring system for determining the award as follows: 40 points for management assessment/quality, 35 points for price, 5 points for "Buy Indiana Indiana Company," 5 points for Indiana economic impact, 5 points for veteran's business enterprise, and 10 points for minority and/or women-owned business enterprise (MWBE) (five points each for women and minority participation).

Indiana Executive Order No. 13-04 (January 14, 2013). The Department of Administration is required to undertake efforts to increase contracting opportunities for Indiana veteran-owned businesses by setting a goal to procure 3.0% of state contracts with Indiana veteran-owned businesses. Program eligibility requires, among other things, that a business be an Indiana firm with its principal place of business located in Indiana.

INDIANA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Indiana Code, §4-13.6-6-2.5. The Indiana Department of Administration may adopt rules giving a preference in public works contracts to an Indiana business that submits a bid if an out-of-state business submits a bid and the out-of-state business is from a state that gives public works preferences unfavorable to Indiana businesses. The preference may not be more favorable to Indiana businesses than the other state's preference is to the other state's businesses.

IOWA

IOWA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Iowa Code, §8A.311(1). In procuring by competitive bidding equipment, supplies, or services, the Department of Administrative Services must give a preference to purchasing Iowa products and purchases from Iowa-based businesses if the Iowa-based business bids are comparable in price to bids submitted by out-of-state businesses and otherwise meet specifications. If another state mandates a percentage preference for businesses or products from that state resulting in low and responsive Iowa bids not being selected in that state, the same percentage preference shall be applied to Iowa businesses and products when businesses or products from the other state are bid to supply Iowa requirements.

Iowa Code, §8A.311(12). The state and political subdivisions are required to give preference to purchasing Iowa products and purchasing from Iowa-based businesses if the bids meet specifications and are comparable in price to bids submitted by other bidders.

Iowa Code, §8A.311(22). Preference is given through the Department of Administrative Services to purchasing equipment, supplies, and services from and awarding public improvement contracts to an Iowa-based business if the bid is comparable in price to bids submitted by other bidders and meets specifications. This preference is subject to the Iowa-based business having adopted certain policies to support employees in the national guard and organized reserves of the United States armed forces.

Iowa Code, §73.1. Governmental bodies, other than school districts purchasing food while participating in the federal school lunch or breakfast program, must use products and provisions grown and coal produced in Iowa when found in Iowa in marketable quantities and are of a quality reasonably suited to the intended purpose and can be secured without additional costs over out-of-state products.

Iowa Code, §73.6. Governmental bodies must purchase and use coal mined or produced in Iowa by producers complying with all Iowa workers' compensation and mining laws except when coal produced in Iowa cannot be procured in a quantity or quality reasonably suited to the purchaser's needs; the equipment is not reasonably adapted to the use of coal produced in Iowa; or the use of coal produced in Iowa would materially lessen the efficiency or increase the cost of operating the purchaser's heating or power plant. There is also an exception as to mines employing workers not covered by workers' compensation plans or who permit the miners to work in individual units in their own rooms.

11 Iowa Administrative Code, 11-117.5. The Department of Administrative Services and state agencies are required to make every effort to support Iowa products and Iowa-based businesses when making a purchase. Tied responses to solicitations are decided in favor of Iowa products and Iowa-based businesses.

761 Iowa Administrative Code, 20.4. In procuring equipment, materials, supplies, and services, the Iowa Department of Transportation must resolve tie bids by giving first preference to an Iowa bidder.

IOWA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Iowa Code, §8A.311. With regard to equipment, supplies, or services procured through competitive bidding by the Department of Administrative Services, if another state mandates a percentage preference for businesses or products from that state resulting in low and responsive Iowa bids not being selected in that state, the same percentage preference shall be applied to Iowa businesses and products when businesses or products from the other state are bid to supply Iowa requirements.

Iowa Code, §73A.21. When a contract for a public improvement is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, a resident bidder is allowed a preference as against a nonresident bidder if the non-resident bidder's state or country gives or requires any preference to bidders from that state or country, any imposition of labor force preference, or any other preferential treatment to bidders or laborers from that state or country. The Iowa resident bidder preference allowed must be equal to the preference of the non-resident bidder's state or country of residence. With regard to a resident labor force preference, a nonresident bidder is required to apply the same resident labor force preference to a public improvement in Iowa as would be required in the non-resident's state or country of residence.

KANSAS

KANSAS RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Kansas Statutes, §75-3740. Contracts must be awarded to certified businesses that are responsible bidders and whose total cost is not more than 10% higher than the lowest competitive bid. A responsible bidder that purchases from a certified business the dollar amount of such purchases made during the prior fiscal year must be deducted from the original bid, not to exceed 10% of the original bid received from that bidder. A "certified business" includes requirements of domicile in Kansas and conducting business primarily in Kansas or production substantially all in Kansas. In the state agency purchase of passenger motor vehicles, 3.0% of the bid amount is subtracted from bids of responsible bidders offering motor vehicles assemble in Kansas which match the exact specifications of the agency.

KANSAS RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Kansas Statutes, §75-3740. If the dollar amount of a bid received from the lowest responsible resident bidder is identical to the dollar amount of a bid from the lowest responsible out-of-state bidder must be awarded to the resident bidder.

Kansas Statutes, §75-3740a. The state, any agency, department, bureau, or division thereof and any municipality (including counties, school districts, improvement districts, and other public bodies), in letting contracts for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or structure or any addition thereto or for any public work or improvement, or for any purchase of goods, merchandise, materials, supplies, or equipment, a contractor domiciled outside Kansas, to be successful, must submit a bid the same percent less than the lowest bid of a responsible Kansas contractor as would be required of the Kansas-domiciled contractor in the out-of-state contractor's state of domicile.

KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Kentucky Revised Statutes, §45A.645. State agencies shall purchase Kentucky-grown agricultural products if they meet the agency's quality standards and pricing requirements.

Kentucky Revised Statutes, §45A.494. If a procurement determination results in a tie between a resident bidder and a nonresident bidder, preference is given to the resident bidder. A resident bidder is an individual, partnership, association, corporation or other business entity that is authorized to transact business in Kentucky and has, for one year prior to and through the date of advertisement of the contract for bidding, has filed Kentucky corporate income taxes, made payments to the Kentucky unemployment insurance fund, and maintained a Kentucky workers' compensation policy.

KENTUCKY RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Kentucky Revised Statutes, §45A.494. Prior to a contract award to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder on a contract by a public agency, a Kentucky resident bidder is given a preference against a nonresident bidder registered in any state that gives or requires a preference to bidders from that state. The preference must be equal to the state of the nonresident bidder.

LOUISIANA

(NOTE: Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2211 et seq. constitutes the Louisiana Public Bid Law (governs public works and the purchase of materials and supplies by most public entities) and §39:1551 et seq. constitutes the Louisiana Procurement Code (governs purchase of certain services, materials and supplies, and major repairs by most state agencies).)

LOUISIANA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §27:246. Casino gaming operators and the Louisiana Economic Development and Gaming Corporation, in purchasing or contracting for goods and services, must give preference and priority to Louisiana residents, laborers, vendors, and suppliers if reasonably possible to do so without added expense, substantial inconvenience, or sacrifice in operational efficiency. In selecting a casino operator, the Louisiana Economic Development and Gaming Corporation must give preference to an operator who demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and contract for goods and services from or with Louisiana residents, laborers, vendors, and suppliers.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2251 and §39:1604. Preferences are given to bidders whose Louisiana business workforce is comprised of a minimum of 50% Louisiana residents for all types of products produced, manufactured, assembled, grown, or harvested in Louisiana, Pursuant to §39:1554 and §38:2251 governs the procurement of construction by governmental bodies of Louisiana, but does not apply to any procurement of supplies, services, or major repairs by the state. Pursuant to §39:1554 and §39:1604 applies to every expenditure of public funds by Louisiana, irrespective of source, under any contract for supplies, services, or major repairs except grants or contracts between the state and political subdivisions or other governments except as otherwise provided by law. (NOTE: Except as noted below, §38:2251 and §39:1604 are substantially identical.)

With regard to agricultural or forestry products, including meat, seafood, produce, eggs, paper or paper products, Louisiana products must be procured or purchased as long as the product meets Louisiana product criteria, the product is equal to or better in quality to other products, and the cost does not exceed by more than 10% the cost of other products.

Meat and meat products which are further processed in Louisiana under the grading and certification service of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry must be procured or purchased if equal in quality to other meat and meat products and the cost does not exceed by more than 7.0% the cost of other products.

Domesticated or wild catfish which are processed in Louisiana but grown outside Louisiana must be procured or purchased if equal in quality and the cost does not exceed by more than 7.0% the cost of catfish processed outside Louisiana.

Produce processed in Louisiana but grown outside Louisiana must be procured or purchased if equal in quality and the cost does not exceed by more than 7.0% the cost of produce processed outside Louisiana.

Under §39:1604, eggs or crawfish which are further processed in Louisiana under the grading and certification service of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry must be procured or purchased if equal in quality to other meat and meat products and the cost does not exceed by more than 7.0% the cost of other products.

Except as otherwise provided in §38:2251 or §39:1604, as applicable, materials, supplies, or equipment which are Louisiana products equal in quality to other products may be purchased if the cost of such items does not exceed the cost by more than 10% the cost of other items manufactured, processed, produced, or assembled outside the state and the Louisiana product vendor agrees to a sale price equal to the lowest bid offered.

These preferences do not apply to Louisiana products whose source is a clay which is mined or originates in Louisiana, and which is manufactured, processed, or refined in Louisiana for sale as an expanded clay aggregate form different than its original state, do not affect preferences applicable to brick manufacturers, do not apply to firefighting or rescue equipment, and do not apply to treated wood poles and pilings.

The provisions of §38:2251 do not apply to a drainage district or sewerage and water board located in New Orleans wherein the cost of products produced or manufactured in the Louisiana does not exceed by more than 5.0% the cost of products which are equal in quality to products produced or manufactured outside Louisiana in purchases of one million dollars or more.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2253. All things being equal, preference is given to firms doing business in Louisiana. Preference is inferior to and superseded where conflicting with Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2251.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2255. Printing, lithographing, embossing, engraving, binding, record books, printed supplies, stationery and office supplies, and equipment must be purchased from Louisiana firms and all printing, lithographing, embossing, engraving, and binding in connection therewith must be done in Louisiana by Louisiana firms and by Louisiana labor unless the bid submitted by a firm outside Louisiana is 3.0% lower than the lowest bid submitted by a Louisiana firm. This section does not apply to specialized forms and printing, such as continuous forms, margin punched forms, football tickets, 24 sheet poster, music printing, steel dye and lithographed bonds, decalcomanias, revenue stamps, lithographing and bronzing on acetate, college annuals, fine edition binding, and books.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2256. It is permissible to purchase supplies not ordinarily obtainable from Louisiana firms from non-resident firms authorized and otherwise qualified to do business in Louisiana that maintain an office in Louisiana where payment may be made; however, Louisiana firms shall first be given opportunity to furnish supplies and be given preference.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Ann., §38:2184. Cost and quality being equal, preference is given to supplies, material, or equipment produced or offered by Louisiana citizens.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §39:1594. In state contracts awarded by competitive sealed bidding, Louisiana resident businesses are given preference against nonresident businesses in tie bids if there will be no sacrifice or loss in quality.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §39:1604.5. When purchasing items at retail, purchases must be from a retail dealer located in Louisiana as long as the items are equal in quality and the cost does not exceed by more than 10% the cost of items from a retail dealer located outside Louisiana.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §39:1604.3. For services to organize or administer rodeos and livestock shows, where state-owned facilities are used to house or contain such activities, preference is given to Louisiana vendors if services equal in quality and do not exceed the cost by more than 10% the cost of services available from outside Louisiana.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2251.1. Milk and dairy produced or processed in Louisiana must be purchased when equal in quality and the cost does not exceed by more than 10% the cost of milk from outside Louisiana.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2251.2 and §39:1604.6. Steel rolled in Louisiana must be purchase when equal in quality, the cost does not exceed by more than 10% the cost of steel rolled outside Louisiana, and sufficient quantities of steel rolled in Louisiana are available.

Louisiana Executive Order No. BJ 2010-16 (August 27, 2010). Louisiana businesses should be utilized to the greatest extent possible when soliciting prices in the procurement of small purchases.

LOUISIANA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §38:2225. Louisiana-domiciled contractors bidding on public work in Louisiana must be granted the same preference over contractors domiciled in other states that the other states grant over Louisiana-domiciled contractors.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §39:1604.1. Except for contracts for the construction, maintenance, or repair of highways and streets and contracts financed in whole or in part by federal contributions or loans, Louisiana vendors are given preference over out-of-state vendors in the same manner that the other states grant preference over Louisiana vendors.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §39:1604.2. Except as to contracts financed in whole or in part by federal contributions or loans, in contracts for public work, Louisiana-domiciled contractors must be granted the same preference over contractors domiciled in other states in the same manner, on the same basis, and to the same extent to which the other states grant preference over Louisiana-domiciled contractors.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §39:1604.5. Louisiana-domiciled retailers must be granted the same preference over retailers domiciled in other states in the same manner, on the same basis, and to the same extent to which the other states grant preference over Louisiana-domiciled retailers.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, §48:255.6. Regarding projects of Department of Transportation and Development, Louisiana resident contractors must be granted the same preference over contractors domiciled in other states that the other states grant over Louisiana resident contractors.

MAINE

MAINE RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Maine Revised Statutes, Title 26, §1301. Preference is given to workmen and bidders who are residents of Maine for contracts for constructing, altering, repairing, furnishing or equipping buildings or public works if the bids are equally favorable with bids submitted by non-resident contractors.

Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, §1825-B. Tie bids are awarded to Maine bidders or to bidders offering commodities produced or manufactured in Maine if price, quality, availability, and other factors are equal.

MAINE RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, §1825-B. In determining the best-value bidder, a percent increase is added to the bid of a nonresident bidder equal to the percent of preference given to that bidder in its resident state.

MARYLAND

MARYLAND RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Maryland State Finance and Procurement Code, §14-407. State schools and facilities shall give a purchasing price preference of not more than 5.0% to bidders providing food grown in Maryland which is consistent with bid specifications.

MARYLAND RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Maryland State Finance and Procurement Code, §14-401 (b). When a resident bidder is a responsible bidder and another responsible bidder whose principal office or operation is in another state, preference may be given to the lowest responsive bid of a resident bidder for competitive sealed bidding when the state in which the nonresident bidder's office or principal operation is gives residential preference and the preference would not conflict with a federal law or grant affecting the procurement contract.

Maryland State Finance and Procurement Code §14-401 (d). Preference given may be in the form of: (1) the preference that the state in which the nonresident bidder's or nonresident offeror's principal office is located gives to its residents, or (2) the preference that the state in which the nonresident bidder or offeror has its principal operation through which it would provide supplies or services gives to its residents.

MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title II, Chapter 7, §22 - Preference is given in tie bids for supplies and materials manufactured and sold within Massachusetts. An additional preference may be applied for supplies and materials manufactured and sold in cities and towns of Massachusetts that are designated as depressed areas.

Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title II, Chapter 7 §23B - In the purchase of agricultural products including, but not limited to, fruits, vegetables, eggs, dairy products, meats, crops, horticultural products, or products processed into value added products as part of a Massachusetts farm operation, preference is given to the purchase of products grown in Massachusetts or products produced using products grown in Massachusetts as well as fish, seafood, and other aquatic products. Unless the price exceeds by more than 10% the price of products of agriculture grown or produced using products grown outside Massachusetts, state purchasing agents must purchase the products of agriculture grown or produced using products grown in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Executive Order No. 523, (June 29, 2010). Executive Order No. 523 establishes the Small Business Purchasing Program that is administered by the Massachusetts Operational Services Division. Contracts from $10,000 to $150,000, unless otherwise excepted, must be awarded to registered small business bidders participating in Massachusetts Small Business Purchasing Program if best value criteria is met to be eligible, a business entity must be one that has its principal place of business in Massachusetts, has been in business for at least one year, employs a combined total of 50 or fewer full time equivalents in all locations, and has gross revenues of $15 million or less based on a three-year average.

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Michigan Compiled Laws, §45.85. Other things being equal, supplies offered by bidders with established local business in the county have preference in contracting for the maintenance and operation of each county office, department, and institution.

Michigan Compiled Laws, §18.1261. All other things being equal, in all purchases made by the Department of Management and Budget, preference is given to products manufactured or services offered by Michigan-based firms or by facilities with respect to which the operator is designated as a clean corporate citizen (the definition of which incorporates, pursuant to §324.1401, being "situated in Michigan"), or to biobased products whose content is sourced in this state.

Michigan Compiled Laws, §24.61. All printing paid for in whole or in part with state funds, except that which is printed for primary school districts, counties, townships, cities, villages, or legal publications ordered for or by elective state officers, must be printed in Michigan.

MICHIGAN RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Michigan Compiled Laws, §18.1268. If the low bid for a state procurement exceeds $100,000 and is from a business located in Michigan that applies for a preference, preference is given to the Michigan business in the same manner as would be applied in the state of the out-of-state bidder.

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Minnesota Statutes, §16C.06. The reciprocal preference and the preferences pursuant to §16C.0725 (Recycled Materials) and §16C.16 (Small Businesses) are not cumulative.

Minnesota Statutes, §16C.16. For specified goods or services, the commissioner of administration may award up to a 6.0% preference to targeted group small businesses and veteran-owned small businesses, and may award up to 6.0% to small businesses located in economically disadvantaged areas. The definition of "small business" is limited to a business with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The commissioner of administration may award a contract, without a competitive bidding process, to a small business in an economically disadvantaged area up to $25,000.00 or make a contract exclusively available to small businesses in an economically disadvantaged area if the commissioner believes at least three small businesses in that area will respond to the solicitation.

Minnesota Statutes, §16C.073. Whenever practicable, public entities shall purchase paper which has been made on a paper machine located in Minnesota.

Minnesota Statutes, §84.025. All all-terrain vehicles purchased by the commissioner of natural resources must be manufactured in Minnesota.

Laws of Minnesota 2013, Chapter 85, Article 6, Section 11. No solar photovoltaic module may be installed that is financed directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, with money appropriated in this act, unless the solar photovoltaic module is made in Minnesota as defined in Minnesota Statutes, §16B.323, Subdivision 1, Paragraph (b).

Minnesota Administrative Rules, 1230.0900. Preference is given to a Minnesota firm whenever a tie involves a Minnesota firm and one whose place of business is out of state.

Minnesota Administrative Rules, 1230.1810. For commodities and services, certified target group small businesses are awarded up to a 6.0% preference.

MINNESOTA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Minnesota Statutes, §16C.06. A resident vendor is allowed a preference over a nonresident vendor equal to the preference given or required by the state of the nonresident vendor.

MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Mississippi Code, §31-3-21. Preference is given in public contracts to resident contractors (includes nonresident persons, firms, or corporations and their subsidiaries and affiliates that have been qualified to do business in Mississippi and have maintained a permanent full-time office in Mississippi for two years prior to January 1, 1986).

Mississippi Code, §31-5-17. Every public officer, contractor, superintendent, or agent in construction of state or public buildings or any public works must employ only workmen and laborers who have resided in Mississippi for two years preceding such employment.

Mississippi Code, §31-5-19. Any out-of-state person(s), firm, or corporation that obtains a contract for public buildings or public works must comply with the provisions of §31-5-17 upon undertaking the contract or work.

Mississippi Code, §31-5-23. In public works, only materials grown, produced, prepared, made, and/or manufactured in Mississippi should be used. Preference is not given to such materials when other materials of like quality produced out-of-state may be purchased at less cost or when materials of better quality produced out-of-state may be purchased at a reasonable cost.

Mississippi Code, §31-7-15. When two or more competitive bids are received, one or more of which relates to commodities grown, processed or manufactured in Mississippi, and price, quality, and service are equal, the commodities grown, processed or manufactured in Mississippi are given preference. Additionally, where both price and quality are the same, regardless of where the product is manufactured, a foreign manufacturing company with a factory in Mississippi and more than 50 employees working in Mississippi has preference over any other foreign company.

Mississippi Code, §31-7-18. Local governing authorities are given authorization to accept the lowest bid received from a motor vehicle dealer domiciled within county of the governing authority for motor vehicles with a gross weight rating less than 26,000 pounds and a price not greater than 3.0% over the price or cost the dealer pays the manufacturer. If a county does not have an authorized motor vehicle dealer, the governing authority may so accept such bids from motor vehicle dealers in an adjoining county.

Mississippi Code, §31-7-47. In public contracts, preference is given to resident contractors.

Mississippi Code, §19-13-111. Where bids equal in all respects between resident and nonresident bidders, county boards of supervisors shall give preference to citizens of Mississippi.

MISSISSIPPI RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Mississippi Code Ann., §73-13-45. In awarding public works contracts for professional engineering services, preference is given to resident professional engineers over nonresident professional engineers domiciled in a state with laws granting preference to in-state bidders only on the same basis as the nonresident bidder's state awards contracts to Mississippi professional engineers. Resident professional engineers domiciled in Mississippi are given preference over nonresidents in the same manner and to the same extent as provided by the laws of the state of domicile of the nonresident professional engineer. In this section, "resident professional engineer" includes nonresident persons, firms, or corporations and their subsidiaries and affiliates that have been qualified to do business in Mississippi and have maintained a permanent full-time office in Mississippi for two years prior to submitting a proposal.

Mississippi Code, §31-3-21. In public contracts, nonresident bidders domiciled in a state with laws giving preference to local contractors are awarded Mississippi public contracts only on the same basis as the nonresident bidder's state awards contracts to Mississippi contractors. Resident contractors domiciled in Mississippi are given preference over nonresidents in the same manner and to the same extent as provided by the laws of the state of domicile of the nonresident contractor.

Mississippi Code, §31-7-47. In public contracts, nonresident bidders domiciled in a state, city, county, parish, province, nation, or political subdivision with laws giving preference to local contractors are awarded Mississippi public contracts only on the same basis as the nonresident bidder's state, city, county, parish, province, nation, or political subdivision awards contracts to Mississippi contractors. Resident contractors domiciled in Mississippi are given preference over nonresidents in the same manner and to the same extent as provided by the laws of the state, city, county, parish, province, nation, or political subdivision of domicile of the nonresident contractor.

MISSOURI

MISSOURI RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Missouri Revised Statutes, §34.070. Preference must be given to commodities and tangible personal property manufactured, mined, produced, processed, or grown in Missouri and to all firms, corporations, or individuals doing business as Missouri firms, corporations or individuals, when quality is equal or better and delivered price is the same or less. Such preference may also be given when competing bids, in their entirety, are comparable.

Missouri Revised Statutes, §34.073. In letting contracts for the performance of any job or service, preference must be given to all firms, corporations, or individuals doing business as Missouri firms, corporations or individuals, or that maintain Missouri offices or places of business when quality is equal to or better and price quoted is the same or less. Such preference may also be given when competing bids, in their entirety, are comparable. The commissioner of administration must give further preference pursuant to §34.076.

Missouri Revised Statutes, §34.074. In letting contracts for the performance of any job or service, all state agencies and political subdivisions shall give a three-point bonus preference to service-disabled veteran businesses doing business as Missouri firms, corporations, or individuals, or which maintain Missouri offices or places of business.

Missouri Revised Statutes, §34.080. Institutions in Missouri supported in whole or part by public funds (excluding municipal corporations, political subdivisions, or public schools) that are required to purchase coal for fuel must purchase and use coal mined in Missouri or an adjoining state if the cost is not greater than the cost of coal mined elsewhere, including the cost of transportation.

Missouri Revised Statutes, §50.780. Preference may be given to merchants and dealers within the county may be given by county commissioners, provided the price is not above that offered elsewhere.

Missouri Code of State Regulations, Title 6, §250-3.020. In the construction and repair of buildings and the making of purchases, preference is given by the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri to firms, corporations, or individuals doing business as Missouri firms, corporations, or individuals. Preference is also given by the Board to any commodities, products, materials, supplies, provisions, and other articles produced, manufactured, mined or grown in Missouri and to services when of suitable quality, with a requirement that quality and fitness or articles always be considered in determining the right to the preference; however, if not found in marketable quantities in Missouri, preference need not be given to Missouri products, materials, supplies, provisions, commodities, and other articles. Preference is also given by the Board to products of the mines, forests, and quarries of Missouri, and all materials, commodities, products, supplies, provisions, and other articles produced, manufactured, mined, or grown in Missouri when they can be secured without additional cost over foreign products or the products of other states. Corporations not incorporated under the laws of Missouri, firms whose members are not residents of Missouri, and individuals who are not residents of Missouri who have and maintain a regular place of business in Missouri for the transaction of their business are deemed as doing business as Missouri firms, corporations, or individuals in consideration of bids for the University of Missouri.

MISSOURI RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Missouri Revised Statutes, §34.076. In letting for bid any contract to a contractor for any public works or product, a contractor or bidder domiciled outside Missouri is required, to be successful, to bid the same percent less than the lowest bid submitted by a contractor or bidder domiciled in Missouri as would be required for the Missouri-domiciled contractor or bidder to succeed over the contractor or bidder domiciled outside Missouri in that contractor's or bidder's state.

MONTANA

MONTANA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

MONTANA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Montana Code, §18-1-102. In the purchase of goods and for construction, repair, and public works of all kinds a public agency must allow a preference to a resident bidder against the bid of a nonresident bidder that enforces a preference for resident bidders.

NEBRASKA

NEBRASKA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Nebraska Revised Statutes, §82-323. The Nebraska Arts Council shall give preference to regional artists in selection and commissioning of artists.

Nebraska Revised Statutes, §73-107. If all other factors are equal, a Nebraska resident disabled veteran or a business located in a designated enterprise zone shall be allowed a preference over any other resident or nonresident bidder.

9 Nebraska Administrative Code, §4-003. Nebraska vendors are given preference in tie bids.

NEBRASKA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Nebraska Revised Statutes, §73-101.01. Unless the preference would result in federal funds being withheld, when awarding a public contract to the lowest responsible bidder, a resident bidder is given a preference over a nonresident bidder from a state that provides a resident bidder preference. The preference must be equal to that of the nonresident's state. A "resident bidder" is any person, partnership, domestic or foreign limited liability company, association or domestic or foreign corporation authorized to do business in Nebraska and that has met the residency requirement of the nonresident bidder's state required to receive that state's preference or has a bona fide establishment for doing business in Nebraska for the length of time necessary in the nonresident bidder's state to receive that state's preference.

9 Nebraska Administrative Code, §4-003. A resident bidder is allowed a preference against a nonresident bidder equal to the preference given or required by the nonresident bidder's state. A "resident bidder" is any person, partnership, domestic or foreign limited liability company, association or domestic or foreign corporation authorized to do business in Nebraska and that has met the residency requirement of the nonresident bidder's state required to receive that state's preference or has a bona fide establishment for doing business in Nebraska for the length of time necessary in the nonresident bidder's state to receive that state's preference.

NEVADA

NEVADA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Nevada Revised Statutes, §333.300. If two or more lowest bids are identical, and lowest bids are by bidders resident outside of Nevada, preference is given to bidders providing goods produced or manufactured in Nevada or supplied by a Nevada resident dealer.

Nevada Revised Statutes, §333.3366. When awarding a contract under §333.300(2) (for materials, supplies, and equipment with an estimated cost exceeding $50,000) or awarding a contract for the services of a person who is an independent contractor under subsection 1 of NRS 333.700, a local business owned and operated by a veteran with a service-connected disability submits a bid or proposal and is a responsive and responsible bidder, the bid or proposal shall be deemed to be 5.0% lower than the bid or proposal actually submitted. This preference cannot be combined with any other preference.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NEW HAMPSHIRE RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

New Hampshire Statutes 21-I:11-b. In the case of tie bids, if one of the tied bidders is a New Hampshire business and the other(s) are from another state, the award will be made to the in-state bidder.

NEW JERSEY

NEW JERSEY RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

New Jersey Statutes, §52:32-1.4; New Jersey Administrative, §17:12-2.13. A bidder with its principal place of business located in a state other than New Jersey that has laws, rules, or regulations causing disadvantage to nonresident bidders for public contracts for like goods, services, or both shall have like conditions applied to it in bidding for public contracts in New Jersey. These provisions may be waived if determined by the State Treasurer to be in the best interest of New Jersey.

NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

New Mexico Statutes, §13-1-21. When making a purchase using a formal bid process (competitive sealed bid process), public bodies should deem a bid submitted by a New Mexico:

(1) resident business to be 5.0% lower than the bid actually submitted;

(2) resident veteran business with annual revenues of three million dollars or less to be 10% lower than the bid actually submitted;

When a public body makes a purchase using a formal bid process and the bids are received for both recycled content goods and nonrecycled content goods, the public body shall deem:

(1) bids submitted for recycled content goods from any business, except a resident veteran business, to be 5.0% lower than the bids actually submitted; or

(2) bids submitted for recycled content goods from a resident veteran business with annual revenues of three million dollars or less to be 10% lower than the bids actually submitted;

When a public body makes a purchase using a formal request for proposals process (competitive sealed proposal process), not including contracts awarded on a point-based system, the public body shall award an additional:

(1) 5.0% of the total weight of all the factors used in evaluating the proposals to a resident business;

(2) 10% of the total weight of all the factors used in evaluating the proposals to a resident veteran business that has annual revenues of three million dollars or less;

When a public body makes a purchase using a formal request for proposals process, and the contract is awarded based on a point-based system, the public body shall award an additional percentage of the equivalent as follows:

(1) 5.0% of the total possible points to a resident business;

(2) 10% of the total possible points to a resident veteran business that has annual revenues of three million dollars or less;

When a joint bid or joint proposal is submitted by a combination of resident veteran, resident or nonresident businesses, the preference of this section shall be calculated in proportion to the percentage of the contract, based on the dollar amount of the goods or services provided under the contract, that will be performed by each business as specified in the joint bid or proposal. A resident veteran business shall not benefit from the preference pursuant to this section for more than ten consecutive years. A person that is an owner of a business that is a resident veteran business shall not benefit from the preference pursuant to this section for more than ten consecutive years. A person shall not benefit from the provisions of this section based on more than one business concurrently. A business shall not be awarded both a resident business preference and a resident veteran business preference.

New Mexico Statutes, §13-1-120. For each proposed state public works project, local public works project or construction management contract, the architect, engineer, landscape architect, construction management and surveyor selection committee, state highway and transportation department selection committee or local selection committee, as appropriate, must consider the following criteria, among others: the amount of design work that will be produced by a New Mexico business within this state and proximity to or familiarity with the area in which the project is located.

New Mexico Statutes, §13-4-1. All contracts for construction of public works or for repair, reconstruction, including highway reconstruction, demolition or alteration thereof, must be awarded to resident contractor whenever practicable.

New Mexico Statutes, §13-4-2. For the purpose of awarding a public works contract using a formal bid process, a public body shall deem a bid submitted by a:

(1) resident contractor to be 5.0% lower than the bid actually submitted;

(2) resident veteran contractor with annual revenues of three million dollars or less to be 10% lower than the bid actually submitted;

When a public body awards a contract using a formal request for proposals process, not including contracts awarded on a point-based system, the public body shall award an additional:

(1) 5.0% of the total weight of all the factors used in evaluating the proposals to a resident contractor;

(2) 10% of the total weight of all the factors used in evaluating the proposals to a resident veteran contractor that has annual revenues of three million dollars or less;

When a public body makes a purchase using a formal request for proposals process, and the contract is awarded based on a point-based system, the public body shall award an additional percentage of the equivalent as follows:

(1) 5.0% of the total possible points to a resident contractor;

(2) 10% of the total possible points to a resident veteran contractor that has annual revenues of three million dollars or less;

When a joint bid or joint proposal is submitted by a combination of resident veteran, resident or nonresident contractors, the preference of this section shall be calculated in proportion to the percentage of the contract, based on the dollar amount of the goods or services provided under the contract, that will be performed by each contractor as specified in the joint bid or joint proposal. A resident veteran contractor shall not benefit from the preference pursuant to this section for more than ten consecutive years. A person that is an owner of a business that is a resident veteran contractor shall not benefit from the preference pursuant to this section for more than ten consecutive years. A person shall not benefit from the provisions of this section based on more than one business concurrently. A contractor shall not be awarded both a resident contractor preference and a resident veteran contractor preference.

New Mexico Statutes, §63-9F-6. In the invitation for proposals or bids from telecommunications companies to design and implement a telecommunications relay system that enables impaired individuals to communicate with unimpaired individuals, New Mexico residency is given a weight of five percent of the total weight of all evaluation factors and any business that qualifies as a resident business shall receive a 5.0% preference.

New Mexico Administrative Code, §1.4.1.25. All statutory preferences to resident businesses, resident veteran businesses, resident contractors, and resident veteran contractors must be applied in regard to invitations for bids and requests for proposals in accordance with statute in determining the lowest bidder or offeror.

New Mexico Administrative Code, §1.4.2.8. When bids are received only from nonresident businesses and resident businesses or from nonresident businesses and resident manufacturers and the lowest responsible bid is from a nonresident business, the contract shall be awarded to the resident business or, as applicable, resident manufacturer whose bid is nearest the bid price of the low nonresident business bidder if the bid price of the resident bidder or manufacturer is made lower than the nonresident's bid when multiplied by a factor of 0.95. When bids are received from nonresident businesses, resident businesses, and resident manufacturers and the lowest responsible bid is from a nonresident business, the contract shall be awarded to the resident manufacturer, or to the resident business if no resident manufacturer is eligible for award, whose bid is nearest the bid price of the low nonresident business bidder if the bid price of the resident manufacturer is made lower than the nonresident's bid when multiplied by a factor of 0.95.

New Mexico Administrative Code, §1.4.3.8. In public works construction procurements, when bids are received only from nonresident contractors and resident contractors and the lowest responsible bid is from a nonresident contractor, the contract shall be awarded to the resident contractor whose bid is nearest the bid price of the low nonresident contractor if the bid price of the resident contractor is made lower than the nonresident's bid when multiplied by a factor of 0.95. The resident contractor preference is the only bidding preference that applies to public works construction contracts.

NEW YORK

NEW YORK RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

New York State Finance Law, §165. When letting contracts for purchase of food, solicitations may require provisions that mandate that all or some of the required food products are grown, produced or harvested in New York, or that any processing of such food products take place in facilities located within New York state based upon a list issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets identifying food products that are beneficial and available in sufficient quantities for competitive purchasing.

NEW YORK RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

New York State Finance Law, §165. The Commissioner of Economic Development shall develop list of "discriminatory jurisdictions" that have employ preferences or price distorting mechanisms or otherwise discriminate against New York state businesses in the procurement of commodities and services. Neither the Commissioner of Economic Development nor any New York State agencies shall enter into contracts with any foreign business enterprise, except business enterprises that are New York state business enterprise, whose principal place of business is on the list of "discriminatory jurisdictions." "New York state business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that offers for sale, lease, or other form of exchange commodities that are substantially manufactured, produced, or assembled in New York, or services, other than construction services, which are substantially performed within New York. For purposes of construction services, a "New York state business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that has its principal place of business in New York. A "foreign business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that offers for sale, lease, or other form of exchange commodities that are substantially produced outside New York, or services, other than construction services, which are substantially performed outside New York. For purposes of construction services, a "foreign business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that has its principal place of business outside New York. The list of discriminatory jurisdictions includes Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

New York Public Authorities Law, §2879. Public authorities and public benefit corporations, a majority of the members of which consist of persons either appointed by the governor or who serve as members by virtue of holding a civil office of the state, or a combination thereof, shall not enter into contracts with any foreign business enterprise whose principal place of business is on the list of "discriminatory jurisdictions" created pursuant to New York State Finance Law, §165. "New York state business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that offers for sale, lease, or other form of exchange commodities that are substantially manufactured, produced, or assembled in New York, or services, other than construction services, which are substantially performed within New York. For purposes of construction services, a "New York state business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that has its principal place of business in New York. A "foreign business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that offers for sale, lease, or other form of exchange commodities that are substantially produced outside New York, or services, other than construction services, which are substantially performed outside New York. For purposes of construction services, a "foreign business enterprise" is defined as a business enterprise that has its principal place of business outside New York. The list of discriminatory jurisdictions includes Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

North Carolina General Statutes, §143-59. Preference is given as far as practicable to products or services manufactured or produced in North Carolina or furnished by or through citizens of North Carolina, provided there is no sacrifice or loss in price or quality.

North Carolina Governor's Executive Order No. 50 (February 17, 2010). On contracts for purchases of goods, the Secretary of Administration is directed to develop a "price matching" protocol for North Carolina resident bidders whose price is within 5.0% or $10,000 of the lowest bid (whichever is less). See http://www.pandc.nc.gov/Documents/NC-Preference-FAQs.pdf.

NORTH CAROLINA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

North Carolina General Statutes, §143-59. For purposes only of determining the low bidder on contracts for equipment, materials, supplies, and services valued over $25,000, a percent increase is added to a bid of a nonresident bidder equal to the percent increase, if any, that the nonresident bidder's state adds to bids from bidders that do not reside in that state.

North Carolina General Statutes, §143-64.31. Resident firms providing architectural, engineering, surveying, or construction management at-risk services, design build services, or public-private partnership construction services are granted a preference over nonresident firms, in the same manner, on the same basis, and to the extent that a preference is granted in awarding contracts for these services by the other state to its resident firms over firms resident in North Carolina. "Resident firm" is defined as one that has paid unemployment taxes or income taxes in North Carolina and whose principal place of business is located in North Carolina.

NORTH DAKOTA

NORTH DAKOTA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

North Dakota Century Code, §48-05-02.1. When purchasing coal for heating purposes, state agencies, political subdivisions, and public schools shall give preference to bidders supplying coal mined in North Dakota if it will provide the same British thermal units of heating value for an equivalent or lower total bid price than coal mined elsewhere and delivered.

North Dakota Century Code, §46-02-15. Where practicable, all state, county, and other political subdivision public printing, binding, and blank book manufacturing, blanks, and other printed stationery must be awarded to a resident North Dakota bidder (one who, pursuant to North Dakota Century Code, §44-08-02, has maintained a bona fide place of business in North Dakota for at least one year prior to the date of the contract award).

NORTH DAKOTA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

North Dakota Century Code, §44-08-01. In purchasing goods, merchandise, supplies, or equipment of any kind, or contracting to build or repair any building, structure, road, or other real property, the office of management and budget, any other state entity, and the governing body of any political subdivision shall give preference to bidders, sellers, or contractors resident in North Dakota equal to the preference given or required by the state of a nonresident bidder, seller, or contractor. When accepting bids for the provision of professional services, including research and consulting services, a state entity shall give preference to North Dakota bidders equal to the preference given or required by the state of a nonresident bidder.

North Dakota Administrative Code, §4-12-11-02. Preference given to North Dakota bidders must be equal to the preference given or required by a nonresident bidder's state in accordance with North Dakota Century Code, §44-08-01.

OHIO

OHIO RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Ohio Revised Code, §125.09. Preference is given for products produced or mined in Ohio and bidders with a significant Ohio economic presence qualify for award on same basis as if their products were produced in Ohio. Non-Ohio businesses are restricted from bidding on printing contracts if home state excludes Ohio businesses from bidding on state printing contracts. The preference should not result in an excessive price for a product or acquiring a disproportionately inferior product.

Ohio Revised Code, §125.56. All printing is to be executed in accordance with Ohio Revised Code, §125.11 except for printing contracts requiring special, security paper of a unique nature unless it will result in an excessive price (exceeds the lowest price submitted by a non-Ohio bidder by more than 5.0%) or acquiring a disproportionately inferior product. Ohio Revised Code, §125.11 provides for awarding a contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bid from among the bids that offer products that have been produced or mined in Ohio where sufficient competition can be generated in Ohio to ensure compliance does not result in an excessive price for a product or acquiring a disproportionately inferior product.

Ohio Administrative Code, §123:5-1-11. Preference is to be given to Ohio bids for products produced or mined in Ohio or a border state. Where preliminary analysis identifies the apparent low bid as one other than an Ohio bid or a border state bid, 5.0% is applied to the price if the apparent low bid is one other than an Ohio bid or border state bid offering a domestic source end product.

Ohio Administrative Code, §123:5-1-06. Any bid response that is not for a domestic source end product may be removed except where it is determined that compliance would result in an excessive price or acquiring an inferior product. After such determination, bids are evaluated such that preference is given to Ohio bids for products produced and mined in Ohio or a border state. Where preliminary analysis identifies the apparent low bid as one other than an Ohio bid or border state bid offering a domestic source end product, 5.0% is applied to the price. If selection of the lowest Ohio bid will not result in an excessive price or a disproportionately inferior product or service, contract award should be to the lowest responsible and responsive Ohio bid at the bid price quoted.

Ohio Department of Administrative Services, General Services Division, Domestic & In-State Preferences, PUR-003 (revised December 1, 2007). Ohio bidders are identified as offering Ohio products or having a significant economic presence (the latter requiring payment of Ohio taxes, registration and license to do business in Ohio, and ten or more employees based in Ohio or 75% or more of employees based in Ohio). Border state bidders are identified as those located in Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and New York. For mined products if sufficient competition exists, the following preference instructions are listed in the following order: award to lowest responsive and responsible bidder offering Ohio mined product; award to lowest responsive and responsible border state bidder offering same border state mined product (except Indiana); when lowest responsive and responsible Ohio bidder offering non-Ohio mined product, after application of 5.0% preference, award to lowest responsive and responsible Ohio/border state bidder offering Ohio/border state mined product if within 5.0% range; when lowest responsive and responsible border state bidder offering non-border state mined product, after application of 5.0% preference, award to lowest responsive and responsible Ohio/border state bidder offering Ohio/border state mined product if within 5.0% range; and, when lowest responsive and responsible non-Ohio/border state bidder offering non-Ohio/border state mined product, after application of 5.0% preference, award to lowest responsive and responsible Ohio/border state bidder offering Ohio/border state mined product if within 5.0% range. For mined products if sufficient competition exists, the following preference instructions are listed in the following order: award to any lowest responsive and responsible bidder offering Ohio product; award to lowest responsive and responsible bidder with significant Ohio economic presence offering domestic/Canada/Mexico product; award to lowest responsive and responsible border state bidder offering domestic/Canada/Mexico product; when lowest responsive and responsible non-Ohio/non-border state bidder offering domestic/Canada/Mexico product, after application of 5.0% preference, award to lowest responsive and responsible Ohio/border state bidder if within 5.0% range; when lowest responsive and responsible bidder offering foreign product, after application of 6.0% preference, award to foreign product if greater than 6.0% less costly than lowest responsive and responsible bidder offering Ohio/domestic/Canada/Mexico product.

OHIO RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Ohio Revised Code, §125.09. Vendors from non-Ohio border states that impose no greater restrictions on Ohio bidders in their state than Ohio imposes on non-resident bidders may qualify for an award of a contract.

Ohio Revised Code, §153.012. Regarding any contract for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, enlargement, alteration, repair, painting or decoration of a public improvement, including any highway improvement, made by the state or in whole or in part supported by the state, except for a contract for products produced or mined in Ohio or for a contract financed in whole or in part by contributions or loans from any agency of the United States government, preference is given to contractors with their principal place of business in Ohio over contractors with their principal place of business in a state which provides a preference in favor of contractors of that state for the same type of work. Where a preference is provided by another state for contractors of that state, contractors having their principal place of business in Ohio are to be granted in Ohio the same preference over them in the same manner and on the same basis and to the same extent as the preference is granted in letting contracts for the same type of work by the other state. If one party to a joint venture is a contractor having its principal place of business in Ohio, the joint venture shall be considered as having its principal place of business in Ohio.

OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 19, §788. When quality and prices equal, preference is given in contracts for county hospital construction work, alteration, additions, and repairs to materials produced in Oklahoma and to construction contractors domiciled, having and maintaining offices in and being citizen taxpayers of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 61, §9. In construction or repair of state institutions pursuant to Section 31 of Article X of the State Constitution, contracts must contain a provision requiring employment of Oklahoma labor and use of Oklahoma materials if available and if the quality meets the standards available from outside Oklahoma and can be procured at no greater expense than the same quality of labor or material from outside Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 61, §10. In the construction or repair of institutions pursuant to Section 33 of Article X of the State Constitution, contracts must contain a provision requiring employment of Oklahoma labor and use of Oklahoma materials if available and if the quality meets the standards available from outside Oklahoma and can be procured at no greater expense than the same quality of labor or material from outside Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 74, §85.44D. The State Purchasing Division of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services shall give preference to suppliers of wood products made from or products manufactured utilizing materials from trees harvested in Oklahoma if the price for the products and materials is not substantially higher than the price for other wood products and materials and the quality and grade requirements are otherwise comparable.

OKLAHOMA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 61, §14. To be successful, contractors domiciled outside Oklahoma are required to submit a bid the same percent less than the lowest bid submitted by a responsible contractor domiciled in Oklahoma as would be required for such Oklahoma domiciled contractor to succeed over the nonresident bidder in the nonresident bidder's state.

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 74, §85.17A. State agencies shall reciprocate the bidding preference given by other states for acquisitions pursuant to The Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act.

OREGON

OREGON RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Oregon Revised Statutes, §279A.120. In awarding a public contract, preference is given to goods or services manufactured or produced in Oregon if price, fitness, availability, and quality are equal.

Oregon Revised Statutes, §279A.128. A contracting agency that uses public funds to procure goods or services for public use under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 279B (Public Contracting - Public Procurements) may give preference to procuring goods that are fabricated or processed, or services that are performed, entirely within Oregon if they cost not more than 10% more than other goods or services. If more than one bidder qualifies for the preference, further preference may be given to a bidder that resides in or is headquartered in Oregon.

Oregon Administrative Rules, §137-046-0300. Identical offers for goods or services, or both, and personal services under Oregon Revised Statutes, §279A.120 are awarded to those manufactured, produced, or to be performed in Oregon. Under Oregon Revised Statutes, §279A.128, a percentage of not more than 10% for goods fabricated or processed entirely in Oregon or services or personal services performed entirely in Oregon and, if more than one offeror so qualifies, an additional preference may be given to a qualifying offeror that resides in or is headquartered in Oregon.

Oregon Administrative Rules, §731-005-0660. With regard to projects for highway and bridge projects, if no federal funds are involved, preference is given to bidders whose principal offices or headquarters are located in Oregon.

OREGON RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Oregon Revised Statutes, §279A.120. In awarding a public contract, a contracting agency must add a percent increase to the bid of a nonresident bidder equal to the percent, if any, of the preference given to the nonresident bidder in the state in which that bidder resides.

Oregon Administrative Rules, §137-049-0390. In determining the lowest responsive bid, the contracting agency must, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules, §137-046-0310 (applying reciprocal preference of Oregon Revised Statutes, §279A.120), add a percentage increase to a nonresident bidder's bid equal to the percentage, if any, of the preference given to the nonresident bidder in the nonresident bidder's resident state.

Oregon Administrative Rules, §125-246-0310. A percentage increase is added to the offer of a nonresident bidder equal to the percentage, if any, of the preference that would be given to the nonresident bidder in the nonresident bidder's resident state.

Oregon Administrative Rules, §731-005-0650. In contracts for highway and bridge projects, a percentage increase is added to the offer of a nonresident bidder equal to the percentage, if any, of the preference that would be given to the nonresident bidder in the nonresident bidder's resident state.

PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 71, §650. Any heating system or heating unit installed in a facility owned by the state must be fueled by coal produced from mines in Pennsylvania.

PENNSYLVANIA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Tile 62, §107. Preference is given in procurement of supplies to bidders offering supplies produced, manufactured, mined, grown, or performed in Pennsylvania as against bidders offering supplies produced, manufactured, mined, grown, or performed in another state that gives or requires a preference to such in-state supplies. The amount of the preference is equal to the amount of the preference applied by the other state. When a contract for construction or supplies is to be awarded, preference is given to resident bidders against nonresident bidders from states that give or require preferences to resident bidders. The amount of the preference is equal to the amount of the preference applied by the other state.

RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Rhode Island General Laws, §37-2-8. Foodstuffs grown or produced in Rhode Island by Rhode Island farmers are given preference when available and purchased at prevailing market prices.

Rhode Island General Laws, §37-2-59.1. For contracts entirely supported by state funds, all other things being equal, preference is given to Rhode Island architectural, engineering, and consulting firms or secondly those professionals who propose a joint venture with a Rhode Island firm.

Rhode Island General Laws, §37-2-80. Where contracts are entirely supported by state funds and two or more bidders respond and are equal on all other factors, the chief purchasing officer shall select a vendor or service provider whose headquarters or primary place of business is in Rhode Island first and those who propose a joint venture with such an in-state business second.

SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

South Carolina Code, §11-35-1520. In a tie bid for contract, preference is given to South Carolina firms first and to or South Carolina produced or manufactured products second.

South Carolina Code, §12-28-2930. In awarding highway construction contracts, preference is given to a South Carolina contractor if the bid is not more than 2.5% than an out-of-state bid.

South Carolina Code, §11-35-3215. When qualifications are equal, South Carolina resident design service (architect-engineer, construction management, or land surveying service) provider must be selected if a resident and nonresident firm are otherwise equally qualified.

South Carolina Code, §11-35-1524. The price of any offer for a product made, manufactured, or grown in South Carolina is decreased by 7.0%. The price of a bidder's price is decreased by 7.0% if the bidder maintains an office in South Carolina and either:

(i) maintains at a location in South Carolina at the time of the bid an inventory of expendable items which are representative of the general type of commodities on which the award will be made and which have a minimum total value, based on the bid price, equal to the lesser of fifty thousand dollars or the annual amount of the contract;

(ii) is a manufacturer headquartered and having an annual payroll of at least one million dollars in South Carolina and the end product is made or processed from raw materials into a finished end product by that manufacturer or its affiliate (as defined in Section 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code); or

(iii) at the time of bidding, directly employs or has a documented commitment with individuals domiciled in South Carolina that will perform services expressly required by the solicitation and the total direct labor cost to bidder for those individuals to provide those services exceeds 50% of the bidder's total bid price.

This section does not apply to competitive sealed proposals, motor vehicle purchases, acquisition of supplies or services relating to construction, procurements valued at $10,000 or less. Under no circumstances may the cumulative preferences applied to the price of a line item exceed 10%.

SOUTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

South Dakota Codified Laws, §5-18A-25. If all things are equal, preference is given to a resident business if the low bid was submitted by a nonresident business, to a resident manufacturer if the low bid was submitted by a nonresident manufacturer, to a resident business whose principal place of business is in South Dakota if the low bid was submitted by a resident business whose principal place of business is not in South Dakota, and to a nonresident business providing or utilizing supplies or services found in South Dakota if the low bid was submitted by a nonresident business not providing or utilizing supplies or services found in South Dakota. In computing price, the cost of transportation, if any, including delivery, is considered.

TENNESSEE

TENNESSEE RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Tennessee Code, §12-3-1108. Preference is given in state purchasing of meat or meat by-products to meat producers located within Tennessee as long as terms, conditions, and quality are equal.

Tennessee Code, §12-3-1109. Preference is given in school purchasing of meat or meat by-products to meat producers located within Tennessee as long as terms, conditions and quality are equal.

Tennessee Code, §12-3-1113. Preference is given to goods, including agricultural goods, produced or grown in Tennessee or offered by Tennessee respondents. Goods produced in Tennessee are given equal preference if cost and quality are equal and, if cost and quality are equal, agricultural products grown in Tennessee are given first preference and agricultural products offered by Tennessee respondents are given second preference. Preference is given to Tennessee vegetation when making purchases for landscaping purposes, when cost and quality are equal. Preference is given to services offered by a Tennessee respondent if the services meet state requirements and expected quality and the cost does not exceed the cost of other similar services of similar quality that are not offered by a Tennessee respondent.

Tennessee Code, §12-3-1110. Preference is given in public purchasing to coal mined in Tennessee if such coal is available at a delivered price which is equal to or less than coal mined outside Tennessee.

Tennessee Code, §12-3-1111. Preference is given in public purchasing to natural gas produced from wells located in Tennessee if such gas is available at a price which is equal to or less than gas produced from wells outside Tennessee, with transportation costs taken into account.

UTAH

UTAH RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Utah Administrative Code, R33-6-111. In the event of tie bids, contracts are awarded to procurement items offered by Utah resident bidders.

UTAH RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Utah Code, §63G-6a-1002. A reciprocal preference is given to bidders offering items produced, manufactured, mined, grown, or performed in Utah over those bidders offering such items from any state that gives or requires a preference to such items from that state. The amount of the preference is equal to the amount of the preference applied by the other state for the procured item.

Utah Code Ann., §63G-6a-1003. When awarding contracts for construction, a resident contractor is granted a reciprocal preference over a nonresident contractor from a state that gives or requires a preference to contractors from that state. The amount of the preference is equal to the amount of the preference applied by the other state.

VERMONT

VERMONT RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Vermont Statutes, Title 29, §46. In acquisitions and commissions for art in public buildings, priority shall be given to Vermont artists.

VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Virginia Code, §2.2-4324. In the case of a tie bid, preference is given to goods produced in Virginia and goods or services or construction provided by Virginia persons, firms or corporations. A Virginia person, firm, or corporation is a resident of Virginia if organized pursuant to Virginia law or maintains a principal place of business within Virginia.

Virginia Code, §2.2-4325. In determining the award of any contract for coal to be purchased for use in state facilities with state funds, award shall be to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder offering coal mined in Virginia so long as the bid price is not more than four percent greater than the low responsive and responsible bidder offering coal mined elsewhere.

Virginia Code, §2.2-4328. The governing body of a county, city or town may, in the case of a tie bid, give preference to goods, services and construction produced locally or provided by persons, firms, or corporations with a principal place of business in the locality.

VIRGINIA RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Virginia Code, §2.2-4324. When the lowest responsive and responsible bidder is a resident of a state other than Virginia that allows a resident contractor a percentage preference, a like preference shall be allowed to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder that is a resident of Virginia and is the next lowest bidder. When the lowest responsive and responsible bidder is a resident of a state other than Virginia that allows a resident contractor a price-matching preference, a like preference shall be allowed to responsive and responsible bidders that are residents of Virginia. If the lowest bidder is a resident contractor from a state with an absolute preference, the bid will not be considered. A Virginia person, firm, or corporation is a resident of Virginia if organized pursuant to Virginia law or maintains a principal place of business within Virginia.

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Washington Revised Code, §43.19.748. All printing, binding, and stationery work done for any state agency, county, city, town, port district, or school district in Washington shall be done within Washington, except the officers of any such public corporation may have the work done outside Washington if: such work cannot be executed in Washington, the lowest charge for which such work can be procured exceeds the charge usually and customarily made to private individuals and corporations for work of similar character and quality, or all bids for the work or any part thereof are excessive and not reasonably competitive.

WASHINGTON RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Washington Revised Code, §39.26.260. When appropriate, Washington is to exercise reciprocity with states having in-state preferences.

Washington Administrative Code, §200-300-075. Considering only the business address from which a bid was submitted, when evaluating bids for award, purchasing agencies are to add the appropriate percentage increase to each bid bearing the address from a state with an in-state preference rather than subtracting a like amount from Washington bidders.

WEST VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

West Virginia Code, §5A-3-37. In any instance that a purchase of motor vehicles or construction and maintenance equipment and machinery used in highway and other infrastructure projects by the director or by a state department is required under the provisions of this article to be made upon competitive bids, the successful bid shall be determined and accepted as follows:

(1) from an individual resident vendor who has resided in West Virginia continuously for the four years immediately preceding the date on which the bid is submitted or from a partnership, association, corporation resident vendor, or from a corporation nonresident vendor which has an affiliate or subsidiary which employs a minimum of one hundred West Virginia residents and which has maintained its headquarters or principal place of business within West Virginia continuously for four years immediately preceding the date on which the bid is submitted, if the vendor's bid does not exceed the lowest qualified bid from a nonresident vendor by more than 2.5% of the latter bid (for purposes of this subdivision, any partnership, association or corporation resident vendor of West Virginia which does not meet the requirements of this subdivision solely because of the continuous four-year residence requirement shall be considered to meet the requirement if at least 80% of the ownership interest of the resident vendor is held by another individual, partnership, association or corporation resident vendor who otherwise meets the requirements of this subdivision, including the continuous four-year residency requirement); or

(2) from a resident vendor, if, for purposes of producing and distributing motor vehicles or the construction and maintenance equipment and machinery used in highway and other infrastructure projects which is the subject of the vendor's bid and continuously over the entire term of the project, on average at least 75% of the vendor's employees are residents of West Virginia who have resided in West Virginia continuously for the two immediately preceding years, and the vendor's bid does not exceed the lowest qualified bid from a nonresident vendor by more than 2.5% of the latter bid; or

(3) from a nonresident vendor, which employs a minimum of one hundred West Virginia residents or a nonresident vendor which has an affiliate or subsidiary which maintains its headquarters or principal place of business within West Virginia and which employs a minimum of one hundred West Virginia residents, if, for purposes of producing and distributing motor vehicles or the construction and maintenance equipment and machinery used in highway and other infrastructure projects which is the subject of the vendor's bid and continuously over the entire term of the project, on average at least 75% of the vendor's employees or the vendor's affiliate's or subsidiary's employees are residents of West Virginia who have resided in West Virginia continuously for the two immediately preceding years and the vendor's bid does not exceed the lowest qualified bid from a nonresident vendor by more than 2.5% of the latter bid; or

(4) from a vendor who meets either the requirements of both subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection or subdivisions (1) and (3) of this subsection, if the bid does not exceed the lowest qualified bid from a nonresident vendor by more than 5.0% of the latter bid; or

(5) from an individual resident vendor who is a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, the Reserves or the National Guard and has resided in West Virginia continuously for the four years immediately preceding the date on which the bid is submitted, if the vendor's bid does not exceed the lowest qualified bid from a nonresident vendor by more than 3.5% of the latter bid; or

(6) from a resident vendor who is a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, the Reserves or the National Guard, if, for purposes of producing or distributing the commodities or completing the project which is the subject of the vendor's bid and continuously over the entire term of the project, on average at least 75% of the vendor's employees are residents of West Virginia who have resided in West Virginia continuously for the two immediately preceding years and the vendor's bid does not exceed the lowest qualified bid from a nonresident vendor by more than 3.5% of the latter bid; or

(7) notwithstanding any provisions of subdivisions (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) of this subsection to the contrary, if any nonresident vendor that is bidding on the purchase of motor vehicles or construction and maintenance equipment and machinery used in highway and other infrastructure projects by the director or by a state department is also certified as a small, women or minority-owned business pursuant to section fifty-nine (§5A-3-59) of this article, the nonresident vendor shall be provided the same preference made available to any resident vendor under the provisions of this subsection.

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Wisconsin Administrative Code AB, §4.05. Preference is given to Wisconsin artists in the purchase of commission of original works of visual art for buildings constructed by the state when no other basis exists for differentiating finalists.

Wisconsin Administrative Code ADM, §8.03. In the case of tie bids, an award shall be made to Wisconsin suppliers in preference to out-of-state suppliers as provided in Wisconsin Statutes, §16.75.

WISCONSIN RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE

Wisconsin Statutes, §16.75. Preference is given to Wisconsin producers, distributors, suppliers, and retailers, if any, when the department of administration is awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder for materials, supplies, equipment, and contracted services if the bidder is not a Wisconsin producer, distributor, supplier, or retailer and the state in which the bidder is domiciled grants a preference to bidders domiciled in that state.

Wisconsin Statutes, §16.855. Preference is given to Wisconsin firms, if any, when awarding a contract to the lowest qualified responsible bidder on construction work with estimated construction costs exceeding $50,000 if the bidder is not a Wisconsin firm and the state in which the bidder is domiciled grants a preference to bidders domiciled in that state.

WYOMING

WYOMING RESIDENT BIDDER PREFERENCE

Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-803. Preference is given to Wyoming artists in acquisition of art for placement within public buildings.

Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-301. When contracts are let for public printing, except for compilation, codification, revision, or digest of the statutes or case law of Wyoming, they shall be let to the responsible resident making the lowest bid if the bid is not more than 10% higher than that of the lowest responsible nonresident bidder. "Resident" means any person or business entity who has been a bona fide resident of Wyoming as defined in Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-101(a)(i) for one year or more immediately prior to bidding and who has an established printing plant in actual operation in Wyoming immediately prior to bidding.

Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-102. If a contract is let for construction, major maintenance, or renovation of any public building or other public structure or for making any addition thereto or for any public work or improvements, the contract shall be let, if advertisement for bids is required, to the responsible certified resident making the lowest bid if it is not more than 5.0% higher than that of the lowest responsible nonresident bidder.

Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-104. Wyoming made materials and products, and Wyoming suppliers of products and materials of equal quality and desirability have preference over materials or products produced or supplied outside Wyoming. The preference shall be applied in the same manner as the preference in Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-102.

Wyoming Statutes, §16-6-105. As long as quality is equal, Preference by a differential not to exceed 5.0% shall be given in all purchases for supplies, material, agricultural products, equipment, machinery and provisions to be used in the construction, major maintenance and renovation of institutions, supplies, materials, agricultural products, equipment, machinery and provisions produced, manufactured, or grown in Wyoming, and supplies, materials, agricultural products, equipment, machinery, and provisions supplied by a resident of Wyoming, competent and capable to provide service for the supplies, materials, agricultural products, equipment, machinery, and provisions within the state of Wyoming.

TRD-201903592

Don Neal

Chief Counsel for Operations and Support

Comptroller of Public Accounts

Filed: October 7, 2019


Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Notice of Rate Ceilings

The Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas has ascertained the following rate ceilings by use of the formulas and methods described in §303.003 and §303.009, Texas Finance Code.

The weekly ceiling as prescribed by §303.003 and §303.009 for the period of 10/14/19 - 10/20/19 is 18% for Consumer1/Agricultural/Commercial2 credit through $250,000.

The weekly ceiling as prescribed by §303.003 and §303.009 for the period of 10/14/19 - 10/20/19 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.

1 Credit for personal, family or household use.

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

TRD-201903614

Leslie L. Pettijohn

Commissioner

Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Filed: October 8, 2019


Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Agreed Orders

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) in accordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075. TWC, §7.075, requires that before the commission may approve the AOs, the commission shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed AOs. TWC, §7.075, requires that notice of the proposed orders and the opportunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is November 19, 2019. TWC, §7.075, also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments received and that the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate that consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the commission's jurisdiction or the commission's orders and permits issued in accordance with the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed AO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed AO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building C, 1st Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-2545 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Written comments about an AO should be sent to the enforcement coordinator designated for each AO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2019. Written comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the enforcement coordinator at (512) 239-2550. The commission's enforcement coordinators are available to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, TWC, §7.075, provides that comments on the AOs shall be submitted to the commission in writing.

(1) COMPANY: Aqua Texas, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0738-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101525806; LOCATION: Baytown, Chambers County; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment facility; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TWC, §26.121(a)(1), Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit Number WQ0011449001 (issued September 10, 2015), Interim II Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Numbers 1 and 2, and TPDES Permit Number WQ0011449001 (issued July 12, 2018), Interim I Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Number 1, by failing to comply with permitted effluent limitations; PENALTY: $15,187; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Aaron Vincent, (512) 239-0855; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Street, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1452, (713) 767-3500.

(2) COMPANY: Aqua Utilities, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0824-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102679313; LOCATION: Joshua, Johnson County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(B)(i) and Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0315(c), by failing to provide a minimum well capacity of 0.6 gallons per minute per connection; 30 TAC §290.46(m), by failing to initiate maintenance and housekeeping practices to ensure the good working condition and general appearance of the system's facilities and equipment; and 30 TAC §290.46(n)(3), by failing to keep on file copies of the well completion data as defined in 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(A) for as long as the well remains in service for Well Numbers 3 and 4; PENALTY: $803; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Danielle Porras, (713) 767-3682; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(3) COMPANY: City of Bellaire; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0268-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101390136; LOCATION: Bellaire, Harris County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(e) and Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.033(a), by failing to use the production, treatment, and distribution facilities at the public water system at all times under the direct supervision of a water works operator who holds an applicable valid license issued by the executive director; and 30 TAC §290.46(z), by failing to create a nitrification action plan for all systems distributing chloraminated water; PENALTY: $472; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Ronica Rodriguez, (361) 825-3425; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Street, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1452, (713) 767-3500.

(4) COMPANY: City of Luling; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0784-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101219301; LOCATION: Luling, Gonzales County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.117(e)(2), (h), and (i)(3), by failing to conduct water quality parameter sampling at each of the facility's entry points and the required distribution sample sites, have the samples analyzed, and report the results to the executive director (ED) for the June 1, 2018 - November 30, 2018, monitoring period; 30 TAC §290.117(f)(3)(A), by failing to submit a recommendation to the ED for optimal corrosion control treatment within six months after the end of the January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2018, monitoring period, during which the lead action level was exceeded; 30 TAC §290.117(g)(2)(A), by failing to submit a recommendation to the ED for source water treatment within 180 days after the end of the January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2018, monitoring period, during which the lead action level was exceeded; and 30 TAC §290.122(c)(2)(A) and (f), by failing to provide public notification and submit a copy of the notification, accompanied with a signed Certificate of Delivery, to the ED regarding the failure to submit a Disinfectant Level Quarterly Operating Report for the second through fourth quarters of 2017; PENALTY: $1,312; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Steven Hall, (512) 239-2569; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6300 Ocean Drive, Suite 1200, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5839, (361) 825-3100.

(5) COMPANY: City of Richland Springs; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0972-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101405033; LOCATION: Richland Springs, San Saba County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §288.20(c) and §288.30(5)(B), by failing to review and update, as appropriate, the drought contingency plan, at least every five years, based on new or updated information, such as the adoption or revision of the regional water plan; 30 TAC §290.46(f)(2) and (3)(A)(i)(III) and (D)(i), by failing to maintain water works operation and maintenance records and make them readily available for review by the executive director upon request; 30 TAC §290.46(l), by failing to flush all dead-end mains at monthly intervals; 30 TAC §290.46(s)(1), by failing to calibrate the facility's well meter at least once every three years; and 30 TAC §290.121(a) and (b), by failing to maintain an up-to-date chemical and microbiological monitoring plan that identifies all sampling locations, describes the sampling frequency, and specifies the analytical procedures and laboratories that the facility will use to comply with the monitoring requirements; PENALTY: $512; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Yuliya Dunaway, (210) 403-4077; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(6) COMPANY: City of Toyah; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0591-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101225001; LOCATION: Toyah, Reeves County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.110(e)(2) and (6) and §290.111(h)(2)(B) and (9), by failing to submit a Surface Water Monthly Operating Report with the required turbidity and disinfectant residual data to the executive director (ED) by the tenth day of the month following the end of the reporting period for February 2019; 30 TAC §290.112(e)(1) and (f)(2) and §290.122(c)(2)(A) and (f), by failing to submit a Total Organic Carbon Monthly Operating Report (TOCMOR) with the required total organic carbon and alkalinity sampling data to the ED each month by the tenth day of the month following the end of the reporting period during the second quarter of 2017 through the fourth quarter of 2018, and failing to provide public notification and submit a copy of the public notification, accompanied with a signed Certificate of Delivery, to the ED regarding the failure to submit a TOCMOR with the required total organic carbon and alkalinity sampling data to the ED each month by the tenth day of the month following the end of the reporting period during the fourth quarter of 2017; and 30 TAC §290.271(b) and §290.274(a) and (c), by failing to mail or directly deliver one copy of the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) to each bill paying customer by July 1st for each year, and failing to submit to the TCEQ by July 1st for each year a copy of the annual CCR and certification that the CCR was distributed to the customers of the facility and that the information on the CCR is correct and consistent with compliance monitoring data for calendar year 2017; PENALTY: $895; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Julianne Dewar, (817) 588-5861; REGIONAL OFFICE: 9900 West IH-20, Suite 100, Midland, Texas 79706, (432) 570-1359.

(7) COMPANY: DCP Operating Company, LP; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0521-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102557931; LOCATION: Bishop, Nueces County; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas processing plant; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.143(4) and §122.145(2)(A), Federal Operating Permit Number O2590, General Terms and Conditions, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.085(b), by failing to report all instances of deviations; PENALTY: $3,767; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Soraya Bun, (713) 422-8912; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6300 Ocean Drive, Suite 1200, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5839, (361) 825-3100.

(8) COMPANY: DeCoty Coffee Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0652-WQ-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102562840; LOCATION: San Angelo, Tom Green County; TYPE OF FACILITY: coffee roasting operation and distribution; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §281.25(a)(4), TWC, §26.121, 40 Code of Federal Regulations §122.26(c), and Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) Number TXRNEW721, by failing to properly obtain authorization to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities under TPDES MSGP Number TXR050000; and 30 TAC §281.25(a)(4) and §335.4, and TWC, §26.121(a) by failing to prevent the unauthorized discharge of industrial solid waste into or adjacent to any water in the state; PENALTY: $1,626; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Caleb Olson, (817) 588-5856; REGIONAL OFFICE: 622 South Oakes, Suite K, San Angelo, Texas 76903-7035, (325) 655-9479.

(9) COMPANY: Koch-Glitsch, LP; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0884-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN104421946; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.109(d)(4)(B) (formerly §290.109(c)(4)(B)) by failing to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the routine distribution total coliform-positive samples on May 5, 2014 and October 2, 2018, at least one raw groundwater source Escherichia coli (or other approved fecal indicator) sample from each active groundwater source in use at the time the distribution coliform-positive samples were collected; PENALTY: $354; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Samantha Duncan, (512) 239-2511; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Street, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1452, (713) 767-3500.

(10) COMPANY: Luis Enrique Estrada; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0853-MSW-E; IDENTIFIER: RN109302489; LOCATION: Belton, Bell County; TYPE OF FACILITY: unauthorized municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal site; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §330.15(a) and (c) and TCEQ Agreed Order Docket Number 2017-1119-MSW-E, Ordering Provisions 2.b, by failing to not cause, suffer, allow, or permit the dumping or disposal of MSW without the written authorization of the commission; PENALTY: $21,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: John Fennell, (512) 239-2616; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(11) COMPANY: Monarch Utilities I L.P.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-1141-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102987856; LOCATION: Livingston, Polk County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.115(f)(1) and Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0315(c), by failing to comply with the maximum contaminant level of 0.060 milligrams per liter for haloacetic acids based on the locational running annual average; PENALTY: $690; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Samantha Salas, (512) 239-1543; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1830, (409) 898-3838.

(12) COMPANY: PIXLEY WATER WORKS, INCORPORATED; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0796-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101284156; LOCATION: Goodrich, Polk County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.117(e)(2), (h) and (i)(3), by failing to conduct water quality parameter sampling at each of the facility's entry points and the required distribution sample sites, have the samples analyzed, and report the results to the executive director (ED) for the June 1, 2018 - November 30, 2018, monitoring period; 30 TAC §290.117(f)(3)(A), by failing to submit a recommendation to the ED for optimal corrosion control treatment within six months after the end of the January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2018, monitoring period, during which the copper action level was exceeded; 30 TAC §290.117(g)(2)(A), by failing to submit a recommendation to the ED for source water treatment within 180 days after the end of the January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2018, monitoring period, during which the copper action level was exceeded; and 30 TAC §291.76 and TWC, §5.702, by failing to pay regulatory assessment fees for the TCEQ Public Utility Account regarding Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Number 12092 for calendar year 2018; PENALTY: $280; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Miles Wehner, (512) 239-2813; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1830, (409) 898-3838.

(13) COMPANY: QUIKTRIP CORPORATION; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0985-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER: RN110719366; LOCATION: Spring Branch, Comal County; TYPE OF FACILITY: commercial development project; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §213.23(a)(1), by failing to obtain approval of an Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan prior to commencing a regulated activity over the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone; and 30 TAC §281.25(a)(4), TWC, §26.121 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §122.26(c), by failing to obtain authorization to discharge stormwater associated with construction activities; PENALTY: $1,813; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Alejandro Laje, (512) 239-2547; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(14) COMPANY: S & S B ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED dba Zara Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0544-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102355369; LOCATION: San Antonio, Bexar County; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(b)(1)(A), TWC, §26.3475(c)(1), and TCEQ Agreed Order Docket Number 2016-0871-PST-E, Ordering Provision Number 2(a), by failing to monitor the underground storage tanks for releases at a frequency of at least once every 30 days; PENALTY: $45,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Stephanie McCurley, (512) 239-2607; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(15) COMPANY: Susser Petroleum Property Company LLC dba Fast Break 8; DOCKET NUMBER: 2018-0776-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102921434; LOCATION: San Marcos, Hays County; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.49(a)(1) and TWC, §26.3475(d), by failing to provide corrosion protection for the underground storage tank (UST) system; and 30 TAC §334.50(b)(2) and TWC, §26.3475(a), by failing to provide release detection for the pressurized piping associated with the UST system; PENALTY: $5,750; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Hailey Johnson, (512) 239-1756; REGIONAL OFFICE: P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, (512) 339-2929.

(16) COMPANY: TEXAS STAR SKY, INCORPORATED dba Gas N Go Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0607-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101891505; LOCATION: San Antonio, Bexar County; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.49(a)(2) and (c)(4)(C) and TWC, §26.3475(d), by failing to ensure the underground storage tank (UST) corrosion protection system is operated and maintained in a manner that will provide continuous corrosion protection, and failing to inspect and test the cathodic protection system for operability and adequacy of protection at a frequency of at least once every three years; PENALTY: $3,434; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Hailey Johnson, (512) 239-1756; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(17) COMPANY: Undine Texas Environmental, LLC; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0830-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101522464; LOCATION: Weatherford, Parker County; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment facility; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TWC, §26.121(a)(1), and Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number WQ0014163001, Interim I Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Numbers 1 and 2, by failing to comply with permitted effluent limitations; PENALTY: $6,375; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Aaron Vincent, (512) 239-0855; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(18) COMPANY: US Department of the Navy; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0746-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN101224038; LOCATION: Fort Worth, Tarrant County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(e), by failing to ensure the production, treatment, and distribution facilities at the public water system are operated at all times under the direct supervision of a water works operator who holds an applicable, valid license issued by the executive director; 30 TAC §290.46(z) and (z)(2), by failing to create a Nitrification Action Plan, for a system distributing chloraminated water, that contains system-specific action levels where action must be taken for free ammonia, monochloramine, total chlorine, nitrite, and nitrate; 30 TAC §290.110(c), by failing to monitor the performance of the disinfection facilities at sites designated in the public water system's monitoring plan; and 30 TAC §290.110(c)(5) and (5)(B)(i) and (D)(i), by failing to monitor to ensure that monochloramine is the prevailing chloramine species and that nitrification is controlled for public water systems with a chloramine residual; PENALTY: $200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Marla Waters, (512) 239-4712; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(19) COMPANY: Walter J. Carroll Water Company, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0731-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN102688041; LOCATION: Waxahachie, Ellis County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.42(e)(3)(A), by failing to provide disinfection equipment which has a capacity of at least 50% greater than the highest expected dosage to be applied at any time; 30 TAC §290.42(l), by failing to maintain a thorough and up-to-date plant operations manual for operator review and reference; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C)(iii) and Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §341.0315(c), by failing to provide two or more service pumps having a total capacity of 2.0 gallons per minute per connection; 30 TAC §290.46(d)(2)(A) and §290.110(b)(4) and THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to maintain a minimum disinfectant residual of 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of free chlorine throughout the distribution system at all times; 30 TAC §290.46(f)(2) and (3)(A)(iii) and (iv), and (D)(i), by failing to maintain water works operation and maintenance records and make them readily available for review by the executive director (ED) upon request; 30 TAC §290.46(j), by failing to complete a Customer Service Inspection certificate prior to providing continuous water service to new construction or any existing service when the water purveyor has reason to believe cross-connections or other potential contamination hazards exist; 30 TAC §290.46(m), by failing to initiate maintenance and housekeeping practices to ensure the good working condition and general appearance of the facility and its equipment; 30 TAC §290.46(m)(1)(A), by failing to inspect the facility's ground storage tank annually; 30 TAC §290.46(m)(1)(B), by failing to inspect the facility's two pressure tanks annually; 30 TAC §290.46(m)(4), by failing to maintain all water treatment units, storage and pressure maintenance facilities, distribution system lines, and related appurtenances in a watertight condition; 30 TAC §290.46(n)(2), by failing to make available an accurate and up-to-date map of the distribution system so that valves and mains can easily be located during emergencies; 30 TAC §290.118(a) and (b), by failing to meet the maximum secondary constituent levels of 300 mg/L for sulfate and 1,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids, respectively, or receive written approval from the ED to use the water source for public drinking water; and 30 TAC §290.121(a) and (b), by failing to maintain an up-to-date chemical and microbiological monitoring plan that identifies all sampling locations, describes the sampling frequency, and specifies the analytical procedures and laboratories that the public water system will use to comply with the monitoring requirements; PENALTY: $2,972; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Ryan Byer, (512) 239-2571; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(20) COMPANY: WTR Real Estate Holdings, L.C. dba Heartland House; DOCKET NUMBER: 2019-0883-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: RN107135956; LOCATION: Lubbock, Lubbock County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.117(f)(3)(A), by failing to submit a recommendation to the executive director (ED) for optimal corrosion control treatment within six months after the end of the January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2018, monitoring period, during which the lead action level was exceeded; 30 TAC §290.117(g)(2)(A), by failing to submit a recommendation to the ED for source water treatment within 180 days following the end of the January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2018, monitoring period, during which the lead action level was exceeded; and 30 TAC §290.122(c)(2)(A) and (f), by failing to provide public notification and submit a copy of the public notification to the ED regarding the failure to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the routine distribution total coliform-positive samples on November 20, 2014 and December 22, 2014 at least one raw groundwater source Escherichia coli (or other approved fecal indicator) sample from each active groundwater source in use at the time the distribution coliform-positive samples were collected; PENALTY: $350; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carlos Molina, (512) 239-2557; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5012 50th Street, Suite 100, Lubbock, Texas 79414-3426, (806) 796-7092.

TRD-201903610

Charmaine Backens

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 8, 2019


Enforcement Orders

An agreed order was adopted regarding Tyler Petroleum Inc dba Race Runner 6, Docket No. 2018‑0181‑PST‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $4,875 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Taylor Pearson, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Faiza H. Malik dba AKN, LLC, Docket No. 2018‑0314‑PST‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $3,750 in administrative penalties with $750 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Berenice Munoz, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding NEW SAMA, INC. dba Dry Clean Super Center, Docket No. 2018‑0909‑DCL‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $7,086 in administrative penalties with $1,416 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Amanda Scott, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding SAL Construction Management, LLC, Docket No. 2018‑0919‑WQ‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $938 in administrative penalties with $187 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Steven Van Landingham, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Gypsy River LLC, Docket No. 2018‑0952‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $427 in administrative penalties with $85 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ryan Byer, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Chris McFarlane, Docket No. 2018‑0968‑PST‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $4,732 in administrative penalties with $946 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Margarita Dennis, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Jesus Matamoros dba Texas Truck Wash, Docket No. 2018‑1177‑WQ‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $1,063 in administrative penalties with $212 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Aaron Vincent, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding JAY OMKARA INC. dba Classic Mart, Docket No. 2018‑1419‑PST‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $7,352 in administrative penalties with $1,470 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Danielle Porras, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Craig Rossell dba Lemley RV Park and Marsha Rossell dba Lemley RV Park, Docket No. 2018‑1479‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $2,011 in administrative penalties with $402 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ryan Byer, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding German A. Priegue and Cinthia Priegue, Docket No. 2018‑1580‑PST‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $4,000 in administrative penalties with $800 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Berenice Munoz, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding SIMPLY AQUATICS, INC., Docket No. 2018‑1595‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $198 in administrative penalties with $39 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Epifanio Villarreal, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Dale W. Haggard dba Whispering Pines Subdivison, Docket No. 2018‑1628‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $170 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Logan Harrell, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Fort Elliott Consolidated Independent School District, Docket No. 2018‑1630‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $275 in administrative penalties with $55 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Julianne Dewar, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Treasure Island Municipal Utility District, Docket No. 2019‑0037‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $112 in administrative penalties with $22 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Steven Hall, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Mobil Pipe Line Company, Docket No. 2019‑0111‑AIR‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $813 in administrative penalties with $162 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Margarita Dennis, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Karen Risler, Docket No. 2019‑0163‑MSW‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $1,312 in administrative penalties with $262 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting John Fennell, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding MKO TRUCKING, INC., Docket No. 2019‑0192‑MSW‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $242 in administrative penalties with $48 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ken Moller, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding City of Splendora, Docket No. 2019‑0203‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $113 in administrative penalties with $22 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ronica Rodriguez, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Morton Salt, Inc., Docket No. 2019‑0209‑AIR‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $1,900 in administrative penalties with $380 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Soraya Bun, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Sralla MHP, LP, Docket No. 2019‑0226‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $584 in administrative penalties with $116 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Yuliya Dunaway, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Lyons Water Supply Corporation, Docket No. 2019‑0227‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $172 in administrative penalties with $34 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Marla Waters, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Pure Utilities, L.C., Docket No. 2019‑0240‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $102 in administrative penalties with $20 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ryan Byer, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Associated Group Investment Company, Docket No. 2019‑0256‑AIR‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $1,844 in administrative penalties with $368 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Soraya Bun, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Utilities Investment Company, Inc., Docket No. 2019‑0293‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $333 in administrative penalties with $66 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Miles Wehner, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Forest Water Supply Corporation, Docket No. 2019‑0294‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $752 in administrative penalties with $150 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Julianne Dewar, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding City of Oakwood, Docket No. 2019‑0354‑MLM‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $487 in administrative penalties with $97 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Epifanio Villarreal, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding CRYSTAL CLEAR WATER, INC, Docket No. 2019‑0362‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $52 in administrative penalties with $10 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Steven Hall, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Spirit TS Fredericksburg TX, LLC, Docket No. 2019‑0730‑PWS‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $138 in administrative penalties with $27 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Steven Hall, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A field citation was adopted regarding Redi-Mix, LLC, Docket No. 2019‑0900‑WQ‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $875 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this citation may be obtained by contacting Alejandro Laje, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A field citation was adopted regarding South Texas Illumination, LLC, Docket No. 2019‑0969‑WR‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $350 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this citation may be obtained by contacting Harley Hobson, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A field citation was adopted regarding Boot Construction, LLC, Docket No. 2019‑1055‑WR‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $350 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this citation may be obtained by contacting Chase Davenport, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A field citation was adopted regarding Canyon West Construction, LLC, Docket No. 2019‑1083‑WQ‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $875 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this citation may be obtained by contacting Katelyn Tubbs, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A field citation was adopted regarding Ray French Land Company, Ltd., Docket No. 2019‑1097‑WQ‑E on October 8, 2019, assessing $875 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this citation may be obtained by contacting Aaron Vincent, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

TRD-201903630

Bridget C. Bohac

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 9, 2019


Enforcement Orders

A default order was adopted regarding RANGER UTILITY COMPANY, Docket No. 2017‑0083‑PWS‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $2,776 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ryan Rutledge, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Interstate Pipeline Utility Construction, LLC, Docket No. 2017‑0211‑WQ‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $7,538 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Elizabeth Lieberknecht, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding RR GOLAY LLC dba Rite Track 11, Docket No. 2017‑1293‑PST‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $9,046 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Clayton Smith, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding INEOS USA LLC, Docket No. 2017‑1540‑AIR‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $206,083 in administrative penalties with $41,216 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Margarita Dennis, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Southcross Gathering Ltd., Docket No. 2018‑0828‑AIR‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $9,001 in administrative penalties with $1,800 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Johnnie Wu, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Bao Hoai Tran dba JT Brothers RV park and Miriam Zambrana dba JT Brothers RV Park, Docket No. 2018‑0847‑PWS‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $1,334 in administrative penalties with $348 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Soraya Bun, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A default order was adopted regarding Chelsea Watson dba Triple 777 Deer Blinds, Docket No. 2018‑0861‑AIR‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $1,312 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Clayton Smith, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Suncot Gin, LLC, Docket No. 2018‑0882‑AIR‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $8,250 in administrative penalties with $1,650 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Carol McGrath, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding DAVE'S ROOFING, SIDING AND METAL BUILDINGS, LLC, Docket No. 2018‑0912‑PWS‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $865 in administrative penalties with $540 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Marla Waters, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A default order was adopted regarding Deyma Davila dba DEYS RV AND MOBILE PARK, Docket No. 2018‑0937‑PWS‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $889 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Jaime Garcia, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Heritage Ministries, Docket No. 2018‑1229‑PWS‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $211 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ronica Rodriguez, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Texas National Municipal Utility District, Docket No. 2018‑1269‑MWD‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $7,812 in administrative penalties with $1,562 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Harley Hobson, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Tina's Mexican Kitchen, LLC dba Tina's Mini-Mart, Docket No. 2018‑1280‑PST‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $15,416 in administrative penalties with $3,083 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Danielle Porras, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A default order was adopted regarding Matthew T. Tamplen, Docket No. 2018‑1315‑MLM‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $14,345 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ryan Rutledge, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding ROCHELLE WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION, Docket No. 2018‑1376‑PWS‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $1,503 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Samantha Duncan, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding ACG INVESTMENTS L.L.C. dba Galloway Exxon & U Haul, Docket No. 2018‑1430‑PST‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $8,550 in administrative penalties with $1,710 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Margarita Dennis, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding Cooper Stone, LLC, Docket No. 2018‑1436‑MLM‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $7,563 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Logan Harrell, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding R2R and D, LLC, Docket No. 2018‑1588‑AIR‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $9,750 in administrative penalties with $1,950 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Margarita Dennis, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

An agreed order was adopted regarding PETROLEUM TRANSPORT, INC., Docket No. 2018‑1640‑PST‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $9,105 in administrative penalties with $1,821 deferred. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Ken Moller, Enforcement Coordinator at (512) 239‑2545, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

A default order was adopted regarding Cody L. Cain, Docket No. 2019‑0264‑WOC‑E on October 9, 2019, assessing $4,198 in administrative penalties. Information concerning any aspect of this order may be obtained by contacting Logan Harrell, Staff Attorney at (512) 239‑3400, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087.

TRD-201903632

Bridget C. Bohac

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 9, 2019


Notice of Correction to an Agreed Order Number 6

In the October 4, 2019, issue of the Texas Register (44 TexReg 5811), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) published Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Agreed Orders of Administrative Enforcement Actions, specifically Item Number 6, International Aluminum Corporation dba International Extrusion Company - Texas and Universal Molding Company, Inc. The error is as submitted by the commission. The reference to penalty should be corrected to read: $185,264.

For questions concerning this error, please contact Elizabeth Lieberknecht at (512) 239-0620.

TRD-201903609

Charmaine Backens

Director, Litigator Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 8, 2019


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

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) in accordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075. TWC, §7.075, requires that before the commission may approve the AOs, the commission shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed AOs. TWC, §7.075, requires that notice of the opportunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is November 19, 2019. TWC, §7.075, also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments received and that the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate that consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the commission's jurisdiction or the commission's orders and permits issued in accordance with the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed AO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed AO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239‑3400 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Written comments about an AO should be sent to the attorney designated for the AO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2019. Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239‑3434. The designated attorneys are available to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, TWC, §7.075, provides that comments on an AO shall be submitted to the commission in writing.

(1) COMPANY: B.A.I. BUSINESS LLC dba Sealy Truck Stop; DOCKET NUMBER: 2018-1574-PST-E; TCEQ ID NUMBER: RN102315439; LOCATION: 5058 Northwest Interstate Highway 10 Frontage Road, Sealy, Austin County; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground storage tank (UST) system and a convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: TWC, §26.3475(c)(1) and 30 TAC §334.50(b)(1)(A), by failing to monitor the USTs in a manner which will detect a release at a frequency of at least once every 30 days; and TWC, §26.3475(c)(1) and 30 TAC §334.50 ((d)(9)(A)(iii), by failing to take appropriate steps to assure that a Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) analysis report is received from the entity which performs the SIR analysis for the 30-day period in no more than 15 calendar days following the last day of the 30-day period for which the analysis is performed; PENALTY: $6,750; STAFF ATTORNEY: Ben Warms, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-5144; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Street, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1452, (713) 767-3500.

(2) COMPANY: CRIDER'S MANAGEMENT, LLC dba Crider's Frio River Resort; DOCKET NUMBER: 2018-0639-PWS-E; TCEQ ID NUMBER: RN101259372; LOCATION: 7070 South United States Highway 83 near Concan, Uvalde County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water system; RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.43(c), by failing to ensure that all potable water storage facilities are covered and designed, fabricated, erected, tested, and disinfected in strict accordance with current American Water Works Association standards; Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0351 and 30 TAC §290.39(j)(1)(A), by failing to notify the executive director prior to making any significant change or addition to the system's production, treatment, storage, pressure maintenance, or distribution facilities; 30 TAC §290.46(m)(1)(A), by failing to conduct an annual inspection of the facility's ground storage tank; Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0315(c) and 30 TAC §290.45(c)(1)(B)(iii), by failing to provide two or more service pumps having a total capacity of 1.0 gallon per minute per unit; 30 TAC §290.46(n)(3), by failing to keep on file copies of well completion data as defined in 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(A) for as long as the well remains in service; 30 TAC §§290.42(c)(1), 290.110(e)(2) and (6), and 290.111(a)(2) and (h), by failing to provide a minimum treatment consisting of coagulation with direct filtration and adequate disinfection for groundwater under the influence of surface water (GUI), and failing to submit Surface Water Monthly Operating Reports for systems that use GUI; and 30 TAC §290.109(d)(4)(B) (formally 30 TAC §290.109(c)(4)(B)), by failing to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the routine distribution total coliform-positive sample on March 28, 2016, at least one raw groundwater source Escherichia coli (or other approved fecal indicator) sample from each active groundwater source in use at the time the distribution coliform-positive sample was collected; PENALTY: $3,213; STAFF ATTORNEY: Audrey Liter, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-0684; REGIONAL OFFICE: San Antonio Regional Office, 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(3) COMPANY: PILOT POINT RURAL WATER SUPPLY, INC.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2018-0616-MLM-E; TCEQ ID NUMBER: RN102692837; LOCATION: approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the intersection of North Willow Glade Circle and County Line Road near Pilot Point, Denton County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water system (PWS); RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.46(e), by failing to operate the production, treatment, and distribution facilities at the PWS at all times under the direct supervision of a water works operator who holds an applicable, valid license issued by the executive director (ED); 30 TAC §290.46(f)(2) and (3)(A)(i)(III), (ii), and (iii), by failing to maintain water works operation and maintenance records and make them available for review to the ED during the investigation; 30 TAC §290.46(l), by failing to flush all dead-end mains at monthly intervals; 30 TAC §290.46(n)(2), by failing to make available an accurate and up-to-date map of the distribution system so that valves and mains can be easily located during emergencies; 30 TAC §290.109(d)(1)(A), by failing to collect routine distribution coliform samples at a customer's premises, dedicated sampling station, or other designated compliance sampling location at active service connections that are representative of water quality throughout the distribution system; 30 TAC §290.46(m)(1)(A), by failing to conduct an annual inspection of the facility's ground storage tank; 30 TAC §290.46(m)(1)(B), by failing to conduct an annual inspection of the facility's pressure tank; 30 TAC §290.46(i), by failing to adopt an adequate plumbing ordinance, regulations, or service agreement with provisions for proper enforcement to ensure that neither cross-connections nor other unacceptable plumbing practices are permitted; 30 TAC §290.46(n)(3), by failing to keep on file copies of well completion data, as defined in 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(A), for as long as the well remains in service; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F), by failing to obtain a sanitary control easement covering land within 150 feet of the facility's well; 30 TAC §290.46(j), by failing to complete a customer service inspection certificate prior to providing continuous water service to new construction, on any existing service when the water purveyor has reason to believe that a cross-connection or other potential contaminant hazards exist, or after any material improvement, correction, or addition to the private water distribution facilities; 30 TAC §290.110(c)(4)(A), by failing to monitor the disinfectant residual at representative locations throughout the distribution system at least once every seven days; 30 TAC §290.46(s)(1), by failing to calibrate the facility's well meter at least once every three years; 30 TAC §290.46(s)(2)(C)(i), by failing to verify the accuracy of manual disinfectant residual analyzers at least once every 90 days using chlorine solutions of known concentrations; Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0315(c) and 30 TAC §290.46(d)(2)(A) and §290.110(b)(4), by failing to maintain a minimum disinfectant residual of 0.2 milligrams per liter free chlorine throughout the distribution system at all times; and TWC, §11.1272 and 30 TAC §288.20(a) and §288.30(5)(B), by failing to adopt and make available for inspection a drought contingency plan that includes all elements for municipal use by a retail public water supplier; PENALTY: $4,952; STAFF ATTORNEY: Clayton Smith, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6224; REGIONAL OFFICE: Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Office, 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(4) COMPANY: Raul Gomez; DOCKET NUMBER: 2017-1624-MLM-E; TCEQ ID NUMBER: RN109563015; LOCATION: west side of United States Highway 83, two miles north of Bushy Creek Street near Crystal City, Zavala County; TYPE OF FACILITY: property; RULES VIOLATED: Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.085(b) and 30 TAC §111.201, by causing, suffering, allowing, or permitting outdoor burning within the state of Texas; and 30 TAC §330.15(a) and (c), by causing, suffering, allowing, or permitting the disposal of municipal solid waste; PENALTY: $3,082; STAFF ATTORNEY: John S. Merculief II, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6944; REGIONAL OFFICE: Laredo Regional Office, 707 East Calton Road, Suite 304, Laredo, Texas 78041-3887, (956) 791-6611.

TRD-201903611

Charmaine Backens

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 8, 2019


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

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Default Orders (DOs). The commission staff proposes a DO when the staff has sent the Executive Director's Preliminary Report and Petition (EDPRP) to an entity outlining the alleged violations; the proposed penalty; the proposed technical requirements necessary to bring the entity back into compliance; and the entity fails to request a hearing on the matter within 20 days of its receipt of the EDPRP or requests a hearing and fails to participate at the hearing. Similar to the procedure followed with respect to Agreed Orders entered into by the executive director of the commission, in accordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075, this notice of the proposed order and the opportunity to comment is published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is November 19, 2019. The commission will consider any written comments received, and the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of a DO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate that consent to the proposed DO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the commission's jurisdiction, or the commission's orders and permits issued in accordance with the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed DO is not required to be published if those changes are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed DO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239‑3400 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Written comments about the DO should be sent to the attorney designated for the DO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, MC 175, Austin, Texas 78711‑3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2019. Comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the attorney at (512) 239‑3434. The commission's attorneys are available to discuss the DOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, TWC, §7.075, provides that comments on the DOs shall be submitted to the commission in writing.

(1) COMPANY: Noor Ali dba Brazos Bend Home & Ranch and TANK WORKS INC. dba Brazos Bend Home & Ranch; DOCKET NUMBER: 2018-0856-PWS-E; TCEQ ID NUMBER: RN101176592; LOCATION: 22930 Farm-to-Market Road 1462 near Needville, Fort Bend County; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water system; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.109(d)(4)(B), by failing to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the routine distribution total coliform-positive samples on July 31, 2017, at least one raw groundwater source Escherichia coli (or other approved fecal indicator) sample from each active groundwater source in use at the time the distribution coliform-positive samples were collected; PENALTY: $241; STAFF ATTORNEY: John S. Merculief II, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-6944; REGIONAL OFFICE: Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Street, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1452, (713) 767-3500.

(2) COMPANY: One Eighty Collision Center, LLC; DOCKET NUMBER: 2018-1416-AIR-E; TCEQ ID NUMBER: RN100546928; LOCATION: 11167 Pellicano Drive, El Paso, El Paso County; TYPE OF FACILITY: auto body repair and refinishing shop; RULES VIOLATED: Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.0518(a) and §382.085(b) and 30 TAC §116.110(a), by failing to obtain authorization prior to operating a source of air emissions; PENALTY: $1,562; STAFF ATTORNEY: Ben Warms, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-5144; REGIONAL OFFICE: El Paso Regional Office, 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1212, (915) 834-4949.

TRD-201903612

Charmaine Backens

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 8, 2019


Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Municipal Solid Waste Permit Major Amendment: Proposed Permit No. 1195B

Application. Republic Waste Services of Texas, Ltd., 1212 Harrison Avenue, Arlington, Tarrant, County, Texas 76011-7332, a municipal solid waste disposal facility, has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a major permit amendment to secure authorization for an expansion of the existing Maloy Landfill. The facility is located at 2811 FM 1568, Campbell, 75422-2239, Hunt County, Texas. The TCEQ received this application on August 26, 2019. The permit application is available for viewing and copying at Commerce Public Library, 1210 Park Street, Commerce, Hunt County, Texas 75428, and may be viewed online at https://www.ftwweaverboos.com. The following link to an electronic map of the site or facility's general location is provided as a public courtesy and is not part of the application or notice: https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=db5bac44afbc468bbddd360f8168250f&marker=-95.879722%2C33.175555&level=12. For exact location, refer to application.

Additional Notice. TCEQ's Executive Director has determined the application is administratively complete and will conduct a technical review of the application. After technical review of the application is complete, the Executive Director may prepare a draft permit and will issue a preliminary decision on the application. Notice of the Application and Preliminary Decision will be published and mailed to those who are on the county-wide mailing list and to those who are on the mailing list for this application. That notice will contain the deadline for submitting public comments.

Public Comment/Public Meeting. You may submit public comments or request a public meeting on this application. The purpose of a public meeting is to provide the opportunity to submit comments or to ask questions about the application. TCEQ will hold a public meeting if the Executive Director determines that there is a significant degree of public interest in the application or if requested by a local legislator. A public meeting is not a contested case hearing.

Opportunity for a Contested Case Hearing. After the deadline for submitting public comments, the Executive Director will consider all timely comments and prepare a response to all relevant and material, or significant public comments. Unless the application is directly referred for a contested case hearing, the response to comments, and the Executive Director's decision on the application, will be mailed to everyone who submitted public comments and to those persons who are on the mailing list for this application. If comments are received, the mailing will also provide instructions for requesting reconsideration of the Executive Director's decision and for requesting a contested case hearing. A person who may be affected by the facility is entitled to request a contested case hearing from the commission. A contested case hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in state district court.

To Request a Contested Case Hearing, You Must Include The Following Items in Your Request: your name, address, phone number; applicant's name and permit number; the location and distance of your property/activities relative to the facility; a specific description of how you would be adversely affected by the facility in a way not common to the general public; a list of all disputed issues of fact that you submit during the comment period, and the statement "(I/we) request a contested case hearing." If the request for contested case hearing is filed on behalf of a group or association, the request must designate the group's representative for receiving future correspondence; identify by name and physical address an individual member of the group who would be adversely affected by the facility or activity; provide the information discussed above regarding the affected member's location and distance from the facility or activity; explain how and why the member would be affected; and explain how the interests the group seeks to protect are relevant to the group's purpose.

Following the close of all applicable comment and request periods, the Executive Director will forward the application and any requests for reconsideration or for a contested case hearing to the TCEQ Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting. The Commission may only grant a request for a contested case hearing on issues the requestor submitted in their timely comments that were not subsequently withdrawn.

If a hearing is granted, the subject of a hearing will be limited to disputed issues of fact or mixed questions of fact and law that are relevant and material to the Commission's decision on the application submitted during the comment period.

Mailing List. If you submit public comments, a request for a contested case hearing or a reconsideration of the Executive Director's decision, you will be added to the mailing list for this application to receive future public notices mailed by the Office of the Chief Clerk. In addition, you may request to be placed on: (1) the permanent mailing list for a specific applicant name and permit number; and/or (2) the mailing list for a specific county. To be placed on the permanent and/or the county mailing list, clearly specify which list(s) and send your request to TCEQ Office of the Chief Clerk at the address below.

Information Available Online. For details about the status of the application, visit the Commissioners' Integrated Database (CID) at www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/cid>. Once you have access to the CID using the above link, enter the permit number for this application, which is provided at the top of this notice.

Agency Contacts and Information. All public comments and requests must be submitted either electronically at www14.tceq.texas.gov/epic/eComment/>or in writing to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of the Chief Clerk, MC-105, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Please be aware that any contact information you provide, including your name, phone number, email address and physical address will become part of the agency's public record. For more information about this permit application or the permitting process, please call the TCEQ's Public Education Program, Toll Free, at (800) 687-4040 or visit their website at www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/pep>. Si desea información en español, puede llamar al (800) 687-4040.

Further information may also be obtained from Republic Waste Services of Texas, Ltd. at the address stated above or by calling Mr. Adam Hart, Environmental Manager, Republic Waste Services of Texas, Ltd. at (817) 317-2047.

TRD-201903627

Bridget C. Bohac

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 9, 2019


Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Municipal Solid Waste Major Permit Amendment: Proposed Permit No. 1417C

Application. Texas Regional Landfill Company, LP., 3 Waterway Square Place, Suite 550, The Woodlands, Montgomery County, Texas 77380, a municipal solid waste landfill, has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a major permit amendment to authorize a vertical expansion. The Turkey Creek Landfill is located at 9100 S. Interstate 35W, Alvarado, 76009 in Johnson County, Texas. The TCEQ received this application on August 30, 2019. The permit application is available for viewing and copying at the Alvarado Public Library, 210 N. Baugh St., Alvarado, Johnson County, Texas 76009, and may be viewed online at https://ftwweaverboos.com. The following link to an electronic map of the site or facility's general location is provided as a public courtesy and is not part of the application or notice: https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=db5bac44afbc468bbddd360f8168250f&marker=-97.203888%2C32.3575&level=12. For exact location, refer to application.

Additional Notice. TCEQ's Executive Director has determined the application is administratively complete and will conduct a technical review of the application. After technical review of the application is complete, the Executive Director may prepare a draft permit and will issue a preliminary decision on the application. Notice of the Application and Preliminary Decision will be published and mailed to those who are on the county-wide mailing list and to those who are on the mailing list for this application. That notice will contain the deadline for submitting public comments.

Public Comment/Public Meeting. You may submit public comments or request a public meeting on this application. The purpose of a public meeting is to provide the opportunity to submit comments or to ask questions about the application. TCEQ will hold a public meeting if the Executive Director determines that there is a significant degree of public interest in the application or if requested by a local legislator. A public meeting is not a contested case hearing.

Opportunity for a Contested Case Hearing. After the deadline for submitting public comments, the Executive Director will consider all timely comments and prepare a response to all relevant and material, or significant public comments. Unless the application is directly referred for a contested case hearing, the response to comments, and the Executive Director's decision on the application, will be mailed to everyone who submitted public comments and to those persons who are on the mailing list for this application. If comments are received, the mailing will also provide instructions for requesting reconsideration of the Executive Director's decision and for requesting a contested case hearing. A person who may be affected by the facility is entitled to request a contested case hearing from the commission. A contested case hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in state district court.

To Request a Contested Case Hearing, You Must Include The Following Items in Your Request: your name, address, phone number; applicant's name and permit number; the location and distance of your property/activities relative to the facility; a specific description of how you would be adversely affected by the facility in a way not common to the general public; a list of all disputed issues of fact that you submit during the comment period, and the statement "(I/we) request a contested case hearing." If the request for contested case hearing is filed on behalf of a group or association, the request must designate the group's representative for receiving future correspondence; identify by name and physical address an individual member of the group who would be adversely affected by the facility or activity; provide the information discussed above regarding the affected member's location and distance from the facility or activity; explain how and why the member would be affected; and explain how the interests the group seeks to protect are relevant to the group's purpose.

Following the close of all applicable comment and request periods, the Executive Director will forward the application and any requests for reconsideration or for a contested case hearing to the TCEQ Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting. The Commission may only grant a request for a contested case hearing on issues the requestor submitted in their timely comments that were not subsequently withdrawn.

If a hearing is granted, the subject of a hearing will be limited to disputed issues of fact or mixed questions of fact and law that are relevant and material to the Commission's decision on the application submitted during the comment period.

Mailing List. If you submit public comments, a request for a contested case hearing or a reconsideration of the Executive Director's decision, you will be added to the mailing list for this application to receive future public notices mailed by the Office of the Chief Clerk. In addition, you may request to be placed on: (1) the permanent mailing list for a specific applicant name and permit number; and/or (2) the mailing list for a specific county. To be placed on the permanent and/or the county mailing list, clearly specify which list(s) and send your request to TCEQ Office of the Chief Clerk at the address below.

Information Available Online. For details about the status of the application, visit the Commissioners' Integrated Database (CID) at www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/cid. Once you have access to the CID using the above link, enter the permit number for this application, which is provided at the top of this notice.

Agency Contacts and Information. All public comments and requests must be submitted either electronically at www14.tceq.texas.gov/epic/eComment/ or in writing to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of the Chief Clerk, MC-105, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Please be aware that any contact information you provide, including your name, phone number, email address and physical address will become part of the agency's public record. For more information about this permit application or the permitting process, please call the TCEQ's Public Education Program, Toll Free, at (800) 687-4040 or visit their website at www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/pep. Si desea información en español, puede llamar al (800) 687-4040.

Further information may also be obtained from the Texas Regional Landfill Company, LP at the address stated above or by calling Mr. Nevzat Turan, P.E., Senior Engineer, Weaver Consultants Group, LLC at (817) 735-9770.

TRD-201903626

Bridget C. Bohac

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: October 9, 2019


General Land Office

Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Requests for Consistency Agreement/Concurrence Under the Texas Coastal Management Program

On January 10, 1997, the State of Texas received federal approval of the Coastal Management Program (CMP) (62 Federal Register pp. 1439 - 1440). Under federal law, federal agency activities and actions affecting the Texas coastal zone must be consistent with the CMP goals and policies identified in 31 TAC Chapter 501. Requests for federal consistency review were deemed administratively complete for the following project(s) during the period of September 20, 2019, to October 4, 2019. As required by federal law, the public is given an opportunity to comment on the consistency of proposed activities in the coastal zone undertaken or authorized by federal agencies. Pursuant to 31 TAC §§506.25, 506.32, and 506.41, the public comment period extends 30 days from the date published on the Texas General Land Office web site. The notice was published on the web site on Friday, October 11, 2019. The public comment period for this project will close at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 10, 2019.

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS:

Applicant: Port of Corpus Christi Authority (PCCA)

Location: The project is located at the confluence of the Aransas Pass, Gulf Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW) bi-pass channel (Lydia Ann Channel), and the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (CCSC) on the northern side of State Highway (SH) 361, between stations 40+00 and 70+00 of the CCSC, on Harbor Island in Port Aransas, Nueces County, Texas.

Latitude & Longitude (NAD 83): 27.845163, -97.065781

Project Description: The applicant (PCCA) proposes to construct a crude oil export terminal with vessel berths on Harbor Island that would accommodate up to two (2) VLCC (Very Large Crude Carriers) size deep-draft water borne vessels. Work in waters of the US would include: dredging two deep draft vessel berths at a slope of 3:1 to the CCSC authorized depth of -54 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), plus 4 feet of advanced maintenance dredging, plus 2 feet of allowable over depth, totaling -60 feet MLLW; shoreline protection with articulated block mat to stabilize the 3:1 slopes; 725 linear feet of bulkhead; 1,275 feet of cellular wall; breasting structures, jetty platforms, access structures, and associated terrestrial structures. The applicant estimates that approximately 6.5 million cubic yards (MCY) of dredged material would be dredged mechanically and/or hydraulically for the construction of the facility. The dredged material would be placed in one of the dredged material placement areas (DMPA) locations identified on Sheet 16 of the enclosed project plans. Impacts to special aquatic sites is estimated to be 0.33 acres of wetland to be permanently filled. The proposed order of construction is as follows: shore-based pile installation for foundations, bulkheads, wall anchors; dredging the vessel berths; piles for loading platform; erecting loading arms; and final infrastructure installation.

Type of Application: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application # SWG-2019-00245. This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Note: The consistency review for this project may be conducted by the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) as part of its certification under §401 of the Clean Water Act.

CMP Project No: 20-1022-F1

Applicant: INEOS Phenol

Location: The project site is located in the Houston Ship Channel (Channel), and an adjacent wetland and ephemeral stream, approximately 0.5-mile west of the intersection of the Channel and the Beltway 8 Bridge, in Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.

Latitude & Longitude (NAD 83): 29.735191, -95.154548

Project Description: The applicant proposes to extend the time limit for the previously authorized discharge of fill material into 0.01 acre of palustrine forested wetland adjacent to the Houston Ship Channel, and the reroute of 350 linear feet of ephemeral stream to outfall over the existing bulkhead associated with the construction of a 2.9-acre three-barge dock slip. The work includes construction of a dock house, two loading arm pads, and two mooring structures. Approximately 385 linear feet of existing bulkhead and riprap will be removed, and uplands will be excavated to create a 474-foot-long by 385-foot-wide barge slip. An approximate 4.19-acre area will be mechanically dredged to a depth of minus 16 feet mean low tide (MLT) plus 1 foot of over dredge. The newly excavated area will be lined with approximately 707 linear feet of bulkhead, and six fender pilings will be installed. The dock slip will undergo mechanical and/or hydraulic maintenance dredging for a period of 10 years. All dredged material and associated effluent discharge were previously authorized to be placed in the following dredged material placement areas (DMPAs): Rosa Allen, Glanville, Peggy Lake, Alexander Island, and Beltway 8 Tract. The applicant wishes to add the following DMPAs: Filter Bed, Stimson Tract, Clinton, Laughlin-Thyssin, East/West Jones, Pinto Lion, Adloy, Goat Island, and Spilman Island.

Type of Application: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application # SWG-2010-00641. This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

CMP Project No: 19-1385-F1

Applicant: SPOT Terminal Services LLC (SPOT)

Location: The project site is located in Chocolate Bayou, Flores Bayou, Turkey Creek, Clear Creek, Hayes Creek, West Fork Chocolate Bayou, Bastrop Bayou, Oyster Creek, Swan Lake, Intracoastal Waterway, Austin Bayou, Big Slough, Gulf of Mexico, and wetlands in Harris and Brazoria Counties, Texas.

Latitude & Longitude (NAD 83): Enterprise Crude Houston (ECHO) Terminal: 29.609737, -95.181643; Oyster Creek Terminal: 29.093084, -95.372874; Southern onshore pipeline terminus: 28.967163, -95.268227; Deepwater Port Platform: 28.466449, -95.123469

Project Description: SPOT is proposing to construct, own, and operate a deepwater port (DWP) pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, and in accordance with the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration implementing regulations. The SPOT Project will consist of offshore/marine components in federal waters within the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico and onshore storage/supply components in Harris and Brazoria Counties, Texas.

The offshore/marine components would consist of the DWP and subsea pipelines from onshore to the platform at the DWP, and the onshore storage and supply components would consist of an onshore crude oil storage facility and pumping station (Oyster Creek Terminal) and onshore pipelines.

Type of Application: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application # SWG- SWG-2018-00751 and U.S. Department of Transportation Deepwater Port license application # MARAD-2019-00111. This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 1503 of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974.

CMP Project No: 20-1023-F1

Applicant: Coastal Caverns, Inc.

Location: The project site is located adjacent to the Port Arthur Canal, approximately 3.8 miles south of Beaumont, within Jefferson County, Texas.

Latitude & Longitude (NAD 83): 30.027018 -94.107546

Project Description: The applicant proposes to permanently fill 3.67 acres of palustrine forested wetlands (PFO), 0.02 acres of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS), and 0.59 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM) with 3,452 cubic yards of native fill material in order to increase their underground ethylene salt dome storage facility and construct a brine pond.

Type of Application: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application # SWG-2013-00569. This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Note: The consistency review for this project may be conducted by the Texas Railroad Commission as part of its certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

CMP Project No: 20-1027-F1

Applicant: Forman Equipment & Contg Co.

Location: The project site is located in Galveston Ship Channel, in Galveston, Galveston County, Texas, on the bay-side.

Latitude & Longitude (NAD 83): 29.29778 -94.84667

Project Description: The applicant proposes to discharge 135,300 cubic yards of sandy clay, 868 cubic yards of rip rap and install sheet piles for the construction of a 9.93-acre storage facility and associated structures. The proposed facility will allow multiple barges to dock and will extend into Galveston Bay approximately 700 feet by 700 feet from the shoreline. The applicant is also proposing a concrete bulkhead to be installed on the shoreline on the east side of the property and rip rap will be used on the west and south sides. The proposed facility will overall include the following: place 135,300 cubic yards of fill material comprised of sandy clay from an approved upland source in order to expand the dock facility; and install a 400-foot by 20-foot sheet pile wall and four 30-foot-long steel pipe piles; place 868 cubic yards of rip rap below high tide on the west side of the property. A crane will be used to transfer materials to and from barges. It will hang out 10 feet over the water.

The immediate area, measured at 579-foot by 600-foot, in front of the property, will be dredged to (-) 10.0 NAVD for maintenance only if silt should build up and affect vessel access.

The purpose of the proposed facility is to provide temporary storage for construction material prior to being transported by barges.

Type of Application: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application # SWG-2013-00619. This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 10 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Note: The consistency review for this project may be conducted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as part of its certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

CMP Project No: 20-1015-F1

Applicant: Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.

Location: The project site is located in the Neches River, approximately 2.5 miles north of Nederland, within Jefferson County, Texas.

Latitude & Longitude (NAD 83): 30.00952778 -93.9940556

Project Description: The applicant proposes to combine several previously authorized permits (SWG-1998-01773 Dock Modifications) under one authorization, maintenance dredge for 10-years, and modify the following existing structures. Additionally, the applicant is requesting new authorization to permanently fill 0.695-acres of palustrine forested wetland (PFO) and 317-linear feet (0.170-acres) of perennial stream in order to construct a Butane Chiller Facility.

Type of Application: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application # SWG-2007-01401. This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 10 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Note: The consistency review for this project may be conducted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as part of its certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

CMP Project No: 19-1388-F1

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES:

Applicant: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Project Description: SACE has completed an Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for modifications to the existing Houston Ship Channel (HSC) System. The scope of the study area included the entire HSC, which was evaluated for current and projected vessel size and traffic. Beginning at the seaward end of the HSC (Bolivar Roads at the Galveston Entrance Channel), the study examined possible moorings and bay widening to provide for safe and efficient meeting opportunities in the Bay Reach, as well as study the following side channels: Bayport Ship Channel, Barbours Cut Channel, Jacintoport Channel, and Greens Bayou Channel. The study also investigated deepening opportunities and widening where practicable in the upper reach of the HSC between Boggy Bayou and the Main Turning Basin.

Further analysis was conducted during feasibility-level design, during which a dredged material management plan (DMMP) was developed. Placement opportunities that were evaluated included a suite of upland confined placement areas (PA), beneficial use (BU) sites, and offshore placement at the existing Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS No. 1). The HSC study scope did not include the Galveston Entrance Channel, Galveston Channel, Texas City Ship Channel, or the Cedar Bayou Navigation Channel. The Galveston Entrance Channel provides access to these channels, inclusive of the HSC, from the Gulf of Mexico and its depth is sufficient since the HSC main channel from Bolivar Roads to Boggy Bayou would remain at its existing -46.5-feet mean lower low water (MLLW).

CMP Project No: 20-1029-F1

Further information on the applications listed above, including a copy of the consistency certifications or consistency determinations for inspection, may be obtained from the Texas General Land Office Public Information Officer at 1700 N. Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, or via email at pialegal@glo.texas.gov. Comments should be sent to the Texas General Land Office Coastal Management Program Coordinator at the above address or via email at federal.consistency@glo.texas.gov.

TRD-201903631

Mark Havens

Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner

General Land Office

Filed: October 9, 2019


Notice of Approval of Coastal Boundary Survey - Rollover Pass Closure, Galveston County

Surveying Division

Coastal Boundary Survey Approval

Project: Rollover Pass Closure, Galveston County

Project No.: Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act (CEPRA) No. 1495

Project Manager: Kevin Frenzel, Coastal Resources (Texas General Land Office)

Surveyor: David Klotz, Licensed State Land Surveyor (Texas General Land Office)

Description: Coastal Boundary Survey, dated September 11, 2018, by David Klotz, Licensed State Land Surveyor, delineating a portion of the littoral boundary along the line of Mean Higher High Water of the Gulf of Mexico, same being a portion of the northerly boundary line of the Elijah Franks Survey, Abstract 64 and the southerly boundary line of Rollover Bay, State Submerged Tract 183, the northerly boundary line of Gulf of Mexico, State Submerged Tract 132, and the southerly boundary line of said Elijah Franks Survey, Abstract 64, Bolivar Peninsula, Galveston County, Texas. The survey is associated with the Rollover Pass Closure, under CEPRA Project No. 1495. Situated approximately 440 feet northeasterly from the intersection of State Highway 87 with North and South Bauer Lanes at coordinates N 29° 30' 30", W 94° 30' 01 ", WGS84.

A Coastal Boundary Survey for the above-referenced project has been reviewed and accepted; upon completion of public notice requirements, the survey will be filed in the Texas General Land Office, Archives and Records, in accordance with provisions of the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33.136.

Tex. Nat. Res. Code Article 33.136 Galveston County, Sketch No. 88

TRD-201903615

Mark Havens

Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner

General Land Office

Filed: October 8, 2019


Notice of Approval of Coastal Boundary Survey - South Padre Island Beach Re-Nourishment, FY18, Cameron County

Surveying Division

Coastal Boundary Survey Approval

Project: South Padre Island Beach Re-nourishment, FY18, Cameron County

Project No.: Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act (CEPRA) No. 1574

SL20080010 Texas General Land Office (GLO)

Project Manager: Thomas Durnin, Coastal Resources (GLO)

Surveyor: David Klotz, Licensed State Land Surveyor (GLO)

Description: Coastal Boundary Survey, dated May 8, 2018, by David Klotz, Licensed State Land Surveyor, delineating a portion of the littoral boundary along the line of Mean Higher High Water of the Gulf of Mexico, same being a portion of the easterly boundary line of the Nicholas Balli and Juan Jose Balli Survey and the westerly boundary line of the Gulf of Mexico, Cameron County, Texas. The survey is associated with the South Padre Island Beach Re-nourishment Program, CEPRA No. 1574. Situated between the North Jetty, Brownsville Ship Channel and Beach Access #4 South Padre Island at coordinates N 26° 06' 43", W 97° 09' 50", WGS84.

A Coastal Boundary Survey for the above-referenced project has been reviewed and accepted; upon completion of public notice requirements, the survey will be filed in the Texas General Land Office, Archives and Records, in accordance with provisions of the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33.136.

Tex. Nat. Res. Code Article 33.136 Cameron County, Sketch No. 5

TRD-201903616

Mark Havens

Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner

General Land Office

Filed: October 8, 2019


Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Public Notice - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) will post the draft Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Plan on the HHSC Internet website at https://hhs.texas.gov/laws-regulations/reports-presentations for public review by October 18, 2019.

Written Comments. Written comments on the draft TANF State Plan may be submitted to Nicole Fillion, AES Program Policy, MC-2115, 909 W. 45th Street, Austin, Texas 78751 or by email to Nicole.Fillion@hhsc.state.tx.us, within 45 days after publication of this proposal in the Texas Register. For additional information or a copy of the TANF State Plan, contact Nicole Fillion at Nicole.Fillion@hhsc.state.tx.us.

TRD-201903587

Karen Ray

Chief Counsel

Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Filed: October 4, 2019


Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Notice of Public Hearing

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS

(THE RESERVES AT SAN MARCOS APARTMENTS)

Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Issuer") at the City of San Marcos Public Library, 625 E. Hopkins Street, San Marcos, Texas 78666 at 6:00 p.m. on November 4, 2019. The hearing is regarding an issue of tax-exempt bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $41,000,000 and taxable bonds, if necessary, in an amount to be determined, to be issued in one or more series (the "Bonds"), by the Issuer. The Bonds will be issued as exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project (the "Development") pursuant to section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). The Development will be known as The Reserves at San Marcos Apartments and will be located near the intersection of Highway 123 and Monterrey Oak, San Marcos, Hays County, Texas 78666. The initial legal owner and principal user of the Development will be 786 Cottonwood Creek, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, or a related person or affiliate thereof.

All interested parties are invited to attend such public hearing to express their views with respect to the Development and the issuance of the Bonds. Questions or requests for additional information may be directed to Liz Cline-Rew at the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, P.O. Box 13941, Austin, Texas 78711-3941; (512) 475-3227; and/or liz.cline@tdhca.state.tx.us

Persons who intend to appear at the hearing and express their views are invited to contact Liz Cline-Rew in writing in advance of the hearing. Any interested persons unable to attend the hearing may submit their views in writing to Liz Cline-Rew prior to the date scheduled for the hearing. Individuals who require a language interpreter for the public hearing should contact Elena Peinado at (512) 475-3814 at least five days prior to the hearing date so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Personas que hablan español y requieren un intérprete, favor de llamar a Elena Peinado al siguiente número (512) 475-3814 por lo menos cinco días antes de la junta para hacer los preparativos apropiados.

Individuals who require auxiliary aids in order to attend this hearing should contact Liz Cline-Rew, ADA Responsible Employee, at (512) 475-3227 or Relay Texas at (800) 735-2989 at least five days before the hearing so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

This notice is published and the hearing is to be held in satisfaction of the requirements of section 147(f) of the Code.

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/communities.htm

TRD-201903625

Bobby Wilkinson

Executive Director

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Filed: October 9, 2019


Texas Department of Insurance

Company Licensing

Application to do business in the state of Texas for Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc., a foreign title company. The home office is in Chicago, Illinois.

Any objections must be filed with the Texas Department of Insurance, within twenty (20) calendar days from the date of the Texas Register publication, addressed to the attention of Robert Rudnai, 333 Guadalupe Street, MC 103-CL, Austin, Texas 78701.

TRD-201903629

James Person

General Counsel

Texas Department of Insurance

Filed: October 9, 2019


Liberty County

Notice of Hiring of Elections Administrator

The Liberty County Human Resources Department is now accepting applications for the positions described herein. Liberty County is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

JOB TITLE: ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR

SALARY: $60,000.00 per year/Full-time position

Duties include:

- Conduct all elections for Liberty County in a professional, unbiased manner in accordance with federal, state, and local laws

- Manage the Elections Administration Department in accordance with federal and state laws and county rules and regulations

- Facilitate the voter registration for Liberty County

- Write and submit reports to the Texas Secretary of State and other election entities

- Utilize county computer and election systems to process elections

- Recruit and train election workers, as well as inform the voters on the elections and how to utilize the election systems

Qualifications and Education Requirements:

Must be a qualified voter in the State of Texas.

High School Diploma necessary. Post-secondary education preferred.

Experience with the election process preferred.

Excellent verbal communication skills necessary.

Knowledge of computers and computer applications necessary.

Legal Restrictions on the Activities of an Election Administrator as required by Texas Elections Code, Section 31.035.

Accepting applications until November 11, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. An extensive background check will be conducted on each applicant. A satisfactory drug test will be required as a condition of employment.

Applications may be obtained from the Treasurer's Office, the Liberty County Clerk's Office at the Liberty Courthouse and Cleveland Annex, or the county website at www.co.liberty.tx.us. Submit original applications only to the Human Resources Department at 1901 Cos Street, Liberty, Texas 77575.

TRD-201903624

Lee Haidusek Chambers

Liberty County Clerk

Liberty County

Filed: October 9, 2019


North Central Texas Council of Governments

Request for Proposals for the Alternative Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and NEPA Documentation for High-Speed Transportation Service Between Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is requesting written proposals from consultant firms for the Alternative Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and NEPA Documentation for High-Speed Transportation Service Between Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. The purpose of the project is to modernize and enhance mobility between Dallas and Fort Worth by evaluating high-speed transportation alternatives. At a minimum, conventional, higher speed, and high-speed passenger rail; magnetic levitation; and next generation magnetic levitation (e.g., hyperloop) will be considered. The goal is to identify a viable alternative that enhances the regional transportation system and connects to Dallas-Fort Worth with other proposed high-performance passenger systems in the State. The work to be performed by the consultant will consist of providing technical support for the analysis of potential alternatives, operations/service planning, and the development of preliminary engineering documents and environmental documents/studies for the high-speed passenger service between Dallas and Fort Worth. The proposed study area is bounded by IH 35E, IH 35W, SH 183, and US 287/Spur 303/Loop12 and traverses Dallas and Tarrant counties and the cities of Dallas, Irving, Grand Prairie, Arlington, and Fort Worth. This high-speed transportation study will be jointly administered by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Proposals must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, on Friday, December 13, 2019, to Kevin Feldt, Program Manager, North Central Texas Council of Governments, 616 Six Flags Drive, Arlington, Texas 76011. The Request for Proposals will be available at www.nctcog.org/rfp by the close of business on Friday, October 18, 2019.

NCTCOG encourages participation by disadvantaged business enterprises and does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.

TRD-201903628

R. Michael Eastland

Executive Director

North Central Texas Council of Governments

Filed: October 9, 2019


Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Corrected Notice of Proposed Real Estate Transaction

Grant of Easement - Brazoria County

Approximately 66 Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area

A notice of a proposed real estate transaction regarding the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area published in the October 4, 2019, issue of the Texas Register (44 TexReg 5821) incorrectly identified the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area as being located in Jefferson County when it is located in Brazoria County.

In a meeting on November 7, 2019, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (the Commission) will consider authorizing an easement of approximately 66 acres for a high-voltage transmission line across a portion of the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area in Brazoria County. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed easement before the Commission takes action. The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Headquarters, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744. Prior to the meeting, public comment may be submitted to Ted Hollingsworth, Land Conservation, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 or by email at ted.hollingsworth@tpwd.texas.gov or through the department's website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

TRD-201903620

Robert Sweeney

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Filed: October 8, 2019


Texas Department of Public Safety

Notice of Driver Record Monitoring Program Workshop

On June 25th, 2017, in accordance with Texas Transportation Code, §521.062, the Department of Public Safety (the department) initiated the deployment of the Driver Record Monitoring Pilot Program (the program). The Driver Record Monitoring Pilot Program, having met all statutory requirements and receiving the approval of the Public Safety Commission, has now become a permanent program.

The Driver Record Monitoring agreement, Section 22 (Amendments) states, the department "may amend the terms and conditions of this agreement from time to time in order to accommodate changes in the records or information furnished under this agreement and for reasons deemed appropriate by the department."

The department is offering the opportunity for current and prospective participants to attend a workshop to discuss any desired changes in the records or information furnished, within the framework of the guiding statutes (Texas Transportation Code, §521.046, §521.062, and Chapter 730.) The workshop is scheduled for November 14, 2019, from 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. at the DPS Headquarters in Austin, 5805 N. Lamar Blvd. Building E or through WebEx. For your convenience, a headquarters campus map is located on the department's website at: http://www.dps.texas.gov/images/dpslegendmap.pdf

To be included in this workshop, you must RSVP to this mailing or email address:

Department of Public Safety

Attention: Greg DeGrazia

5805 North Lamar Boulevard

Austin, Texas 78752

gregorio.degrazia@dps.texas.gov

If you will be joining through WebEX, please indicate that option in your RSVP and the department will send you the connection details. Please include changes you wish to be discussed at the workshop and the reasons for the change request. Your RSVP must be received no later than November 1, 2019.

The department is sharing some suggested changes to stimulate ideas regarding possible changes to this program.

a. Add reporting frequency (daily or monthly) option to vendor's DL registration setup.

b. Add monitor alert options (all or selected alerts) to vendor's DL registration setup.

c. Update DLS system on options of alert type and reporting frequency in addition to DL#. Default is daily and all alerts.

d. If a vendor is registered for monthly reporting, BDR batch will be created monthly for DLs received alerts in the past month period.

e. If a vendor is registered for certain alert types, BDR batch will be created only if those alerts are received from DLS.

The department will review all requests for feasibility, acceptability, and suitability to be included in the agenda of the upcoming workshop.

Thank you for your interest in the Driver Record Monitoring Program and the department looks forward to your responses.

TRD-201903618

D. Phillip Adkins

General Counsel

Texas Department of Public Safety

Filed: October 8, 2019


Public Utility Commission of Texas

Project Number 50031, Rulemaking Related to Generation Cost Recovery Factor (GCRF)

Public Notice of Workshop

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) staff will hold a workshop on Tuesday, October 29, 2019, regarding Project No. 50031, Rulemaking Related to Generation Cost Recovery Factor (GCRF). The workshop will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Hearing Room on the 7th floor of the William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701.

On or before October 22, 2019, the commission staff will make available in Central Records under Project No. 50031 a meeting agenda that will include proposed rule language for discussion at the workshop. The agenda will also be available for download by visiting the commission's website at www.puc.texas.gov and clicking on the Filings and Filings Search links.

Questions concerning the workshop or this notice should be referred to Mark Filarowicz, Senior Financial and Accounting Analyst, at (512) 936-7248 or mark.filarowicz@puc.texas.gov. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.

TRD-201903593

Andrea Gonzalez

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: October 7, 2019


Texas Department of Transportation

Aviation Division - Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Professional Engineering Services

The City of Temple, through its agent, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), intends to engage a professional engineering firm for services pursuant to Chapter 2254, Subchapter A, of the Government Code. TxDOT Aviation Division will solicit and receive qualification statements for the current aviation project as described below.

Current Project: City of Temple; TxDOT CSJ No.: 1914TMPLE.

The TxDOT Project Manager is Steve Harp, P.E.

Scope: Provide engineering and design services, including construction administration, to:

1. rehabilitate MIRL Runway 15/33;

2. rehabilitate MIRL Runway 2/20;

3. rehabilitate MITL Taxiway A;

4. rehabilitate MITL Taxiway B;

5. rehabilitate MITL Taxiway C;

6. rehabilitate MITL Taxiway D;

7. rehabilitate MITL Taxiway E;

8. rehabilitate MITL Taxiway F;

9. obliterate and paint new runway designation numbers 2/20 and 15/33;

10. paint non-precision markings for Runway 2/20; and

11. replace runway and taxiway signs.

The Agent, in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. §§2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all respondents that it will affirmatively ensure that for any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit in response to this solicitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.

The proposed contract is subject to 49 CFR Part 26 concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE).

The DBE goal for the design phase of the current project is 4%. The goal will be re-set for the construction phase.

Utilizing multiple engineering/design and construction grants over the course of the next five years, future scope of work items at the Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport may include the following: design/construct Runway 2/20 extension and Taxiway D realignment.

The City of Temple reserves the right to determine which of the services listed above may or may not be awarded to the successful firm and to initiate additional procurement action for any of the services listed above.

To assist in your qualification statement preparation, the criteria, project diagram, and most recent Airport Layout Plan are available online at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/avn/avninfo/notice/consult/index.htm by selecting "Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport." The qualification statement should address a technical approach for the current scope only. Firms shall use page 4, Recent Airport Experience, to list relevant past projects.

AVN-550 Preparation Instructions:

Interested firms shall utilize the latest version of Form AVN-550, titled "Qualifications for Aviation Architectural/Engineering Services". The form may be requested from TxDOT, Aviation Division, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2483, phone number, (800) 68-PILOT (74568). The form may be emailed by request or downloaded from the TxDOT website at http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/aviation/projects.html. The form may not be altered in any way. Firms must carefully follow the instructions provided on each page of the form. Qualifications shall not exceed the number of pages in the AVN-550 template. The AVN-550 consists of eight pages of data plus one optional illustration page. A prime provider may only submit one AVN-550. If a prime provider submits more than one AVN-550, or submits a cover page with the AVN-550, that provider will be disqualified. Responses to this solicitation WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN ANY OTHER FORMAT.

ATTENTION: To ensure utilization of the latest version of Form AVN-550, firms are encouraged to download Form AVN-550 from the TxDOT website as addressed above. Utilization of Form AVN-550 from a previous download may not be the exact same format. Form AVN-550 is a PDF Template.

The completed Form AVN-550 must be received in the TxDOT Aviation eGrants system no later than November 12, 2019, 11:59 PM. (CDST). Electronic facsimiles or forms sent by email or regular/overnight mail will not be accepted.

Firms that wish to submit a response to this solicitation must be a user in the TxDOT Aviation eGrants system no later than one business day before the solicitation due date. To request access to eGrants, please complete the Contact Us web form located at http://txdot.gov/government/funding/egrants-2016/aviation.html.

An instructional video on how to respond to a solicitation in eGrants is available at http://txdot.gov/government/funding/egrants-2016/aviation.html.

Step by step instructions on how to respond to a solicitation in eGrants will also be posted in the RFQ packet at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/avn/avninfo/notice/consult/index.htm.

The consultant selection committee will be composed of local government representatives. The final selection by the committee will generally be made following the completion of review of AVN-550s. The committee will review all AVN-550s and rate and rank each. The Evaluation Criteria for Engineering Qualifications can be found at http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/aviation/projects.html under Information for Consultants. All firms will be notified and the top rated firm will be contacted to begin fee negotiations for the design and bidding phases. The selection committee does, however, reserve the right to conduct interviews for the top rated firms if the committee deems it necessary. If interviews are conducted, selection will be made following interviews.

Please contact TxDOT Aviation for any technical or procedural questions at (800) 68-PILOT (74568). For procedural questions, please contact Anna Ramirez, Grant Manager. For technical questions, please contact Steve Harp, P.E. Project Manager.

For questions regarding responding to this solicitation in eGrants, please contact the

TxDOT Aviation help desk at (800) 687-4568 or avn-egrantshelp@txdot.gov.

TRD-201903580

Becky Blewett

Deputy General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: October 3, 2019


Aviation Division - Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Professional Engineering Services

The City of New Braunfels, through its agent, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), intends to engage a professional engineering firm for services pursuant to Chapter 2254, Subchapter A, of the Government Code. TxDOT Aviation Division will solicit and receive qualification statements for the current aviation project as described below.

Current Project: City of New Braunfels; TxDOT CSJ No.: 1915NEWBR.

The TxDOT Project Manager is Robert Johnson, P.E.

Scope: Provide engineering and design services, including construction administration, to

1. Construct detention pond.

2. Install storm sewer under taxiway F.

The Agent, in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. §§2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all respondents that it will affirmatively ensure that for any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit in response to this solicitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.

The proposed contract is subject to 49 CFR Part 26 concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE).

The DBE goal for the design phase of the current project is 15%. The goal will be re-set for the construction phase.

The City of New Braunfels reserves the right to determine which of the services listed above may or may not be awarded to the successful firm and to initiate additional procurement action for any of the services listed above.

To assist in your qualification statement preparation, the criteria, project diagram, and most recent Airport Layout Plan are available online at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/avn/avninfo/notice/consult/index.htm by selecting "New Braunfels Regional Airport." The qualification statement should address a technical approach for the current scope only. Firms shall use page 4, Recent Airport Experience, to list relevant past projects.

AVN-550 Preparation Instructions:

Interested firms shall utilize the latest version of Form AVN-550, titled "Qualifications for Aviation Architectural/Engineering Services." The form may be requested from TxDOT, Aviation Division, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2483, phone number, (800) 68-PILOT (74568). The form may be emailed by request or downloaded from the TxDOT website at http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/aviation/projects.html. The form may not be altered in any way. Firms must carefully follow the instructions provided on each page of the form. Qualifications shall not exceed the number of pages in the AVN-550 template. The AVN-550 consists of eight pages of data plus one optional illustration page. A prime provider may only submit one AVN-550. If a prime provider submits more than one AVN-550, or submits a cover page with the AVN-550, that provider will be disqualified. Responses to this solicitation WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN ANY OTHER FORMAT.

ATTENTION: To ensure utilization of the latest version of Form AVN-550, firms are encouraged to download Form AVN-550 from the TxDOT website as addressed above. Utilization of Form AVN-550 from a previous download may not be the exact same format. Form AVN-550 is a PDF Template.

The completed Form AVN-550 must be received in the TxDOT Aviation eGrants system no later than November 12, 2019, 11:59 p.m. (CDST). Electronic facsimiles or forms sent by email or regular/overnight mail will not be accepted.

Firms that wish to submit a response to this solicitation must be a user in the TxDOT Aviation eGrants system no later than one business day before the solicitation due date. To request access to eGrants, please complete the Contact Us web form located at http://txdot.gov/government/funding/egrants-2016/aviation.html.

An instructional video on how to respond to a solicitation in eGrants is available at http://txdot.gov/government/funding/egrants-2016/aviation.html.

Step by step instructions on how to respond to a solicitation in eGrants will also be posted in the RFQ packet at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/avn/avninfo/notice/consult/index.htm.

The consultant selection committee will be composed of local government representatives. The final selection by the committee will generally be made following the completion of review of AVN-550s. The committee will review all AVN-550s and rate and rank each. The Evaluation Criteria for Engineering Qualifications can be found at http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/aviation/projects.html under Information for Consultants. All firms will be notified and the top rated firm will be contacted to begin fee negotiations for the design and bidding phases. The selection committee does, however, reserve the right to conduct interviews for the top rated firms if the committee deems it necessary. If interviews are conducted, selection will be made following interviews.

Please contact TxDOT Aviation for any technical or procedural questions at (800) 68-PILOT (74568). For procedural questions, please contact Anna Ramirez, Grant Manager. For technical questions, please contact Robert Johnson, P.E., Project Manager.

For questions regarding responding to this solicitation in eGrants, please contact the TxDOT Aviation help desk at (800) 687-4568 or avn-egrantshelp@txdot.gov.

TRD-201903581

Becky Blewett

Deputy General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: October 3, 2019


Notice of Amendment

In accordance with Government Code, Chapter 2254, Subchapter B, the Texas Department of Transportation (department) publishes this notice of an amendment to a consultant contract for providing Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) services to the department. Notice of award was published in the April 7, 2017, issue of the Texas Register (42 TexReg 1974).

TxDOT entered into the above-referenced contract on March 22, 2017. The contract has a current maximum amount payable of $3,598,000 and a current expiration date of October 31, 2019. The proposed Amendment No. 1 will renew the contract for 24 additional months and add $2,446,640 to the maximum amount payable.

Under the terms of the contract, the consultant is providing independent verification & validation (IV&V) advice, assistance, and support services related to the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) purchase of software and system integrator services to design and implement a modern enterprise solution to automate the agency's transportation programs (the "MPPM Project"). This renewal is necessary because the underlying MPPM Project has been extended and funded for an additional 24 months, and TxDOT requires continued quality assurance and quality control assistance from the IV&V vendor.

The selected consultant for these services is The North Highland Company, LLC, 3333 Piedmont Rd. NE #1000, Atlanta, GA 30305.

TRD-201903605

Becky Blewett

Deputy General Counsel

Texas Department of Transportation

Filed: October 7, 2019


Texas Water Development Board

Applications September 2019

Pursuant to Texas Water Code §6.195, the Texas Water Development Board provides notice of the following applications:

Project ID #62859, a request from the Texas H2O, Inc., P.O. Box 1133, League City, Texas ZIP, received on September 3, 2019, for $53,466 in financial assistance from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to reimburse City of League City to dissolve H20 Tech Inc. in exchange for taking over CCN with City drinking water.

Project ID #62860, a request from the City of Toyah, North 2nd Street and Lampton Street, Toyah, Texas 79785-0144, received on September 16, 2019, for $300,000 in financial assistance from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, to improve 1939 era sedimentation cone at the Toyah surface water treatment plant.

Project ID #73852, a request from the City of Ivanhoe, 870 Charmain Drive East, Woodville, Texas 75979, received on September 18, 2019, for $215,000 in financial assistance from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for stormwater management upgrades - improving water quality and enhancing public safety.

Project ID #62861, a request from Coke County Water Supply Corporation, 10390 West State Highway 158, Robert Lee, Texas 76945-3822, received on September 18, 2019, for $300,000 in financial assistance from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, for replacement of existing meters in distribution system with new AMR drive-by system, and add new or replace existing isolation valves on existing distribution lines.

Project ID #62862, a request from the City of Gordon, 105 South Main Street, Gordon, Texas 76453-5676, received on September 23, 2019, for $900,000 in financial assistance from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, for water treatment plant improvements, water line replacements, and radio read meters.

Project ID #76853, a request from East Texas Municipal Utility District, 12162 Highway 155 North, Tyler, Texas 75708-2436, received on September 24, 2019, for $3,165,000 in financial assistance from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for construction of lift station and force main to deliver City of Winona untreated wastewater to East Texas Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment facility for treatment.

Project ID #73854, a request from the City of Garland, 132 East Frank, Grand Saline, Texas 75140-1824, received on September 25, 2019, for $850,000 in financial assistance from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for replacing and installing new equipment at the existing wastewater treatment plant such as pumps, a sludge dewatering equipment, a polymer injection system, and aeration discs.

Project ID #62863, a request from the City of Quitaque, 106 North First Street, Quitaque, Texas 79255-0427, received on September 25, 2019, for $1,505,950 in financial assistance from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, for electro-dialysis reversal water treatment plant to remove nitrates out of the water.

Project ID #10422, a request from the City of Iola, 23574 Brazos Avenue, Iola, Texas 77861, received on September 27, 2019, for $11,000,000 in financial assistance from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for the design, permitting, and construction start-up of a first-time sanitary sewer system.

Project ID #62864, a request from Commodore Cove Improvement District, 103 Anchor Drive, Freeport, Texas 77541-9648, received on September 27, 2019, for $295,000 in financial assistance from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, to replace current pressure tank to meet current Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulations and replace secondary water line to meet demands of population on street.

Project ID #73857, a request from Green Valley Special Utility District, 529 South Center Street, Marion, Texas 78124-0099, received on September 27, 2019, for $24,985,000 in financial assistance from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for the design and construction of the currently permitted wastewater treatment plant on District owned property at Interstate Highway 10 and Linne Road.

Project ID #62865, a request from the City of Bertram, 110 East Vaughn Street, Bertram, Texas 78605-1604, received on September 27, 2019, for $12,440,000 in financing from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, for the replacement and expansion of the existing 8-inch transmission main from the well field to the City of Bertram.

Project ID #62866, a request from the City of Carbon, 302 South Main Street, Carbon, Texas 76435-0414, received on September 27, 2019, for $770,000 in financing from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, for pump station improvements to increase the storage with a proposed standpipe and pumping capacities to meet compliance.

Project ID #73858, a request from San Antonio River Authority, 100 East Guenther Street, San Antonio, Texas 78204-1401, received on September 27, 2019, for $25,000,000 in financing from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for the expansion of the Salitrillo wastewater treatment plant to 7.33 million gallons per day and several miscellaneous plant improvements.

Project ID #73859, a request from the City of Rosebud, 202 South College Street, Rosebud, Texas 76570-2291, received on September 30, 2019, for $8,500,000 in financing from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for wastewater treatment plant replacement and water meters replacement.

TRD-201903589

Todd Chenoweth

General Counsel

Texas Water Development Board

Filed: October 7, 2019


Workforce Solutions Deep East Texas

Request for Quotes 19-393 Dual Welding Stations

The Deep East Texas Local Workforce Development Board, Inc. dba Workforce Solutions Deep East Texas (Board) is seeking a Request for Quotes on Dual Welding Stations--Welding Curtains and Welding Machines. Deadline for submitting a Proposal is October 31, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. The Request for Quotes (RFQ 19-393) is available at www.detwork.org or a request for a copy of the RFQ can be made to: Kim Moulder, Staff Services Specialist, DETLWB, 415 S. First St., Suite 110 B Lufkin, Texas 75901, phone (936) 639-8898, fax (936) 633-7491, or email kmoulder@detwork.org.

TRD-201903582

Kim Moulder

Staff Service Specialist

Workforce Solutions Deep East Texas

Filed: October 3, 2019