Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 49, Part III, Pages 12311-12450, December 4, 1998 Page: 12,375
12311-12450 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Response: The department cannot deny the opportunity to any
otherwise qualified person/persons wanting to become licensed
as an asbestos training provider. The department is currently
developing an asbestos training provider database to more
accurately keep track of providers, instructors, etc. No change
was made as a result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.65(d)(1), one commenter stated
that this section did not include all the necessary elements of
the MAP.
Response: The department agrees and has made the appro-
priate modifications.
Comment Concerning 295.65(d)(IXH), one commenter sug
gested deleting this requirement, and stated that it does not
assist in the issuance of a license and serves no useful funo-
tion to the department
Response: The department disagrees. This information is
useful to the department because it allows the department to
keep track of asbestos courses its registered training providers
are conducting in other states. This information Is needed i
the course approval is based on the approval of another state.
When these rules are approved and Texas has the authority
to approve training courses, there will be three ways to gain
approval: directly from EPA, from another state, or TDH. If
the applicant is using approval from another state, then the
department needs the list in order to contact the other states of
verify accreditation status. No change was made as a result of
this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.65(d)(1)(l), one commenter sug-
gested deleting this requirement and that the department should
be more definitive than the term "other course related ma-
terials." Another commenter had similar concerns related to
295.65(d)(2)(C).
Response: The department's intent is to have the training
provider submit all materials that will be used for instructional
purposes. Any materials, other than those specifically listed,
such as videos or slides, must be evaluated to determine
whether all required course topics are being addressed. No
change was made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.65(d)(1XJ), one commenter said
that the term "a detailed statement" is far too vague and for the
department to be more definitive, or delete this requirement
Response: This addition was needed to be in compliance with
the MAP and is therefore must remain as stated. The intent
is to have a written description of how the examination was
developed and by whom. The department needs to know if
the examination was developed by the training provider, copied
from someone else's exam, or is a standardized examination
purchased from a commercial entity. Information may include
expected passing rates and statistical validity of the questions
used. No change was made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.65(d)(3)(F), one commenter sug-
gested deleting this requirement because it is clearly a case of
double jeopardy.
Response: The department agrees to a certain extent with the
comment and has amended the language to add criteria speo-
ifying that the violation of asbestos regulations must indicate a
lack of ability, capacity or fitness to. perform training duties or
responsibilities. Training instructors and providers should be fa-
miliar with state rules because they are teaching those rules.Comment Concerning 295.65(e), one commenter suggested
that the department drop the separate Air Monitoring Technician
(AMT) refresher requirement, because it was not a MAP
requirement, and add the required AMT topics to the project
designer refresher curriculum. This would make the time spent
In the separate refreshers equal to the two-day annual refresher
course allowed elsewhere in the rules.
Response: The department disagrees. Because the depart-
ment will be providing EPA approval, it is important to maintain
the Project Designer course in accordance with the MAP. It is at
the discretion of the training provider to offer the two-day course
In lieu of providing four separate refresher courses. The intent
of the two-day course is to allow combining duplicated material
such as health effects and rules. The topics specific to each
discipline are included in the two-day course. No change was
made as a result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.65(e), one commenter stated that
we did not include the following requirement for contractor/
supervisor and workers: "for each discipline, the refresher
course shall review and include: federal, state and local
regulations; state-of-the-art developments; and a review of the
key aspects of the initial training course."
Response: The department agrees and has made the appro-
priate modifications.
Comment Concerning 295.65(f)0(3), one commenter asked if
the photos could be digital.
Response: The department is not allowing digital photos in
order to help prevent tampering with the evidence provided in
the conventional photograph. The requirement to have a class
photograph stems from a concern that training providers issue
certificates to individuals that did not receive the proper training.
By requiring a class photo the department hopes to curtail this
practice. As a result of this comment, the department has added
that digital or scanned images will not be accepted.
Comment Concerning 295.65(0(3), one commenter says that
requiring a group photo is a needless burden, but may have
merit to assure that all participants are truly present. This
commenter suggested deleting this section from the rules but
suggested that a group photograph could be taken anytime
during the course, rather than at the end of the course. Another
commenter suggested that the department should allow training
providers to take the individual photos, at a time left to the
training providers discretion.
Response: The departments intent is to ensure that all
participants are present and non-participants are not added at
a later date. The department agrees that specifying a time may
present an undue burden for individual photos and will change
this section. However, the group photo must be taken at the
end of the class to ensure that all students were in attendance
for the full class.
Comment Concerning 295.65(0(3), one commenter asked
how large the group photograph should be.
Response: The group photographs should be no smaller than
a standard 3 1/2 in X 5 in print. This language has been added
to the rule.
Comment Concerning 295.65(h), one commenter indicates
EPA has stated that the number 5 is artificial and arbitrary. The
commenter further states that the minimum number of instruc-
tors is best determined by the professional trainer and not by anADOPTED RULES December 4, 1998 23 TexReg 12375
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 49, Part III, Pages 12311-12450, December 4, 1998, periodical, December 4, 1998; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth379980/m1/75/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.