Table of Contents

Commenter Page

Utility Air Regulatory Group 1

Air Liquide 24

Scott-Marrin, Inc. 26

Airgas 27

Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases 28

Jack Herbert 29

Source Evaluation Society 31

United Sciences Testing, Inc. 33

Liberty Electric Power, LLC 36

Praxair Distribution, Inc. 37

Stork Testing & Metallurgical Consulting, Inc. 41

Specialty Gases of America, Inc. 45

Florida Municipal Power Agency 46

Lakeland Electric 47

GE Energy 47

Summa Consultants, Inc. 49

Weston Solutions, Inc. 54

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners 57

Institute of Clean Air Companies 59

Source Testing and Consulting Services, Inc. 61

Scott Evans (on behalf of STAC) 66

Air Quality Services 68
1

Response to Comments on PGVP/AETB Proposed Rule

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

The Utility Air Regulatory Group Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-

0043)

1) Comment: “When EPA last proposed to revise Part 75 in 2006, the primary purpose was 

revision of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to support the agency’s move to the 

new Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) for reporting emissions. 

Because that move also was part of a broader effort to reengineer the way the agency collects 

information from sources and shares that information with the public, UARG’s comments also 

addressed some concerns regarding that process. Although UARG generally supported the 

reengineering effort, UARG expressed concern regarding the increasing complexity of the 

reporting program, the cost of implementing EPA’s proposed new requirements, and the 

potential for the public and other regulatory bodies to misunderstand the often overly 

conservative Part 75 data that EPA planned to make publicly available. See Comments of the 

Utility Air Regulatory Group on EPA’s August 22, 2006 Proposed Revisions to 40 C.F.R. Parts 

72 and 75, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0079 (Oct. 23, 2006). With respect to data dissemination, 

UARG asked EPA to ensure that Part 75 data provided to the public under its new system were 

appropriately explained, including identification of potential overestimation due to use of 

missing data substitution procedures and other conservative assumptions.

“Since moving to ECMPS, EPA has redesigned its website to provide access to sources’

emissions data in a variety of formats. See http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/. However, as

far as UARG can tell, none of those formats provide any information to alert the user of the data

to the potential for significant overestimation of the published data relative to true emissions. As

a result, UARG reiterates its concerns and asks the Agency to take appropriate steps to ensure

that the data are appropriately explained.”

Response: The Agency has no evidence that ECMPS has added complexity to the reporting of 

Part 75 data nor has the commenter provided concrete examples in its comments supporting such 

conclusion. Instead, the feedback EPA has received indicates that ECMPS has simplified the 

reporting for most sources. Data substitution has the potential to create overestimation of 

emissions, however, this overestimation tends to be relatively small for most sources. The 

Agency estimates that over all Part 75 units, substitute data is less than 1.2 percent of data for 

any parameter (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0061 in the docket). However, 

the Agency will work to better explain the Part 75 data that are posted on its web site. 

2) Comment: “EPA also continues to vastly underestimate the costs of its reporting program. In 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared to support the 2006 proposal, EPA estimated

only modest costs for implementation of ECMPS. For example, EPA estimated that the

annualized cost of revising a source’s data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) to comply

with ECMPS was $570, and that each source would spend only 48 hours reviewing instructions

and 56 hours upgrading and debugging its DAHS. EPA-HQ-2005-0132-0054 at 12. EPA

estimated no additional cost to the Agency as a result of the revision. Id. at 7.
2

“EPA’s 2006 estimates turned out to be quite wrong. Although the actual time and money

spent implementing ECMPS varied by source, experiences documented at EPA stakeholder

meetings in 2007-2009 and through EPA’s contractor-run technical support services at PQA tell

a very different story than EPA’s ICRs. None of these actual costs have ever been reflected in an

ICR for the Part 75 program.1 Unfortunately, these oversights are continued in the Agency’s

ICR for its current proposal, which again suggest only modest costs based largely on the

assertion that most of the costs already have been incurred or accounted for in prior ICRs.

UARG’s specific comments on the proposed ICR are set out in the appropriate sections below.

However, UARG also generally asks the Agency to rethink its approach to estimating costs

under this program and consider the actual time spent by sources and EPA’s contractor in recent

years when estimating current burdens.”

“1 Perhaps most surprising is the fact that none of EPA’s ICRs appears to include any of

the costs associated with work performed on ECMPS by EPA’s contractor, including

development and quarterly revision of the Client Tool software, development and revision of

reporting instructions and QA Specifications, and operation of the full time technical support

hotline.”

Response: EPA has revised the final ICR supporting statement to address the issues identified

by UARG.

3) Comment: “The PGVP also would require Part 75 sources to use only calibration gases 

produced by participating sites when performing Part 75 calibration error tests, linearity tests, 

and when using reference Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E to perform Part 75 relative accuracy test audit 

(RATAs).” “EPA also proposes to add new sections to Appendix B to state that Part 75 tests 

performed using Protocol gas from a vendor that is not participating in the PGVP cannot be used 

to validate data under Part 75.”

Response: If a Part 75 source uses EPA Protocol gas as its calibration gas, it must obtain that gas

from an EPA Protocol gas production site that is participating in the PGVP. However, other 

calibration gases from participating and non-participating sites are available for use under Part 

75 (see Part 75, Appendix A, section 5). These gases are: standard reference materials, primary

reference materials, NIST traceable reference materials, research gas mixtures, and gas 

manufacturer’s intermediate standards.

4) Comment: “As proposed, these provisions include elements that are very important to UARG. 

First, § 75.21(g) would make clear that sources can continue to use previously purchased 

cylinder gas bottles after the effective date of the rule, or after removal of a production site from 

the PGVP list, until the bottle either expires or the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. This 

provision is necessary to ensure that Part 75 sources have adequate gas supplies during the initial 

implementation of the PGVP, and thereafter. For the same reasons, UARG requests that the 

PGVP program not take effect until at least 30 days after publication to allow production sites 

time to provide notification to EPA, and that EPA provide Part 75 sources notice of any 

production site “delistings,” so that gas purchases can continue without interruption. Second, 

Figure 3 to Appendix B makes clear that failure of a cylinder to meet the 2.0 percent criterion 

does mean that an individual producer is not meeting that criterion with its other cylinders. This 
3

statement is important to UARG to ensure that PGVP audit findings do not affect a gas 

company’s certification of other Protocol gases purchased by Part 75 sources.”

Response: The PGVP portion of the final rule requiring sources subject to Part 75 that use EPA 

Protocol gas having to procure such gas from PGVP participating production sites will take 

effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, the PGVP recordkeeping and 

reporting will take effect 180 days after publication.

5) Comment: “With respect to cost, EPA states in the ICR only that those “PGVP vendors that 

were contacted estimated an increased cost of two dollars or less per cylinder.” EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0837-0013 at 13. While that increase in cost does not sound unreasonable, EPA has not 

provided sufficient information in its discussion for UARG to evaluate whether that estimate is 

realistic.EPA does not say how many vendors were contacted or on what information those 

vendors based their estimates. EPA should revise its ICR to include a more detailed analysis 

including the projected cost of the NIST audit process. UARG is concerned not only with the 

unlimited potential for gas companies to pass program costs on to Part 75 customers, but also 

with the possibility that program costs might cause some companies or sites to decline 

participation. Competition among gas vendors is critical to ensuring good availability and 

reasonable costs. EPA should address those potential issues prior to finalizing the program.”

Response: EPA has revised the final ICR supporting statement to include additional supporting 

information, including adding in 600 hours of contractor time to account for ECMPS software 

changes, adding costs for DAHS upgrades for facilities without an existing service contract that 

would affect approximately 20 percent of CEMS sources, and adding text to describe the cost

break downs for both the AETB and the PGVP provisions.

EPA has not received any comments from specialty gas companies stating that they

would not participate due to PGVP costs. See EPA’s response to Airgas’s #1 Comment.

6) Comment: EPA should explain why such detailed reporting of start and end dates and hours 

corresponding to use of a particular type of Protocol gas is required and why the reporting of 

Protocol gas type codes is important. EPA should allow an “other blends” gas type category. 

EPA should be clear that it is still allowing the use of a blend of gases as both zero gas and span 

gas. “UARG generally believes that tracking of information on individual gas cylinders is not 

necessary and EPA has provided no justification for it.”

Response: Some PGVP related information was originally planned to be reported in the 

monitoring plan. However, because the reporting of this information will now be in the quarterly 

electronic emissions report or reported prior to that report, start and end dates and times are no 

longer required and have been removed from the final rule. The final rule will only require 

ECMPS reporting of a gas level code (low, mid or high-level concentration), a code for the type 

of EPA Protocol gas used, the PGVP vendor ID, cylinder expiration date, and cylinder number. 

The reporting of low, mid or high-level concentration is already required by § 75.59(a)(3). The 

reporting of Protocol gas type code is important for informing future PGVP audits. The 

reporting of the PGVP vendor ID is essential to allow EPA to determine that each EPA Protocol 

gas cylinder used by a Part 75 source is from a participating EPA Protocol gas production site. 
4

Two commenters preferred that the PGVP be more rigorous. Therefore, EPA has added 

electronic recordkeeping and reporting of cylinder expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all 

cylinders used for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance test required 

under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen the PGVP by reducing or 

eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and by improving the tracking of cylinder information. 

Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two items to be recorded in 

limited situations or in hardcopy only, and section 75.60(b)(6) already requires these two items 

to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA Regional Office upon 

request. The Protocol gas type codes have been revised to include an Other EPA-Approved EPA 

Protocol Gas Blend category. However, sources will need to receive EPA approval to use it. 

EPA has found that if an “Other” category is allowed, sources will sometimes simply use that 

category instead of selecting the correct one. EPA will add new codes to ECMPS as needed; the 

ECMPS system allows these types of additions to be made quickly and easily. EPA will make 

clear in the electronic reporting instructions that the list is not exclusive, and that other types of 

EPA Protocol gases could be made to meet customer needs. Appendix A, § 6.3.1 of the final 

rule clarifies that a Protocol gas blend may be used as both a zero gas and span gas where 

appropriate.

7) Comment: The costs of including these Protocol gas type codes, including the costs of 

revising and debugging reporting software must be included in the ICR.

Response: The cost of recording and reporting Protocol gas type codes is included in the ICR. 

Section 6 of the ICR states: “In addition, the estimates in this ICR reflect a small burden to Part 

75 sources for a one-time rule review and an incremental increase in the annual burden 

associated with minor modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., for 

tracking AETB and PGVP-related information and data). EPA has amended the ICR supporting

statement to include the cost of revising and debugging reporting software.

8) Comment: The need for the proposed AETB requirements is questionable. The ASTM D 

7036-04 (the ASTM standard) provisions are subjective, arbitrary or unclear and are not 

designed to have each item enforced as a federal regulatory requirement. There is no evidence 

that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes. A more appropriate approach is 

to encourage voluntary compliance.

Response: EPA addressed many of these concerns in the response to comments for the 2006 

proposed rule (see Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0110 in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2005-0132). These concerns were also discussed in the preamble of the January 24, 2008 final 

rule (see 73 FR 4325, January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector General report, and in several 

correspondences from State air agencies (see Document ID #s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0015, 

-0016, -0062, and -0063, and Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0035 in the dockets). 

The following responds to the need for the proposed AETB requirements, the concern that the 

provisions in the ASTM standard are subjective, arbitrary or unclear, and the concern that there 

is no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes.

Small and large stack testing companies, sources subject to Part 75, and State and EPA

regulators in the ASTM D 7036-04 work group believe that implementation of the ASTM 
5

Practice will result in improved data quality. EPA believes the evidence is strong that 

unqualified, under-trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on testing projects.

EPA and State air agencies have had experiences with tests that have been invalidated or called 

into question due to poor performance by testing contractors (see Document ID #s referenced in 

the previous paragraph).

EPA believes that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a Qualified 

Individual on site do not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but feels strongly 

that these will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data generation. 

EPA also believes that third party (e.g., State agency) oversight helps ensure that testing is 

properly conducted and strongly encourages such oversight to continue. Regarding the concern 

that there is no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes, EPA 

notes that there is also no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard won’t prevent 

mistakes.

Voluntary compliance with any minimum competency standard has not worked for the 

past 30 years, which is how long EPA and other organizations have tried to develop an 

acceptable standard for stack testers. There are many reasons why voluntary compliance has not 

worked, including disagreement among stack test companies on a minimum competency

standard, and the practice of sources often hiring the lowest bidder. The lack of voluntary

compliance with a minimum competency standard is also why various States, including 

Louisiana, have developed their own stack testing regulatory standards. A driving force for the 

development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the patchwork of standards that was 

beginning to occur throughout the U.S. If each State were to develop its own standard for stack 

testing, testing costs would increase as stack testers performing work in multiple States would 

have to pay for, qualify in and abide by differing requirements in multiple jurisdictions. EPA 

notes that the Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel its stack testing accreditation program (see 

Document ID #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0072 in the docket) and in its place substitute 

accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04. Louisiana DEQ also agrees to recognize third party 

accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council.

9) Comment: “EPA proposes to revise the definitions of “Air Emission Testing Body” (AETB) 

and “Qualified Individual” (QI). Proposed § 72.2. An AETB would be an entity that provides a

certification under Appendix A, § 6.1.2(b) and a QI would be an individual identified by an

AETB as meeting the requirement of the ASTM practice for QIs. These revisions are important

to address UARG’s concerns because they make clear that the status of an AETB or QI for

purposes of Part 75 depends on the AETB’s (or an external accreditation body’s) determination

of compliance at the time of testing, and not on some future determination by the AETB or a

third party. This allows Part 75 source owners/operators to rely on an AETB’s certification to

ensure their sources compliance with the rule, and allow source owners/operators to determine at

the time of testing whether their tests (and subsequent emissions data) are valid. A definition of

AETB or QI that is conditioned on the AETB’s or QI’s actual compliance would unreasonably

hold Part 75 source owners/operators accountable for the AETB or QI’s compliance.”
6

Response: The Agency generally agrees. However, if during a test, an observer determines that 

no QI was overseeing or supervising the test, then the test is invalid and must be repeated with a 

QI that complies with ASTM D 7036-04 and Part 75. 

10) Comment: “EPA proposes to add a new § 75.21(f) identifying by section which tests must 

be conducted by an AETB, and stating to which tests the requirement to conform to the ASTM

practice apply. These statements are important not only to establish which tests must be

conducted by an AETB, but also to make clear that in certifying its conformance to the ASTM

practice under Appendix A, § 6.1.2(b) an AETB need only consider whether it complies with the

ASTM practice when performing RATA and Appendix E and LME test, and not when it

performs other sorts of tests.”

Response: The Agency agrees.

11) Comment: Commenter is concerned that a statement in the preamble allows for the 

invalidation of large amounts of data if, e.g., six months after the completion of a RATA EPA 

were to discover that a QI was not on site during the test period.

Response: EPA agrees that section 6.1.2(e) requires discovery during the test period that a QI 

was not on site overseeing and supervising test projects in order for data to be called into 

question. EPA has removed the misleading statement in the preamble.

12) Comment: EPA solicits comment on whether the rule should require that AETBs be 

accredited by an external organization (something neither the rule nor ASTM D7036-04 

requires). UARG does not believe that a requirement for external certification can be supported. 

First, there currently is only one national accreditation organization providing accreditation of 

any sort -- STAC, and that organization in unlikely to be able to handle the volume of AETBs 

seeking to perform testing under Part 75. However, even if STAC could meet demand, no 

regulation should be designed around the services of a single private organization. Second, 

accreditation is expensive and likely would only become more so without significant competition 

among providers. Unless EPA could demonstrate a clear substantive advantage to external 

accreditation, those costs cannot be justified. At this point, EPA has no evidence to suggest that 

accreditation is any better at assuring compliance with the ASTM practice than self-certification. 

Finally, requiring accreditation would have the effect of making accreditation organizations the 

sole arbiters of compliance with the ASTM practice. Currently, an AETB that loses accreditation 

as a result of a dispute over interpretation of the ASTM practice can enforce its own 

interpretation through self certification. Given the subjective nature of many of the ASTM 

practice requirements and the industry’s limited experience in implementing it, such 

independence is essential to UARG’s support for the current proposal.

Response: EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04.

13) Comment: UARG notes that EPA’s proposal would incorporate by reference and require

compliance with a specific version of ASTM D7036-04. Because EPA has not solicited

comment on the use of any other version of the practice, EPA could not require compliance with

any other version (or revision) without conducting a new rulemaking. For example, EPA could
7

not impose on AETBs a future version of the practice that requires accreditation without issuing

a new proposal.

Response: EPA agrees. 

14) Comment: The AETB recordkeeping and reporting deadlines in sections 75.59 and 75.64, 

respectively, are confusing. “Although the use of both an effective date and a deadline is 

confusing, as UARG understand the proposal even if the final rule were published less than 6 

months before deadline in § 75.64(a)(5), sources would still have 6 months from the effective 

date of the final rule before the AETB provisions would become effective. However, any AETB 

information that is required to be recorded on or after both the effective date of the AETB 

provision and the deadline in 75.64(a)(5) would have to be reported prior to or concurrent with 

the relevant electronic quarterly report. UARG requests that EPA confirm that understanding.”

Response: Any AETB information required to be recorded by the rule would have to be reported 

prior to or concurrent with the relevant electronic quarterly report. The Agency received 

requests to extend the AETB compliance deadline from three commenters. No commenter 

thought that EPA was providing too much time. Even though EPA believes that the Source 

Evaluation Society and their contractors who implement the Qualified Individual tests have 

adequate capacity to handle a large increase in tests (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0837-0054 in the docket), the Agency agrees that a 365 days from publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register compliance deadline for the AETB related provisions is more reasonable for 

several reasons. Only approximately 30 percent of the roughly 400 stack testing companies have 

at least one qualified individual. Even these companies may not yet be fully compliant with 

ASTM D 7036-04. The large amount of near term stack testing necessary to respond to the 

Agency’s requests for information collection under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to assess 

the emissions of HAPs from electric generating units and other industrial sources (see Document 

ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0060 in the docket) provides even less time for companies to 

come into compliance with the AETB provisions. Therefore, to better ensure that every stack 

test company has a reasonable chance to comply with ASTM D 7036-04, EPA has extended the 

deadline in section 75.21(f) and the recordkeeping deadlines in section 75.59 for AETB-related 

data elements to 365 calendar days from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The 

commencement date in section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to Part 75 has also been extended to 365

calendar days from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The AETB reporting 

deadline in section 75.64(a)(5) has been similarly revised.

15) Comment: “Section 75.22 establishes requirements for and limitations on the use of 

reference methods under Part 75. EPA proposes to revise § 75.22(a)(5) to add a new subsection 

(v) disallowing an option provided under Method 7E to conduct multiple sampling runs before

performing post-run checks. EPA’s rationale for the restriction is concern that drift correction of

individual runs based on the results of checks performed after multiple runs will not be accurate

if the drift is not uniform over the entire test. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,400. UARG does not disagree

that, at some point, drift corrections may become less accurate following multiple runs, but not

enough to require a post-run check after every run. A requirement to perform a post run bias or

system calibration error check after every three runs would be sufficient to ensure accurate drift

corrections without needlessly adding to the length of the test. EPA should limit the number of
8

runs allowed before performing a post-run check to three, rather than prohibiting multiple runs

altogether.”

Response: Several commenters have questioned EPA’s proposal not to allow the use of 

provisions recently added to EPA Method 7E when conducting the reference methods for Part 75 

purposes. The provision of the method in question allows multiple test runs to be quality assured 

for bias and drift as a group rather than individually. This change made in the method allows the 

user to conduct bias and drift checks only at the beginning and end of a series of test runs, rather 

than conducting these checks before and after each individual run. The rationale for this is that if 

the tester can pass the quality assurance at the beginning and end of the series of runs, then the 

intermediate runs must be valid, and the quality of the reference method data has not been 

compromised by taking this shortcut. However this assumption is not necessarily true. 

Two commenters favor allowing 63 minutes of continuous sampling time between bias 

and drift checks. According to the commenters, sampling for 63 consecutive minutes at a time is 

desirable because 63 minutes corresponds to the time needed to perform three 21-minute runs of 

a CEMS relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and also is long enough to obtain a complete 

compliance test (i.e., stack test) run. Compliance tests often consist of three one-hour runs, and 

many sources have both RATA requirements and compliance test requirements. The 

commenters favor eliminating the bias and drift checks after each RATA run because it reduces 

the amount of time required to perform the testing. 

Generally speaking, it is good practice to perform emission testing in the most efficient 

manner possible without sacrificing data quality. However, EPA believes that the added 

assurance of data quality provided by performing bias and drift checks after each 21-minute 

RATA run far outweighs the small amount of time that could be saved by skipping the 

intermediate QA checks. Further, there is no reason why three 21-minute RATA runs cannot be 

averaged together to make one 63-minute compliance test run. 

For typical compliance test applications of the method where the user is only concerned 

with showing compliance with an emissions limit, the accuracy of the individual test runs is not 

as essential as it is for Part 75 applications. The Agency does not object to the change made to 

Method 7E when the method is used for compliance test applications. Since the average of all 

test runs is used to assess compliance, the run-by-run percent inaccuracies due to changing bias 

and drift over the course of the testing will tend to cancel, resulting in acceptable overall average 

that is only slightly different from the average value that would have been obtained had the more 

stringent run-by-run quality assurance procedures been followed. Thus, for compliance testing 

purposes, the commenters are correct in asserting that little is gained from performing the quality 

assurance testing before and after each run, so long as the overall specifications for bias and drift 

are met at the beginning and end of each test series.

However, under Part 75 the reference method measurements are generally used for a very

different purpose and the inaccuracy that can be introduced by not following the run-by-run 

quality assurance is unacceptable. For Part 75, the reference methods are primarily used to 

directly assess the accuracy of a continuous emissions monitoring system on a run-by-run basis. 

The purpose of the relative accuracy test audits (RATA) is to conduct at least nine quality-
9

assured independent reference measurements and compare those measurements to nine 

simultaneous measurements made by a continuous emissions monitoring system in its normal

mode of operation. Since each run directly compares CEMS measurements to reference method 

measurements, any drift in the reference monitor during the course of the run must be assessed 

and accounted for. Method 7E provides a means of adjusting the reference method 

measurements for moderate drift (less than 3.0% of the span gas value over the course of a run). 

This correction is intended to tie the resulting reference value more closely to the EPA Protocol 

calibration gas standards which are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The correction assumes that over the duration of the test run, the profile of 

any drift observed is linear. The longer the interval between bias/drift checks, the less likely it is 

that this linear approximation will hold true. Because the RATA is intended to compare nine 

independent, quality-assured reference measurements to nine simultaneous measurements from a 

CEMS, EPA finds that performing a bias and drift evaluation before and after a series of runs 

increases the uncertainty in the individual run measurements and has the potential to introduce 

error that would otherwise be eliminated by performing the bias and drift evaluation before and 

after each run. EPA believes that mass-based regulatory programs, such as the trading programs 

supported by Part 75 monitoring, need the added assurance of data quality provided by run-byrun bias and drift evaluations. The run-by-run quality assurance is consistent with Method 7E as 

it was originally written, and avoids the risk of adding bias and uncertainty to the CEMS data 

through the RATA process. To demonstrate the errors that can result from quality-assuring a 

series of Method 7E runs instead of performing run-by-run QA, consider the following 

examples:

Assume that the reference method uses a 30.0 ppm span gas. Assume that the direct 

analyzer calibration is perfect and that the system bias for the zero level gas is always perfect 

(i.e., 0.0). By doing this we can focus on the effects of various upscale drift profiles. Note that 

any drift in the zero response would also factor into the proper correction of reference values and 

would result in further measurement uncertainties if ignored. 

Table 1, below, illustrates four possible drift profiles over a series of test runs. The first 

case is an ideal, constant rate drift profile where the drift is linear over the entire test. The 

second is a curved profile where the monitor drifts in one direction (upward) but does so slowly

at first then more rapidly near the end of the test. The third presents a variable drift profile 

where one of the runs would be invalidated for failing the post-run system bias check. The 

fourth is also a case of variable drift where the bias is always within acceptable limits, but the 

drift during one of the runs would be unacceptable. Such drift can be caused when a test trailer 

becomes suddenly impacted by the sun and rapidly heats up before the mobile air conditioning

can compensate. Each of these profiles represents possible changes in system response during 

the course of a test, which would be detected and properly addressed if run-by-run system bias 

and drift checks were performed. 

For each of the four drift profiles, the upscale system bias and system drift check results 

for each test run are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 shows that for Case 3, run #7 should be 

invalidated, based on excessive bias (5.3%) that developed during the test. Note, however, that 

this bias is not seen in the subsequent test runs, because the monitor drifted back to a point 
10

within the bias specification. Table 3 shows that for Case 4, run #5 exhibited excessive drift 

(3.3%) and thus should be considered an invalid run. 

Table 1: Example Reference Method System Drift Profiles

Case 1: 

Linear 

Profile

Case 2:

Delayed 

Curved 

Profile

Case 3:

Variable 

Drift Profile 

with Failed 

Bias Run

Case 4:

Variable 

Drift Profile 

with Failed 

Drift Run

Pre 1 Start of Testing 30 30 30 30

Pre 2 30.1 30 29.8 29.8

Pre 3 30.2 30.1 30 29.6

Pre 4 30.3 30.1 30.4 29.5

Pre 5 30.4 30.2 30.5 29.2

Pre 6 30.5 30.3 30.7 30.2

Pre 7 30.6 30.4 31.2 31.1

Pre 8 30.7 30.5 31.6 31

Pre 9 30.8 30.7 31.2 31

Post 9 End of Testing 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9

Table 2: System Bias Results (5.0% limit)

Case 1: 

Linear 

Profile

Case 2: 

Delayed 

Curved 

Profile

Case 3: 

Variable Drift 

Profile with 

Failed Bias 

Run

Case 4: 

Variable Drift 

Profile with 

Failed Drift 

Run

Pre 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Pre 2 0.3% 0.0% -0.7% -0.7%

Pre 3 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% -1.3%

Pre 4 1.0% 0.3% 1.3% -1.7%

Pre 5 1.3% 0.7% 1.7% -2.7%

Pre 6 1.7% 1.0% 2.3% 0.7%

Pre 7 2.0% 1.3% 4.0% 3.7%

Pre 8 2.3% 1.7% 5.3% 3.3%

Pre 9 2.7% 2.3% 4.0% 3.3%

Post 9 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
11

Table 3: Drift Evaluation (3.0% limit)

Case 1: 

Linear 

Profile

Case 2: 

Delayed 

Curved 

Profile

Case 3: 

Variable Drift 

Profile with 

Failed Bias 

Run

Case 4: 

Variable Drift 

Profile with 

Failed Drift 

Run

Run 1 0.3% 0.0% -0.7% -0.7%

Run 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% -0.7%

Run 3 0.3% 0.0% 1.3% -0.3%

Run 4 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% -1.0%

Run 5 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 3.3%

Run 6 0.3% 0.3% 1.7% 3.0%

Run 7 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% -0.3%

Run 8 0.3% 0.7% -1.3% 0.0%

Run 9 0.3% 0.7% -1.0% -0.3%

BF/A Method 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Note that for all four Cases, the pre-test and post-test responses give identical results and 

show no excessive bias or drift. Therefore, based solely on the results of these checks, all of the 

test runs in the series would be declared valid---all four Cases would look exactly the same to a 

tester who only conducted the pre-test and post-test system bias and drift tests. However, the 

actual drift profiles and the results of the run-by-run QA checks clearly indicate that checking 

bias and drift only before and after a series of test runs can mask significant bias and drift 

problems, and could lead to an erroneous conclusion about the validity of the individual test 

runs.

For each of the four drift profiles, Tables 4 through Table 7, below, compare the 

reference method measurements, corrected run-by-run for bias and drift, against the same 

measurements corrected using only the pre- and post-test system bias test results. For the first 

Case with uniform linear drift, Table 4 shows that for both QA methods, the overall average of 

the nine reference method runs is the same, and no apparent benefit is gained by performing runby run QA checks. However, it is also evident that the run-by-run corrected values start off 

being 1.3% higher than the pre- and post-test corrected values and end up being 1.3% lower. 

Thus, even for the ideal case of uniform linear drift, the two QA methods can give significantly

different values for the individual reference method (RM) runs. In Part 75 applications, the 

exact RM values are important, because for each RATA run, the arithmetic difference between 

the CEMS reading and the RM value enters into the relative accuracy calculations. 

Table 4: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements 

for Case 1 Linear Drift Profile
12

Reference Method 

Measurement

Corrected 

based on pretest and posttest system 

bias checks

Corrected 

based on run–

by-run system 

bias checks

Run by run % 

difference

Run 1 25 24.6 25.0 -1.3%

Run 2 24 23.6 23.9 -1.0%

Run 3 26 25.6 25.8 -0.7%

Run 4 22 21.7 21.7 -0.3%

Run 5 24 23.6 23.6 0.0%

Run 6 22 21.7 21.6 0.3%

Run 7 26 25.6 25.4 0.7%

Run 8 28 27.6 27.3 1.0%

Run 9 27 26.6 26.3 1.3%

Average 24.9 24.5 24.5 0.0%

Tables 5 through 7 compare the two QA methods for the more realistic Cases 2 through 

4, in which the drift profile is non-uniform and variable. Tables 5 through 7 show, once again, 

that when the two QA methods are applied, even though the percentage difference between the 

average reference method values may be small, the drift-corrected RM values for the individual 

runs can be significantly different. This is especially clear in Tables 6 and 7. And, as previously 

seen in Tables 2 and 3, there are actually two runs that would have been disqualified for 

excessive bias or drift based on the results of the run-by-run QA checks. Both of these runs 

would have been declared valid if only the pre- and post-test system bias and drift checks were 

performed. 

Table 5: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements 

for Case 2 Curved Profile

Reference Method 

Measurement

Corrected 

based on pretest and posttest system 

bias checks

Corrected 

based on runby-run system 

bias checks

Run by run % 

difference

Run 1 25 24.6 25.0 -1.5%

Run 2 24 23.6 24.0 -1.3%

Run 3 26 25.6 25.9 -1.1%

Run 4 22 21.7 21.9 -1.0%

Run 5 24 23.6 23.8 -0.7%

Run 6 22 21.7 21.7 -0.3%

Run 7 26 25.6 25.6 0.0%

Run 8 28 27.6 27.5 0.5%

Run 9 27 26.6 26.3 1.1%
13

Average 24.9 24.5 24.6 -0.4%

Table 6: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements 

for Case 3 Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run

Reference Method 

Measurement

Corrected 

based on pretest and posttest system 

bias checks 

Corrected 

based on runby-run system 

bias checks

Run by run % 

difference

Run 1 25 24.6 25.1 -1.8%

Run 2 24 23.6 24.1 -1.8%

Run 3 26 25.6 25.8 -0.8%

Run 4 22 21.7 21.7 0.0%

Run 5 24 23.6 23.5 0.5%

Run 6 22 21.7 21.3 1.6%

Run 7 26 25.6 24.8 3.1%

Run 8 28 27.6 26.8 3.1%

Run 9 27 26.6 26.1 2.0%

Average 24.9 24.5 24.4 0.7%

Table 7: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements 

for Case 4 Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run

Reference Method 

Measurement

Corrected 

based on pretest and posttest system 

bias checks

Corrected 

based on runby-run system 

bias checks

Run by run % 

difference

Run 1 25 24.6 25.1 -1.8%

Run 2 24 23.6 24.2 -2.5%

Run 3 26 25.6 26.4 -3.0%

Run 4 22 21.7 22.5 -3.6%

Run 5 24 23.6 24.2 -2.5%

Run 6 22 21.7 21.5 0.7%

Run 7 26 25.6 25.1 2.0%

Run 8 28 27.6 27.1 1.8%

Run 9 27 26.6 26.2 1.6%

Average 24.9 24.5 24.7 -0.8%
14

While these four examples are hypothetical, they nevertheless represent real possibilities 

that could exist during the course of testing. There are so many factors that can affect drift 

profiles, that the only safe way to ensure proper correction or invalidation of the RM data is to 

do the run-by-run quality assurance, which, incidentally, was part of the original Method 7E. 

EPA does not collect the actual reference method test data for Method 7E electronically 

in a manner that can be further analyzed. Therefore, we cannot propoerly assess how reducing 

the number of required bias and drift checks will impact data quality. We have no way of 

knowing how many test runs that should be invalidated would be assumed to be valid if we were 

to allow bias and drift checks to be done only before and after a series of runs. However, we do 

know that we can avoid that issue entirely by requiring the quality assurance checks to be 

performed before and after each run for Part 75 applications. 

In summary, EPA maintains that in view of the way that Method 7E data are used in the 

Part 75 programs, run-by-run system bias and drift checks are necessary to eliminate 

measurement error that would otherwise be introduced by not quality-assuring each run 

individually. This QA approach also applies to Method 6C (the instrumental reference method 

for SO2) and to Method 3A (the instrumental method for O2 and CO2), when those methods are 

used for Part 75 applications. 

16) Comment: “EPA proposes to remove provisions of the rule that were adopted in the Clean 

Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), to re-promulgate other provisions that were revised in CAMR and then 

vacated, and to remove or revise other related provisions that reference mercury and sorbent trap 

monitoring systems. UARG supports these revisions. Because EPA’s preamble identifies no 

other changes in these provisions than removal of the references to mercury and mercury

monitoring systems, UARG assumes that no other revisions to the republished provisions were 

intended and asks that EPA confirm that in the final rule. If EPA has proposed other changes, 

EPA should issue a supplemental proposal identifying and justifying the proposed change. 

“In addition, UARG has identified two provisions not included in EPA’s proposal that 

also should be republished because the portions referencing mercury monitoring were vacated in 

CAMR. Section 75.53(e)(1)(iv) refers to reporting of information on Hg monitors and sorbent 

trap monitoring systems, and § 75.53(e)(1)(x) refers to information on each stack using an Hg 

component monitor. Although the Hg portions of these provisions are no longer in effect, to be 

consistent with the other proposed revisions and to avoid confusion, EPA should revise and 

repromulgate these provisions without the references to Hg, sorbent trap monitoring system, and 

Hg. EPA also should ensure that these requirements have been removed from the reporting

format, schema, and instructions.”

Response: The proposed rule revisions that would remove all references to mercury (Hg) 

monitoring from Part 75 have been finalized without modification. However, the commenter has 

correctly identified two references to Hg monitoring in §75.53(e) which EPA apparently 

overlooked. The Agency has also identified a third reference in §75.53(e) and another reference 

in §75.57 that were inadvertently overlooked. Section 75.53(e)(1)(i)(E) refers to Hg emission 

controls, and Method of Determination Code (MODC) “15” in Table 4a in §75.57 refers to “Hg 
15

concentration”. The final rule removes all four of these references to Hg monitoring from Part 

75. All references to Hg monitoring and reporting have also been removed from the “ECMPS 

Reporting Instructions” (see the June 17, 2009 version and September 16, 2009 addendum, 

which are posted on the Clean Air Markets Division web site at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/reporting-instructions.html. However, certain 

schema elements had already been incorporated by the time of the court vacatur of CAMR, (e.g., 

<CalibrationStandardData> record intended to collect whether elemental or oxidized mercury

standards were used for daily calibration). EPA continues to affirm that it is unnecessary to 

remove such records from the reporting format (or schema) since there are no requirements to 

use these fields or any of the mercury specific codes. As such these records are in essence 

vestigial, lying behind the scenes unnoticeable by anyone who isn’t a DAHS programmer able to 

understand the format code and view these few, unused fields. Removing such would 

unnecessarily result in added reprogramming cost to both the tax payer and industry. 

Note that minor changes have been made to a few of the rule sections in which the Hg 

monitoring provisions were found. These changes were described under “Miscellaneous 

Corrections and Additions” in the preamble to the proposed rule, and have been finalized without 

modification.

17) Comment: “Section 75.4(b) addresses the deadline for completion of monitoring system 

certification tests for new and newly affected units. EPA proposes to revise §§ 75.4(b)(2) and 

(c)(2) to remove the alternative 90 unit operating day time frame for completing tests, and to 

allow all units up to 180 calendar days. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399. EPA states the purpose of the 

change is to clarify and simplify the deadline determination.

“Although UARG does not object to this specific revision, which allows units more time

to complete testing, EPA’s rationale for the change is unclear. Calculation of operating days is

neither difficult nor unclear for Part 75 sources. Part 75 defines unit operating day as a day

during which a unit combusts any fuel and Part 75 requires sources to record each unit’s

operating time on an hourly basis. 40 C.F.R. §§ 72.2 and 75.57(b)(2). As a result, to the extent

EPA is suggesting that operating days are not sufficiently clear to be used as a measure of time

under any other provision of Part 75, UARG disagrees. In short, UARG supports this revision

because it provides more time, but does not necessarily agree with EPA’s stated reasons.”

Response: The proposed revisions to §§75.4(b)(2) and 75.4(c)(2) have been finalized without 

modification. However, for the record, EPA wishes to clarify its reasons for making these rule 

changes. The Agency agrees with the commenter that calculation of the number of unit 

operating days is neither difficult nor unclear in the regulation. For new Acid Rain Program 

(ARP) units under §75.4(b)(2), the difficulty lies in determining when a unit’s 90th operating day 

occurs in relation to the date on which the unit commenced commercial operation (CCO) (i.e., 

whether the 90th operating day is prior to, coincident with, or after the 180th calendar day

following CCO). For newly-affected Acid Rain units under §75.4(c)(2), it is also difficult to 

establish when the unit’s 90th operating day occurs in relation to the date on which the unit first 

operates after becoming subject to the ARP. 
16

In accordance with 40 CFR 72.9(c)(3)(iv), a new or newly affected Acid Rain unit is 

required to hold allowances equal to its SO2 emissions as of the deadline for monitor 

certification. Historically, for new units that date has been either the 90th operating day after 

CCO (if operating day 90 occurs before calendar day 180) or the 180th calendar day after CCO 

(if calendar day 180 occurs before the 90th operating day). Newly affected units under 

§75.4(c)(2) that have lost their Acid Rain-exempt status are required to hold allowances either 90 

operating days after the date on which the unit “first operates after becoming subject to the 

requirements of the Acid Rain Program” or 180 calendar days after that date (whichever occurs 

first). 

The emissions reporting provisions of §75.64(a) further complicate the process of 

determining the exact date on which SO2 allowance holding must begin. Section 75.64(a) 

requires new or newly-affected units to begin reporting emissions data on the earlier of: (1) the 

date on which monitor certification is completed; or (2) the expiration of the monitor 

certification deadline. Most units complete certification well before the deadline and begin 

electronic data reporting at that point. However, the first electronic report submitted to EPA 

does not contain any unit operating data prior to the date on which monitor certification was 

completed. This often makes it impossible to determine from the report whether 90 unit 

operating days elapsed between the CCO date (or, if applicable, the date on which the unit first 

operated after becoming ARP-affected) and the date on which certification testing was 

completed. Without that information, the date on which SO2 allowances are first required to be 

held cannot be established with certainty. This places an unnecessary administrative burden on 

EPA and regulated source because EPA must require the sources to submit information 

identifying the 90th operating day. 

To simplify things, EPA has changed the window of time allotted for new and newlyaffected Acid Rain units to complete monitoring system certification from a 90 operating 

day/180 calendar day window to 180 calendar days from a known date, i.e., from the CCO date 

(for new units) or from the date on which the unit first becomes subject to the Acid Rain 

Program (for newly-affected units). Section 75.61(a)(2) already requires the Designated 

Representative (DR) to provide notification to EPA of the date on which a new Acid Rain unit 

commences commercial operation. For a newly-affected Acid Rain unit, §75.61(a)(2) already

requires the DR to provide notification of the date on which the unit becomes subject to the ARP. 

18) Comment: “Section 75.4(e) addresses the deadline for completion of monitoring system 

certification tests for units that have added a new stack or control device. EPA proposes to revise 

§ 75.4(e) to remove the reference to “existing unit” and make the provision applicable to 

“certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests” at all “affected units” that complete 

construction of a new stack or flue, flue gas desulfurization system (FGD) or add-on NOx 

emission control1. EPA also proposes to add language stating that if the project involves both a 

new stack and a new control device, the deadline for completion of testing must be determined 

from the date that emissions exit the new stack. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399.

 

1

“Although EPA has not solicited comment on the types of emission controls listed under this provision, 

UARG suggests that EPA consider broadening the provision to include any type of emission control that might be 

[sic] require recertification or diagnostic testing or [sic] the monitoring systems on an affected unit.”
17

“UARG supports EPA’s proposed expansion of the provision to include all affected units

and all testing that may be triggered as a result of construction of a new stack or control device.

This revision is consistent with the original intent of the provision, which was to address

deadlines for units that must relocate, replace, or retest monitoring systems as a result of the

addition of new controls, regardless of when the unit commenced construction. UARG does not

believe the provision was ever intended to draw a distinction between “existing” units as that

term is defined under § 72.2 and other units with previously certified monitoring systems. The

addition of recertification and diagnostic tests also is consistent with its EPA’s intent and past

implementation of the provision through guidance.

“However, UARG objects to EPA’s proposal to hold units that are constructing both a 

new stack and a control device to a single testing deadline based on use of the new stack. 

Although most sources likely would try to time operation of a new control device to coincide 

with any testing deadline created under § 75.4(e) as a result of use of a new stack, there is no 

valid policy reason for limiting an owner/operator to a single deadline or set of tests to validate 

the monitoring system. If both a new stack and new control device are constructed, but there is a 

delay between operation of the new stack and operation of the control device, the unit should be 

allowed to certify the system initially following operation of the new stack and then later 

recertify (or perform appropriate diagnostic testing) based on a new deadline after emissions pass 

through the control device. In that case, the subsequent operation, not installation, of the control 

device would trigger a separate, second testing deadline.

“If the owner/operator completes recertification on the monitoring systems on a new 

stack prior to operating the new control device, data from those monitoring system are valid 

unless or until the new control device is operated. If operation of that new control device also 

triggers testing of one or more monitoring systems, missing data procedures under § 75.4(e) 

should be used for that system (or those systems) until the second recertification or diagnostic 

testing is completed with the control device operating. There is no policy basis to require an

owner/operator to miss a testing deadline, and trigger use of missing data procedures, simply

because a control device has not operated within a certain period of time after operation of a new 

stack. If EPA has a valid policy reason for limiting the number of recertifications or diagnostic 

testing events under this provision, or for applying missing data substitution procedures in that

circumstance, EPA should issue a new proposal that articulates those reasons.”

Response: EPA agrees in part with the commenter. As noted above, §75.4(e)(2), on its face, 

applies only to existing units (which are generally units commencing commercial operation 

before November 1, 1990 and serving a generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 

MWe) and thus was not intended to cover new units. However, EPA agrees that it is appropriate 

to expand §75.4(e)(2) to provide a similar approach for monitoring compliance deadlines and 

missing data substitution for new stack construction and add-on SO2 or NOx control installation

at both existing and new units and to cover recertification and diagnostic tests, in addition to the 

certification tests covered by the existing provision. In addition, EPA agrees that in cases where 

a project involves both new stack construction and installation of add-on SO2 or NOx controls, 

the initial routing of flue gas through the new stack and the initial operation of an add-on control 

device (i.e., when reagent is first injected) should, if necessary, be treated as two separate events, 

each of which is allotted a flexible 90 operating day/180 calendar day window to complete all 
18

required certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic testing of the monitoring systems 

installed on the new stack. Two separate compliance windows may be needed in cases where 

there is a long interval of time between the starting dates of the two events. Therefore, a new 

paragraph, (e)(3), has been added to §75.4(e) to allow for completion of CEMS certification 

and/or recertification and/or diagnostic testing requirements for both new stack construction and 

new add-on SO2 or NOx controls either: (a) within the window of time provided for new stack 

construction; or (b) within the separate window of time applicable to such event provided under 

§75.4 (e)(1). 

EPA also revised §75.4(e) to address the reporting of CEMS data, in cases where only 

one compliance window is used, and where both windows are used. Section 75.4(e)(2), as 

revised, addresses how to report emissions or flow rate data after emissions first pass through the 

new stack or flue, or reagent is first injected into the flue gas desulfurization system or add-on 

NOx emission controls, until all required certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic 

tests are successfully completed. For example, if section 2 of Appendix A to Part 75 requires 

two spans and ranges for the monitor that measures the pollutant being removed by the add-on 

SO2 or NOx controls, certification of the high measurement scale is sufficient to initiate reporting 

of quality-assured data from that monitor. All data recorded on the certified high scale, 

including data that would ordinarily be required to be recorded on the low scale, may be reported 

as quality-assured for up to 60 unit or stack operating days after the first injection of reagent into 

the control device. Then, all required tests of the low measurement scale must be completed 

within the 90 operating day/180 calendar day compliance window of time associated with the 

first injection of reagent into the control device.

EPA believes that it is appropriate to allow temporary reporting of data on a certified 

high measurement scale in the case of installing and operating new add-on SO2 or NOx controls, 

primarily because it often takes several days or weeks to stabilize a new add-on emissions 

control device so that the desired percentage reduction in the SO2 or NOx emission levels is 

consistently achieved. During this period of time (known as the “shakedown” period), a 

significant percentage of the data from the SO2 or NOx monitor (as applicable) is likely to be too 

high to be read on the low scale. Further, even data that can be recorded on the low scale during 

the shakedown period cannot be reported as quality-assured, because a RATA must be 

performed on the low scale in order to certify it, and this test cannot be done until the control 

device has been stabilized. The Agency believes that accepting low readings recorded on a 

certified high scale for a short period of time will not adversely impact the overall accuracy of 

the emissions data. Other certified CEMS that have only one (high) measurement scale record 

data on the lower part of the scale during short-term events such as startup and shutdown, and 

these data are accepted as quality-assured.

Revised §75.4(e)(2)(ii) allows conditional data validation procedures in §75.20(b)(3) to 

be used for the entire 90 operating day/180 calendar day window associated with new stack 

construction or addition of a new emissions control device, rather than limiting the amount of 

time available to complete the required testing to the shorter timelines in §75.20(b)(3)(iv) . This 

is appropriate for new stack construction because the monitoring systems on the new stack are 

brand new systems that must undergo certification testing. The provisions of §75.20(b)(3) and 

sections 6.3.1(a), 6.3.2(a), 6.6.4(a), and 6.5(f) of Appendix A to Part 75 clearly allow conditional 
19

data validation to be used for the entire window of time specified in §75.4, for the initial 

certification of monitoring systems. For the installation and operation of add-on emissions 

controls, it is also appropriate to allow the use of conditional data validation for the entire 90 

operating day/180 calendar day window, because instability during the shakedown period 

prevents the required RATAs associated with the control device addition from being done during 

that time period, and the shakedown period often extends beyond the shorter conditional data 

validation timelines provided in §75.20(b)(3)(iv).

A new paragraph, (e)(4), has also been added to §75.4(e) to address special requirements 

that apply, in addition to the requirements in paragraph (e)(2), to a project involving both a new 

stack and a new add-on SO2 or NOx control device. For such a project, the emissions data 

recorded by each CEMS on the new stack, starting on the date and hour on which emissions first 

exit to the atmosphere through the new stack and ending on the hour before the date and hour on 

which reagent is first injected into the control device, may be reported as quality assured (as 

provided in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) and (iv)) only if (1) a RATA of the CEMS (as described in 

paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) or (ii)(A), depending on the CEMS involved) is successfully completed 

either prior to the first injection of reagent into the control device or in a period after the first 

injection when the control device is not operating; and (2) the rest of the required certification 

tests are successfully completed within the 90 operating day/180 calendar day compliance 

window that begins with the initial routing of flue gas through the new stack. For example, if the 

certification testing is done this way and conditional data validation is used in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the CEMS data may be reported as quality-assured, starting at the hour of 

the probationary calibration error test, provided that all of the major tests are passed in sequence, 

with no failures. The RATA must be performed prior to the initial injection of reagent into the 

control device, or in a period after the first injection when the control device is not operating, 

because the characteristics of the stack gas matrix (e.g., gas concentrations, temperature, 

moisture content, and concentration and flow profiles) when the control device is brought on-line 

will differ significantly from the stack characteristics of the uncontrolled unit. Therefore, to 

validate CEMS data in the uncontrolled time period between the first use of the new stack and 

the initial injection of reagent, a RATA that represents the actual stack conditions during that 

time interval must be performed and passed. The other, required certification tests, i.e., 7-day

calibration error tests, cycle time tests, and linearity checks, are not affected by the 

characteristics of the stack gas matrix, and can be performed at any time during the allotted 

window of time, whether or not reagent is being injected.

Of course, under §75.4(e)(2), to the extent additional testing requirements are triggered 

by the installation of the new add-on SO2 or NOx controls in a project involving both a new stack 

and such new controls, these tests must be successfully completed during the 90 unit operating 

day/180 calendar day window that begins with the initial injection of reagent. Note that EPA 

intends to revise Questions 15.4, 15.6, and 15.7 in the “Part 75 Emissions Monitoring Policy

Manual” to be consistent with today’s revisions to §75.4(e).

Even though EPA did not solicit comment on it, the commenter suggested that EPA 

should consider broadening the provision to include any type of emission control that might 

require recertification or diagnostic testing of the monitoring systems on an affected unit. At this 

time, the Agency has no plans to make this amendment to §75.4(e), but will consider it if and
20

when pollutants other than SO2 and NOx that are likely to require installation of add-on emission 

controls become subject to Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements. 

19 Comment: “EPA proposes to add a number of new recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

for monitoring plans and quarterly reports. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399. Many of these new provisions

require the identification of activation and deactivation dates for certain data or events. As

justification for these new requirements, EPA cites the need to make the rules consistent with

EPA’s ECMPS reporting format, which already includes these data elements. Moreover,

because EPA began requiring sources to report this information under ECMPS starting January

1, 2009 with “zero tolerance for reporting errors,” despite the lack of any requirement in the rule

to report the information, EPA proposes to make the requirements effective almost immediately

upon finalization of the rule. Id. Finally, because sources previously incorporated these data

elements into their reporting software at EPA’s insistence, EPA asserts that the burden of making

these required changes is small and therefore need not be included in the current ICR. EPA-HQOAR-2009-0837-0013 at 6.

“EPA misconstrues the nature of its obligation to support new recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, provide reasonable implementation periods, and estimate the costs of 

compliance. Although UARG agrees that EPA’s reporting format must be consistent with the 

reporting requirements in Part 75, the fact that a requirement to report information is already in 

EPA’s reporting format (unlawfully) is not a sufficient reason for adding a new requirement to 

the rule. To revise the rule to require reporting of the information, EPA must explain why the 

information is important to its implementation of the program. Although EPA may have genuine 

need for the information, that need is not identified in the proposal. Similarly, EPA cannot 

deprive sources of a reasonable implementation period or avoid including the requested 

information in its ICR simply because the Agency previously unlawfully required sources to 

report it. EPA must explain why it wants this information, estimate how must it will cost (or has 

cost) to collect and report the information in EPA’s reporting format, and provide sources a 

reasonable period of time after publication of the final rule to collect the required information 

and make any necessary software adjustments.”

Response: Throughout the process of development, EPA published many versions of the 

reporting formats and detailed instructions and took extensive comment on these working 

documents. The Agency is confident that all sources subject to Part 75 have already 

incorporated these data elements into their DAHS and met the corresponding reporting 

deadlines. However, in the unlikely event that a source subject to Part 75 has not reported these 

data elements to EPA, it may submit a petition under 75.66 requesting additional time to comply. 

The cost of recording and reporting these data elements was included in the ICR for the January

24, 2008 final rule (73 FR 4337).

The following paragraphs explain why the data elements in §§ 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), 

(g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F), (g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and (h)(5), §§ 

75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)–(H), §§ 75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L), (a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G), (d)(3)(xii)

and (xiii) are important for program implementation.
21

The final rule includes activation and deactivation dates for various records for the

monitoring plan data elements that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed 

rule and the January 24, 2008 final rule. The original EDR format was designed with the 

incorrect notion that certain information collected in the monitoring plan would not change or 

would only be updated at quarterly intervals. We now know that these assumptions are incorrect 

and that it is not only important to collect the data elements listed in Subpart F, but also to know 

when the data were applicable. The expansion in the usage of date fields to track the change in 

reported data is necessary for data management and has proven to lower the reporting burden by 

reducing confusion and simplifying the manner in which changes to monitoring plan information 

may be reported.

In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for the 

exhaust configuration for the units in the monitoring plan because it affects the certification or 

recertification deadline for the relevant monitoring systems.

In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(C), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for the 

following items: stack exit height (ft) above ground level and ground level elevation above sea 

level, and the inside cross-sectional area (ft2) at the flue exit and at the flow monitoring location 

(for units with flow monitors, only), and appropriate codes to indicate the material(s) of

construction and the shape(s) of the stack or duct cross-section(s) at the flue exit and (if 

applicable) at the flow monitor location because EPA needs to know when changes are made to 

these parameters for program evaluation (modeling), ECMPS QA checks on mass emission 

calculations, and proper application of default wall effect correction factors (Method 2H and 

CTM-041), respectively.

In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(F), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for the 

maximum hourly heat input capacity of each unit to determine when new appendix E heat input 

vs NOx correlation, and maximum potential velocity values should commence.

In 75.53(g)(1)(v)(F), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for 

measurement scale and dual span information to determine when certain QA checks should 

commence and the appropriateness of span, range and calibration gas values.

In 75.53(h)(2)(i) and 75.53(h)(5), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation date 

for peaking unit and gas-fired unit, respectively, for qualification information because it can 

affect the monitoring and QA requirements.

In 75.53(g)(1)(v)(G), the Agency needs to know if an autoranging analyzer is being used 

because it affects the type of ECMPS QA checks.

In 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)-(H), the Agency needs the operating codes for the following to 

accommodate and determine the proper use of all missing data scenarios outlined in appendix E, 

section 2.5: unit operated on emergency fuel; correlation curve for the fuel mixture has expired; 

operating parameter is outside of normal limits; uncontrolled hour; operation above highest 

tested heat input rate point on the curve; operating parameter data missing or invalid; designated 
22

operational and control equipment parameters within normal limits; and operation below lowest 

tested heat input rate point on the curve.

In 75.59(a)(1)(iii), EPA needs the minute recorded in addition to the date and hour for the 

following: all daily and 7-day calibration error tests, and all off-line calibration demonstrations, 

including any follow-up tests after corrective action. An affected unit may attempt more than 

one daily calibration in a given hour. ECMPS requires reporting of the date, hour, and minute of 

each calibration injection, but Subpart F currently includes reporting of only the date and hour. 

Without data on the minute of each calibration injection, it impossible to establish which attempt 

in a given hour was first, second, or otherwise and so it is difficult for EPA software to validate 

data for specific hours. Therefore, DAHS vendors suggested and industry generally supported 

adding the minute of the hour to the reported date and time for each calibration sequence.

In 75.59(a)(5)(ii)(L), EPA needs units that do not produce electrical or thermal output to 

record the average stack gas velocity at the operating level being tested to determine the range of 

operation and whether the unit is at the proper operating level for a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA). (For a non-load unit, Appendix A §6.5.2.1(a)(2) provides for use of average velocity in 

lieu of electrical or thermal load for determining the range of operation and the appropriate 

operating levels for performing RATAs.)

In 75.59(a)(5)(iii)(H), EPA needs the RATA frequency code to help determine whether 

the affected unit is performing RATAs at the required frequency and to determine the 

appropriate operating levels for flow RATAs.

In 75.59(a)(12)(iv)(G), EPA needs the fuel code for Ozone Season Only reporters for a 

fuel flowmeter accuracy test extension for two reasons. An affected unit can obtain a fuelspecific extension of the fuel flow meter accuracy test deadline for a fuel flow meter used for 

less than 168 hours during a calendar quarter for which no emission report is submitted. A fuel 

code is necessary for units that have the ability to combust multiple fuels so that the extension is 

provided for the correct fuel flow meter system, and to ensure that the appropriate appendix D 

substitute data procedure is applied.

In 75.53(g)(1)(vi)(J), the Agency needs to know the group identification code because it 

is used to cross reference the fuel-and-unit-specific default NOx emission rate used by a specific 

unit that is part of an identical group. In 75.59(d)(3)(xii) and 75.59(d)(3)(xiii), EPA needs the 

number of tests and the number of units, respectively, in the group of identical low mass emitting 

units to ensure that the requirements of §75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B) and Table LM-4 are met. 

20) Comment: “EPA proposes to add new §§ 75.62(d) and 75.63(d) to require submission of a 

hard copy cover letter and certification statement with each hard copy monitoring plan and 

certification or recertification application, and to allow inclusion of explanatory text or 

comments in the electronic portion of a monitoring plan and certification or recertification 

application. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,400. UARG does not object to the cover letter requirement for 

hard copy reports and supports the explicit authorization for explanatory information or 

comments to support the certification statements embedded in EPA’s ECMPS reporting 

software. Although UARG does not believe EPA has the authority to prohibit sources from 
23

including such text, the rules would be improved by making the option explicit in the rules. Since 

quarterly reports also are required to contain compliance certifications, UARG requests that EPA 

revise § 75.64(g) to explicitly state that explanatory text or comments to support the certification 

may be included in a quarterly report as well.”

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that Part 75 would be improved by explicitly

allowing explanatory information and/or comments to be added to the quarterly electronic data 

reports, in support of the certification statements embedded in the ECMPS software. Therefore, 

the text of §75.64(g) has been revised accordingly. The reference to cover letters accompanying 

the electronic quarterly reports is outdated and has been removed. However, cover letters are 

still allowed for hardcopy monitoring plan and certification or recertification submittals in 

§75.62 and §75.63, respectively.

21) Comment: “Section 4 of Appendix A addresses requirements for sources’ DAHS. EPA 

proposes to revise this provision to remove references to technology (e.g., ASCII flat files, 

electronic transfer via modem, and IBM-compatible personal computer diskettes) that are not 

used under EPA’s ECMPS program and to require instead that the DAHS record information “in 

an electronic format.” UARG supports these revisions, which are consistent with comments 

UARG made on the 2006 proposed rule. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0079. UARG also supports 

EPA’s proposal to remove references to mercury monitoring systems from this section.”

 

Response: The Agency agrees with the comment.

22) Comment: EPA should include: (1) the cost for staff time to develop and implement the 

quality manual required by the ASTM practice, including document control procedures, hiring of 

additional personnel, performance of annual audits, and documentation of corrective action, (2) 

application fees and the cost of preparing applications for accreditation and/or QI qualification, 

(3) the cost of QI exams, including tuition for preparatory courses, exam fees, and travel 

expenses, (4) any new costs associated with preparation of test plans and reports to comply with 

the specific criteria in the practice, and (5) cost of required records storage and backup.

Response: The Agency believes that AETBs should already be operating in a manner consistent 

with ASTM D 7036-04. However, EPA revised the ICR to include additional supporting detail 

for the estimated burden associated with increased annual quality-assurance and maintenance for 

each unit. Based on information provided by stack testing firms, a conservative one percent 

increase was applied to the previously established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent 

facility. This is based on the average stack testing industry costs of preparing a QA/QC manual 

($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification ($1,200), and annual operating costs of maintaining the 

quality control system ($5,000 – $50,000 depending on size). The increased stack testing 

overhead costs translate into an increased performance test cost of $68 to $549 per RATA test 

depending on the size of the company. The increase cost per test drops even further if applied to 

all types of tests performed by typical stack testing companies. The costs will be passed through 

to the customers, which are generally sources subject to Part 75, including large electric utility

and industrial companies. See Document ID#s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0051, -0055, -0059, 

and -0071 for additional cost details.
24

Air Liquide Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-0837-0048)

1) Comment: “ISO 17025 should be adopted in place of the PGVP.”

Response: The Agency has decided to finalize a refined PGVP in § 75.21(g) instead of requiring 

compliance with ISO 17025. 

EPA has no objection to specialty gas companies certifying or accrediting to ISO 17025 

“General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories”, but 

encourages companies to participate in the PGVP. Certifying or accrediting to ISO 17025 can be 

beneficial. However, the purpose of the ISO standard is different than the purpose of the PGVP. 

The purpose of ISO 17025 is to better assure that a laboratory has proper quality assurance and 

quality control (QA/QC) practices in place. The idea is that if proper QA/QC practices are in 

place, better products will result. However, this may not always be the case. As a matter of fact, 

one manufacturer (Scott Specialty Gases, now a part of Air Liquide) pointed out that ISO 17025 

certification is not only extremely expensive, but it does not guarantee that a better protocol 

product will be manufactured. For example, one gas manufacturer which held certification to the 

ISO standard registered at least 1 failure in a blind audit (see Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0837-0069 and -0070 in the docket).

The only audits that ISO 17025 requires are internal audits of procedures, not products. 

The ISO standard states that these internal audits are to be conducted “periodically”, with no 

time frame specified. The results of these audits are to be provided to clients of the laboratory, 

but it is not clear that the results would be publicly available. Thus potential future clients may

not be aware of how the laboratory was performing. The Agency believes that the PGVP audit 

results should be publicly available to allow potential EPA Protocol gas customers to make a 

more informed purchasing decision.

The accuracy of EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases are used to help 

ensure that the national emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act are met. The Agency’s 

goal is to implement a cylinder audit program to better ensure the quality of these gases. EPA 

believes the best way to do that is to implement a PGVP and have a blind sample of cylinders 

analyzed by an independent, nationally recognized laboratory, e.g., the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. A blind sample is necessary to ensure that the cylinders analyzed are 

more representative of routine production at each production site rather than representative of the 

best possible performance that would likely occur if the production site knew that its cylinder 

was being audited.

Small and large specialty gas companies commented that requiring conformance to ISO 

17025 would be significantly more expensive than complying with the PGVP (see Document ID

#s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0057, -0065, -0066, -0067, -0068, -0069, -0070, and -0073 in the 

docket). One large specialty gas company stated that the PGVP would be more cost effective 

and would provide an actual representation of the quality of EPA Protocol gas cylinders.

2) Comment: “The PGVP imposes unjustified regulatory costs on protocol gas production.”
25

Response: The commenter does not provide any supporting data. EPA believes the costs are 

reasonable and justified. See previous response. Eleven commenters, including one representing

seven specialty gas companies representing the vast majority of EPA Protocol gases in the U.S.,

supported the PGVP, and three commenters opposed it. A 2003 EPA audit (see Document ID #s 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0011, -0074, -0075, and -0076 in the docket) of EPA Protocol gases 

found an unacceptably high failure rate (11% of all components analyzed, with 57% of the 

production sites failing at least one gaseous component) with respect to the + 2% standard in 40 

CFR Part 75. A 2009 EPA Inspector General audit (see Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0837-0064 in the docket) also found an 11% failure rate over all components analyzed, with 39% 

of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component. The IG recommended that EPA 

implement an ongoing PGVP. A 2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found a 10% failure rate

over all components analyzed, with 40% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous

component. The Agency believes that these results indicate a need for improvement.

3) Comment: “Placement of cylinder orders through business entities can help ensure a blind 

audit.”

Response: To obtain cylinders to be audited, EPA agrees with the commenter that perhaps the 

best way to ensure a blind sample is by hiring companies that normally use EPA Protocol gases. 

The Agency also agrees that obtaining a blind sample of cylinders is better assured if the 

cylinders are not purchased directly by EPA headquarters or an EPA contractor that normally 

does not use EPA Protocol gases.

4) Comment: “EPA should retain discretion to adjust the numbers of sites or cylinders or timing 

of testing.” “Should EPA adopt Option 1 in the final rule, the rule should make clear that a 

facility would remain on the qualified producer list if it is registered and has met all other 

requirements for that year, regardless of whether cylinders have been audited from that facility or 

not.”

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that Option 4 is the preferred option and provides 

the Agency maximum flexibility in implementing the PGVP. As suggested, the Agency has

revised the final rule to clarify that a facility would remain on the qualified producer list if it is 

registered and has met all other requirements for that year, regardless of whether cylinders have 

been audited from that facility.

5) Comment: “Gas producer proof of cancellation of order should be permitted to be made 

electronically and within 4 to 6 weeks rather than 2 weeks.”

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter. However, EPA had allowed only two 

weeks to receive an invoice cancellation from the production site for two reasons: (1) to 

minimize the time required to complete the PGVP annual audit because EPA would not ship 

cylinders to NIST prior to receiving an invoice cancellation or credit receipt; and (2) to minimize 

any demurrage charges from a production site that had submitted the required information to 

participate, but then changed its mind after EPA had procured its cylinders for audit. Because of 

the time commonly required to issue or cancel invoices, EPA has allowed up to 45 calendar days

to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or hardcopy) in the final rule. 
26

However, to address the scenario identified in (2) above, §75.21(g)(5)(ii) of the final rule 

specifies that in such a situation the cylinders shall be returned to the production site free of any 

demurrage.

6) Comment: “The list of proposed codes should include an option for “other”.”

Response: The Protocol gas type codes have been revised to include an Other EPA-Approved 

EPA Protocol Gas Blend category. However, sources will need to receive EPA approval to use 

it. EPA has found that if an “Other” category is allowed, sources will sometimes simply use that 

category instead of selecting the correct one. EPA will add new codes to ECMPS as needed; 

the ECMPS system allows these types of additions to be made quickly and easily. EPA will 

make clear in the electronic reporting instructions that the list is not exclusive, and that other 

types of EPA Protocol gases could be made to meet customer needs.

7) Comment: The proposed analytic uncertainty text (in 5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5) should be adopted.

Response: Three commenters favored retaining the section 5.1.4(b) wording currently in Part 75, 

and only one commenter was against it. Although, the Agency was concerned about potential 

enforcement issues due to the inherent uncertainty related to a 95-percent confidence interval, it 

is not aware of any actual issues related to that uncertainty. Calculation of a 95-percent 

confidence interval is required by section 2.2.2 of the “EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards”. Therefore, EPA has retained a 95-percent 

confidence interval in section 5.1.4(b) of Appendix A of the final rule. For consistency, the 95-

percent confidence interval requirement has also been included in the research gas mixtures 

provision in section 5.1.5.

8) Comment: “EPA should adopt a 2% uncertainty for the NIST analysis of the cylinders.”

Response: The Agency disagrees. An expanded uncertainty (coverage factor k = 2) of 1.0% 

(NIST calculated combined standard uncertainty of 0.5%) in the NIST analysis was assumed 

when the PGVP costs were estimated in the proposed rule. A 2010 EPA audit of EPA Protocol 

gases required a 0.5% uncertainty in the NIST analysis for gas concentrations commonly used by 

Part 75 sources. If EPA were to allow the uncertainty of the NIST analysis to be up to +2.0%, 

the audit results would need to allow for approximately a 4.0% difference between the NIST 

result and the vendor result before a cylinder could be said to fail. A +2.0% uncertainty for the 

NIST audit results defeats the purpose of the PGVP. The Part 75 accuracy standard for EPA 

Protocol gases is +2.0% (see Part 75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)). To verify that a gas meets 

this standard, ideally NIST would need to have a 0.0% uncertainty. The further away the NIST 

audit results are from a 0.0% uncertainty, the less certain this standard is achieved. Section 

75.21(g)(9)(ii) in the final rule allows EPA to approve a greater NIST analytical uncertainty if 

required, e.g., for certain low concentration gases.. EPA has added two new definitions in section 

72.2 to help clarify the terms “expanded uncertainty” and “coverage factor”.

Scott-Marrin, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0033)
27

1) Comment: The proposed PGVP program is redundant and, therefore, unnecessary. The 

Region 7 EPA office in St. Louis, Missouri has recently implemented a competing PGVP 

program. Why are there two closely competing PGVP programs within EPA? In addition, the 

proposed PGVP program is exorbitantly expensive because it uses the analytical services of 

NIST. These costs are to be borne by the gas manufacturer and will, therefore, put an undue 

financial burden on smaller EPA Protocol gas producers.

Response: The ambient PGVP program is administered by Mike Papp (OAQPS, EPA), with lab 

work performed by EPA Regions 2 and 7. This program serves the ambient monitoring 

community by checking the accuracy of ambient-level EPA Protocol gases. The PGVP proposed 

on June 11, 2010 (see 75 FR 33392-33420, June 11, 2010) is an audit program for Part 75 

source-level EPA Protocol gases and serves the source monitoring community. See EPA’s 

response to Airgas’s #1 comment regarding cost.

Airgas Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0028, 0030, and 0031)

1) Comment: “The proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program is important to maintain the 

integrity of EPA protocol gas quality. Historically we have seen that when there is no audit 

program the accuracy of the EPA protocol gases tends to drift industry wide. Such a program 

would ensure that vendors are being held to a higher standard of accuracy as subscribed to in the 

“EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards.

“The public information from the audit of EPA protocol gases in the PGVP would allow 

all users of EPA protocol gases more knowledge about different EPA protocol gas 

manufacturing locations. Without this program there could be further accuracy issues which 

would affect the quality of data for part 75 facilities reporting emissions.”

“For gas manufacturers, it would be most helpful if EPA were able to get a price per 

cylinder for analysis by NIST that would remain the same for a minimum of two years. The 

reason for the price is it will allow us to budget for what the maximum cost per manufacturing 

facility will be.”

“As a major Gas manufacturer we have never had any issue getting any EPA protocol gas 

to within +-2% from the tag value. We and others in our industry have produced thousands of 

EPA protocol gases for EPA turbines with NOx routinely down to 2.5ppm and CO down to 

3ppm.

“I and other gas manufacturers of EPA protocol gases believe that EPA should keep the 

+-2% requirement no matter what the pollutant or the ppm range of the gas.”

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter that the PGVP program is important 

to maintain the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases and to help inform gas users of the performance 

of each EPA Protocol gas production site. EPA Protocol gas production sites may make 

whatever arrangements are agreeable between them and NIST regarding costs.
28

EPA performed an audit of EPA Protocol gases in 2010 and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) analyzed the cylinders EPA collected in the audit. NIST 

provided an initial estimate of $2,000 per cylinder to analyze tri-blend gas mixtures in the 2010 

audit. The following costs for the PGVP are based on assumptions similar to those made for the 

2010 audit. These assumptions are: (a) that only NO, SO2 and CO2 will be analyzed; (b) that 

only these compounds are within the gas mixture along with balance gas nitrogen (additional 

compounds within the gas mixture, even if they are not analyzed, complicate the analysis of the 

primary components); and (c) that the concentrations will all fall within a relatively narrow band 

that can be defined in the low, mid and high ranges. EPA notes that these assumptions may not 

hold from year-to-year, but believes that the following cost estimates are generally conservative. 

The 2010 audit consumed 715 hours of time to analyze and report on 57 cylinders. NIST 

believes they have designed a better sampling system and can reduce that time to 550 hours for 

the same 57 cylinders. This amount of resources equals $1,500 per cylinder analysis and report 

production, and is NIST’s estimate for those activities for a similar PGVP audit in 2011.

Assuming the above assumptions hold, NIST has agreed to commit to this cost estimate for three 

years, until 2013 (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0058 in the docket).

The following costs are based on EPA’s 2010 Protocol gas audit. If NIST analyzes 4 

cylinders from each production site, the total annual cost due to the PGVP would be 

approximately $7,200 per production site (for details on the per cylinder cost, see Document ID# 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0007 in the docket). This cost includes cylinder analysis and report 

production by NIST ($1,667/cylinder), average one-way shipping costs back to the production 

site ($91/cylinder), and average rental ($7/cylinder/month). The $1,667/cylinder cost estimate 

covers some deviations, e.g., there may be carbon monoxide in the gas mixtures, from the 

assumptions made for the 2010 audit, and is therefore higher than the $1,500/cylinder NIST 

commitment. The total cost of NIST analysis, report production, six months cylinder rental, and 

shipping back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per cylinder (see Document ID# 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0007 in the docket).

EPA estimates that the average increased cost due to the PGVP will be approximately $2 

per cylinder (see Table 3 in the ICR for the final rule, see Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837). 

This estimate was derived from correspondence with both large and small specialty gas 

companies, which based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and the 

above cost estimates. For a small company that sells fewer cylinders per year, the cost per 

cylinder will be higher than for a larger company. However, even for a small company, the 

increased $2.00 per cylinder cost due to the PGVP is insignificant in comparison to the wide 

range of cost for the same type of EPA Protocol gas cylinder (EPA found the 2010 cost of the 

same tri-blend EPA Protocol cylinder ranged from approximately $225 - $665 in the U.S. (see

Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0009 in the docket)).

To maintain these costs, scheduling of the PGVP audit activity during the year must be 

strictly followed by all the companies involved in the audit. Economy of batching similar gas 

cylinders and receipt of all similar cylinders within a specific time frame will enable NIST to 

control costs. Those cylinders with the appropriate funding documents that arrive within that 

time frame will be part of the audit. Those that do not will be excluded. That is the only way

NIST will be able to control costs. The costs are further minimized by the 4 cylinder limit per 
29

production site, and the cost containment measures implemented by NIST and described in the 

preamble to the proposed rule.

EPA only received one comment supporting an alternative specification for very low 

concentration gases, and only one comment specifically stating that an alternative specification is 

not necessary. Given the comments received, the Agency is uncertain whether an alternative 

specification for very low concentration gases is necessary. EPA did not receive any supporting 

data from the commenter that supported such a specification. Therefore, EPA will retain the 

same +2% standard for low concentration gases in the final rule. 

Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0837-0047)

1) Comment: Enthusiastically supports the proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program; and 

strongly urges the Agency to look at ways to make the program more rigorous.

Linde believes that if the cylinders for audit are procured by local companies, there 

would be less chance of compromising the blindness, e.g., if gases are manufactured in Whitby, 

Ontario, Canada, then gases should be procured by a company based locally in the Toronto area.

The commenter suggests that EPA allow 30-45 days for a PGVP participant to issue 

either a credit or invoice cancellation.

Linde prefers Option 4 in the proposed rule preamble. Option 1 allows for the analysis to 

take longer than anticipated – perhaps EPA should investigate other analysis options to ensure 

timely completion. Option 2 reduces the number of cylinders per site. While the proposed four 

cylinders do not constitute a representative sample, two cylinders would be even less so. Option 

3 eliminates some sites from producers with multiple sites. As was shown in the Inspector 

General’s report, it is possible, indeed likely, that a manufacturer with multiple sites will have 

some that “pass” and some that “fail”.

EPA requested comments on the coding of Protocol gases. There were no codes for 

carbon monoxide, CO, as a stand alone in a balance gas. Linde suggests that code “C” be used 

for CO and C2 be used for CO2.

Regarding calibration gas tag values, “In the world of specialty gas manufacturers this 

uncertainty has been informally codified as being expressed at the 95% confidence interval. This 

confidence interval is recognized by the EPA in the “Green Book”, EPA-600/R-97/121, 

Appendices A, B, and C, where the methodology for determining the tag value and the 

uncertainty associated with the tag value are described.” “We believe that the current status is 

scientifically defensible and as such should remain.”

Response: EPA generally agrees with the Linde comments and has made appropriate changes in 

the final rule, including allowing 45 calendar days to receive an invoice cancellation or credit 

receipt (electronic or hardcopy) in the final rule.
30

EPA must use “CO2” as the code for CO2 because it is used thoughout EPA’s database 

to describe that parameter and EPA wants to maintain consistent code conventions in the 

ECMPS reporting software. The data structure in ECMPS cannot accommodate a single-blend 

carbon monoxide gas. Under Part 75, carbon monoxide (CO) is not regulated and is not required 

to be recorded or reported. Therefore, a code for that single blend CO gas cylinder will not be 

included in the reporting instructions.

EPA has also slightly revised the last sentence in §75.21(g)(9)(iv) to allow more 

flexibility in how EPA reports PGVP audit results on its web sites. The Agency believes that the 

PGVP can be made more rigorous by allowing greater flexibility in the formatting of audit 

results, instead of holding to the same format as in the NIST audit report. This may allow 

potential EPA Protocol gas customers to more easily find and purchase from the EPA Protocol 

gas production sites that performed best in the audit.

EPA has added the following text in section 75.21(g)(9)(iv) to allow more expeditious 

posting of audit results: “To be considered in the final posted audit report, EPA must receive 

comments and any cylinder re-analyses from EPA Protocol gas production sites within 60 days 

of the EPA Protocol gas production site’s receipt of the draft redacted audit report sent by EPA.”

EPA has added electronic recordkeeping and reporting of cylinder expiration dates and 

cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality

assurance test required under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen the PGVP 

by reducing or eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and by improving the tracking of 

cylinder information. Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two 

items to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy only, and section 75.60(b)(6) already 

requires these two items to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA 

Regional Office upon request.

For EPA’s response regarding a 95-percent confidence interval, please see EPA’s 

response to Air Liquide’s #7 Comment.

Jack Herbert Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0034)

1) Comment: “This contains comments from Jack Herbert and Mark Bailey with agreement by 

Rai Peterson. It has not been submitted for Oregon DEQ approval.

Please remove Appendix A, Section 6.1.2(f).

1) This section has no legal consequence and no benefit. Certification of testers and of a 

Qualified Individual on or leading the test team will not change evaluations and use of tests and 

test reports: with or without it, regulators should evaluate tests and test reports, and, if they find 

the work and records valid, accept the “validity of test data that otherwise meet the requirements 

of this part”. 

This rule accomplishes requiring certified people to do the test. Once such people have 

performed the test, it has no more legal effect.

2) This section will give the false impression to those who do not know that Part 75 requires 

correct test performance that review is superseded by tester accreditation and QI participation, 

that their testing must be accepted as valid. 
31

a) It is unfair and a disservice to all to give this impression to facilities and testers. It will 

lead to substandard testing, which may get approved anyway and costs everyone involved extra 

effort, time, and expense.

b) Many regulatory agencies will have this impression and will not reject invalid testing 

performed by accredited testers with QIs on their teams because they will believe that this 

section says they have to accept the test results.

Do not give this false impression. It will lead to worse testing and more acceptance of invalid 

testing.

3) Accreditation does not mean a test is valid. Some regulatory agencies will believe this 

section means this. This section then leads to lack of review and of enforcement of valid testing; 

the incentive for testers will be to get accreditation, then cut corners.

We all know unplanned things happen while source testing that may require method 

modification. However, source testers seem to forget or not realize they are actually modifying 

the test method.”

Response: EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or operator of a source 

responsible for certain actions (or inactions) related to an external AETB’s compliance with 

ASTM D7036-04 and attempted to address this in section 6.1.2(f) of the proposed rule by 

limiting the responsibility of the owner or operator of a Part 75 source. 

As the commenter states, several sections of Part 75 require affected units to meet 

certification and ongoing QA/QC requirements: §75.4(f) requires sources using Appendix E to 

meet those requirements. Section 75.4(j) requires successful completion of certification tests or 

use of maximum potential concentration, maximum potential flow, maximum potential NOx 

emission rate, or use appropriate reference methods or another procedure approved by the 

Administrator. Section 75.5(b) states that no affected unit shall be operated without complying 

with the requirements of §§ 75.2–75.75 and Appendices A-G to Part 75. Section 75.10(b) 

requires that sources meet the performance specifications in Appendix A to Part 75. (The 

Appendix A relative accuracy performance specifications are also required for the ongoing 

relative accuracy tests in Appendix B to Part 75.) 

EPA believes that the language in Appendix A, section 6.1.2(f) is clear that all Part 75 

testing requirements must be met. However, the Agency understands the concern of the 

commenter, and has amended 6.1.2(f) in the final rule to read as follows: “Except as provided in 

paragraph (e), no RATA performed pursuant to §75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 of appendix A to this 

part or section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, and no stack test under § 75.19 or Appendix E to 

this part (or portion of such a RATA or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as defined in § 72.2) 

shall be invalidated under this part as a result of the failure of the AETB to conform to ASTM D 

7036-04. Validation of such tests is determined based on the other part 75 testing requirements. 

EPA recommends that proper observation of tests and review of test results continue, regardless 

of whether an AETB fully conforms to ASTM D7036-04.”

Source Evaluation Society Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0027)

1) Comment: “The Source Evaluation Society was organized in 1974 and now includes over 

1,000 individual members actively involved in the field of emission measurement including air 
32

emissions test professionals, analytical laboratory professionals, regulatory agency employees, 

source owner and operator staff members, and equipment and supplies vendors. The mission of 

the Source Evaluation Society (SES) is to advance the applied sciences relating to source 

evaluation with respect to air pollution and air pollution control by: 

(1) Promoting the development of concepts and techniques relating to the field; 

(2) Encouraging related professional development and knowledge; and 

(3) Striving to ensure the highest professional standards by its members.”

“The Source Evaluation Society consisting of 1100 plus members of the stack testing 

community whole heartedly endorses the new Protocol Gas Verification Program listed in the 

Federal Register on June 11, 2010. The program will be an independent quality check of the 

EPA protocol gases which are a vital part of testing for calibration and verification. The PGVP 

program will be a good guide for companies that are required to use EPA protocol gases to check 

vendors and their quality. The program will put the costs back on the EPA protocol gas vendors, 

which is appropriate as EPA does not have sufficient funding to provide for an independent 

company. The published purpose of the proposed EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program 

(PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. SES agrees that a Protocol Gas 

Verification Program would be beneficial in providing more accurate results for stack test data 

and SES encourages such a program from EPA.”

“Many of our members have commented that discrepancies in Protocol Gas analyses 

have been noted. Improving the consistency between suppliers and within the products of the 

same suppliers will serve to minimize these discrepancies, resulting in more accurate 

determination of emissions while saving time and expenses expended when trying to resolve the 

source of discrepancies.

“Including the requirement to have both the gases used by the source for calibrating 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) as well as those used by the Air Emission 

Test Body (AETB) conducting accuracy audits of these systems be prepared by PGVP 

participating providers will further serve to minimize these discrepancies. We further suggest to 

EPA that this requirement become part of the Reference Methods (e.g. 3A, 6C, 7E, etc.) used by 

AETBs when performing any emission test for regulatory purposes.”

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. However, the Agency cannot amend 40 CFR Part 

60 EPA reference methods in this rulemaking because those changes were not part of the 

proposed rule and were not subject to public comment. Amending the relevant EPA reference 

methods to require use of EPA Protocol gases produced by PGVP participants may be 

considered in future rulemakings. 

2) Comment: “The proposed amendments state that affected units would report the vendor ID as 

a required data element in each electronic quarterly report, thus confirming that the affected 

unit’s calibration gases are being supplied by a participating EPA Protocol gas production site. 

We suggest that provisions should be made for the inclusion of multiple vendor IDs for different 

gases as this case is likely to occur in practice.”

Response: EPA agrees, and the final rule and ECMPS reporting software allow this.
33

3) Comment: “We support that the names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in 

the PGVP being made publicly available. This is proposed to be accomplished by posting on 

official EPA Web sites. We feel that although EPA believes that annual posting will be frequent 

enough to allow EPA Protocol gas users to verify that their calibration gases are being provided 

by PGVP participants, other means of official verification or more frequent updates may be in 

order, especially during the initial period of implementation, to accommodate the dynamics of a 

developing program and to be consistent with the commencement of participation beginning with 

notification to EPA that can occur at any time in a year.”

Response: EPA agrees, and will post the names of PGVP participants quickly after receiving the 

required information.

4) Comment: “SES supports the inclusion of the requirement for Air Emissions Test Bodies 

(AETBs) to meet the provisions of ASTM D7036 in the proposed changes. SES and many of its’ 

members have been active in developing and promoting the development of programs designed 

to improve the quality of air emissions data. These include the creation and operation of our 

Qualified Source Test Individual (QSTI) and Qualified Source Test Observer (QSTO) programs, 

cooperation with the Stack Test Accreditation Council (STAC), and involvement with The 

NELAC Institute through the Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP) Committee. Many of 

our members participated as members in the development of ASTM D7036, Standard Practice 

for the Competence of Air Emissions Test Bodies and we feel that it encompasses elements that 

all professional testing organizations should include in their operations, without adding 

unnecessary burden.

“We agree with EPA that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a 

Qualified Individual on site does not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but 

feel strongly that these things will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high 

quality data generation. SES also agrees that third party (e.g., state agency) oversight helps 

ensure that testing is properly conducted.”

Response: The Agency agrees.

United Sciences Testing, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0029)

1) Comment: “United Sciences Testing, Inc. (USTI) appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

the EPA proposed rule entitled, “Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and 

Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” published in the Federal 

Register on June 11, 2010. USTI conducts air emissions testing for its parent company, 

American Electric Power (AEP), as well as third party large industrial and electric utility clients. 

The majority of USTI’s air emissions testing projects consist of compliance testing for owners or 

operators of Part 75 affected units subject to EPA’s proposed rulemaking. Thus, USTI will be 

directly affected by EPA’s proposed rulemaking.

“USTI generally supports this proposed rulemaking, and we also support the EPA’s goal 

to improve the accuracy of both air emissions compliance data and the Protocol gases used by
34

Part 75 affected sources and air emissions testing companies. We do have questions about 

specific provisions and we also have comments on several of the questions EPA raises in the 

detailed discussion section of the proposed rule revisions. USTI offers the following specific 

comments to the proposed rulemaking and we also endorse those comments being provided by

the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG). 

“Proposed Recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59, 75.63 and 75.64: 

Under the above-referenced sections, EPA is proposing that AETB’s performing RATA testing 

for Part 75 regulated facilities provide certain information to the owner or operator of the 

affected unit so the owner can record in electronic format the following information: 

(i) The name, telephone number, and email address of the Air Emissions Testing Body; 

(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter; 

(iii) (Emphasis added) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that the onsite Qualified individual took and passed the relevant qualification exam(s) required 

by ASTM D7036-04; and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam provider. 

“While USTI does not object to providing such information to our testing clients, we note 

that more than one qualified individual’s name may need to be provided to accurately reflect 

how the test was performed. In addition, multiple dates may need to be listed to reflect when the 

Qualified Individuals overseeing a compliance test passed their relevant qualification 

examinations. 

Example 1: USTI has several clients that ask for around-the-clock flow RATA testing. When this 

occurs, USTI provides two test crews that work 12-hour shifts. Thus, two separate Qualified 

Individuals (QI’s) may be over-seeing portions of the same flow RATA test. Our understanding 

is that both would need to be identified so evidence that a QI was on-site for the entire test can be 

documented. Both individuals may also have passed their respective qualifying exams on 

different dates. Similar field situations where more than one QI and more than one examination 

date may need to be entered for a single compliance test can occur when unit issues cause one or 

more loads of a flow RATA test to be completed several days or a week or so after the start of 

the compliance test. 

Example 2: USTI may have a single QI that conducts both a flow RATA and a gas RATA for a 

specific test location during the same week; however, the date that the QI passed the 

qualification examination for the test methods covering the flow RATA test may be different 

than the date in which the QI passed the examination for the test methods covering the gas 

RATA test.

“Given these real life examples above, the EPA reporting format that is established for 

this data submittal must be robust enough to allow for multiple QI’s and/or multiple qualification 

dates to be entered for each compliance test. 

“One approach the EPA may want to take is to have third party exam issuers assign 

unique ID numbers to each QI once they pass an applicable exam. The QI can then use a numeric 
35

code to identify both the date that the individual passed the applicable examination; or 

alternatively, the expiration date five-years into the future. The numeric code can also include the 

category of test methods covered by the exam similar to how the Source Evaluation Society

categorizes exams into four general categories.”

Response: EPA will allow multiple QIs and multiple exam dates to be entered into ECMPS.

2) Comment: “On page 33398, under section B, “Amendments to the Minimum Competency

Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” the EPA asks for comments on whether AETB’s that 

fail to “provide accurate or complete information” should be subject to have their names posted 

on an EPA web site along with a description of the failures to be remedied. 

“USTI agrees with the EPA that this would be a deterrent for non-compliance with 

ASTM D7036-04; however, we ask that the EPA specifically clarify that the determination of 

accuracy and completeness of information be solely based on the provisions of ASTM D7036-

04. The other benefit of the EPA web posting is that it would allow owners and operators of Part 

75 affected sources to make more informed decisions when contracting air emissions testing 

work with AETBs.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Scott Evans’ #3 Comment.

3) Comment: “On page 33398, under section B, “Amendments to the Minimum Competency

Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” the EPA asks for comments on whether AETB’s 

should be required to be accredited by a national accreditation body. USTI is NOT in favor of a 

mandatory third-party national accreditation program. We believe that most air emissions testing 

bodies do not currently have such qualifications and that it would be unlikely that the hundreds 

of air emissions testing companies that offer Part 75 compliance testing could secure 

accreditation within a six month window, particularly if many of them are not yet prepared to 

meet the full requirements of ASTM D7036-04. We believe that this action is too inflexible and 

will likely result in numerous qualified AETB’s being placed at a competitive disadvantage 

simply because they are unable to find an independent accrediting body to conduct a timely audit 

prior to January 1, 2011. There are likely to be a few hundred AETB’s seeking certification and 

USTI does not believe that it is possible to have all of these organizations undergo accreditation 

between now and the proposed effective date of this rule. The need to have a national 

accreditation program is both impractical and unnecessary. The EPA should allow both choices: 

(1) third-party accreditation (or interim accreditation), and (2) self-certification via a letter of 

certification signed by a member of the senior management team of the AETB. While there may

be many others, we cite the following seven reasons: 

“1) time constraints are impractical to expect all AETBs to be able to secure national 

accreditation in six months, particularly since our “laboratory” is in the field, 

2) the AETB that self-certifies via a letter from senior management will be subject to 

enforcement action for fraudulent activities, 

3) the owner or operator of a Part 75 affected source has an obligation to conduct some basic 

due diligence to verify that the AETB hired to conduct air emissions testing meets the 

basic requirements of the ASTM 7036-04 program, 
36

4) the EPA has outlined their enforcement authority under CAA Section 113, to compel 

AETB’s to provide proof of compliance with ASTM D7036-04, 

5) AETB’s are required to conduct audits at least annually to meet ASTM D7036-04 

requirements, 

6) the new EPA reporting requirements outlined under Sections 75.63 and 75.64 will allow 

the agency to easily verify that a legitimate QI with up-to-date credentials either 

conducted or oversaw the applicable compliance tests, and 

7) the AETB’s will be expected to have proof of compliance with ASTM D7036-04 readily 

available in the field for inspection and review by the third-party (state and/or EPA) 

inspectors that routinely visit affected sources during compliance testing in the field. 

“Collectively, we submit these reasons clearly demonstrate that an additional level of 

regulation mandating accreditation by a nationally recognized accreditation body is not needed, 

but should remain only as an option available to the AETB.”

Response: EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04.

4) Comment: “On page 33401 of the federal register notice under the section entitled, “8. 

Calibration Gas Tag Values”, the EPA asks for comments on the appropriateness of the 2.0 

percent specification for very low gas concentrations. Specifically, the EPA asks if an, 

“alternative specification (e.g. in terms of absolute difference) be more appropriate for very low 

concentration gases?” 

“USTI recommends that the EPA establish a reasonable alternative specification in terms of 

absolute difference for very low concentration gases. With the implementation of CAIR, and the 

NOx SIP rules as well as pending regulations likely to further require scrubber and SCR/SNCR 

installations, more Part 75 sources and AETB’s conducting RATAs on those sources will need 

lower concentrations Protocol Gases for SO2 and NOx. Meeting a 2.0 percent absolute 

specification for very low gas concentrations will likely be challenging and if the majority of 

Protocol gas suppliers fail to meet this due to statistical challenge rather than a real quality issue, 

end users of the protocol gas will not be provided with meaningful audit information when 

making protocol gas procurement decisions. 

Response: EPA only received one comment supporting an alternative specification for very low 

concentration gases, and only one comment specifically stating that an alternative specification is 

not necessary. Given the comments received, the Agency is uncertain whether an alternative 

specification for very low concentration gases is necessary. EPA did not receive any supporting 

data from the commenter that supported such a specification. Therefore, EPA has retained the 

same +2% standard for low concentration gases in the final rule.

Liberty Electric Power LLC Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0026)

1) Comment: “The requirement for all generators to revise their reporting software to add 

traceable serial numbers for the protocol gas used in testing adds burden without adding value. 

This burden will be greater on small independent power producers, who do not have the 

economy of scale to spread the cost across multiple facilities.
37

“Compliance could be certified by the designated official at the time of data submission, 

with certificates of calibration kept by the entity for the currently required duration. Certificates 

for protocol gas would be subject to audit, as with other records which are required but not 

submitted. For example, Part 75 requires diagnostic testing after certain monitor repairs, but the 

records of post-repair calibrations or provisional linearity tests are not submitted.”

Response: EPA has added electronic recordkeeping and reporting of cylinder expiration dates 

and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or 

quality assurance test required under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen the 

PGVP by reducing or eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and by improving the tracking of 

cylinder information. Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two 

items to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy only, and section 75.60(b)(6) already 

requires these two items to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA 

Regional Office upon request.

EPA has performed many EPA Protocol gas audits over the years and has found 

unacceptably high failure rates (see EPA’s response to Air Liquide’s #2 Comment) related to the 

Part 75 +2% uncertainty requirement for EPA Protocol gases. As you know, these gases are 

used to ensure that emission standards and Clean Air Act emission reduction goals are met 

nationwide and it is important that the gases are accurate. Because the procedures and systems 

allowing for these data to be reported are already in place and the additional reporting 

requirements are few, the additional reporting costs are relatively small (see Table 2 in the ICR 

for the final rule, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837) .

Praxair Distribution Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0032)

1) Comment: We agree with the overall process of the Protocol Gas Verification Program, but 

good faith participation is dependant on how the concern in the next paragraph is addressed to 

ensure that proper purchasing of the verification cylinders from the gas manufacturers is

performed. 

“EPA is requesting comment on how they can ensure the cylinders obtained from a given 

productions site by a third party will not alert the site that their cylinder is being audited. We are 

suggesting the Agency hire current customers of each of the protocol gas manufactures to 

procure the US EPA Protocol Gas cylinders from participating sites situated in similar 

geographical regions of the United States, Mexico, or Canada. As third party companies will 

require credit checks, D & B numbers and contract reviews of the product(s) they will be 

purchasing, this will alert most if not all of the gas manufactures listed in the PGVP program of 

the PGVP audit. Using current customer of each of the Gas manufactures will be very seamless 

to the PGVP.”

Response: EPA agrees with Praxair, and notes that how the Agency intends to obtain cylinders 

for audit may not have been clear in the preamble of the proposed rule. The Agency intends to 

use nearby existing customers to the extent practical, and intends to always use companies that 

frequently purchase EPA Protocol gases.
38

2) Comment: “EPA is requesting comment on 4 options to ensure an ample number of samples 

are analyzed by NIST. (Page 33395)

a. Option 1 allows all facilities on EPA’s list of participating sites and that provide 

EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources to be considered EPA Protocol gas 

production sites. In the case where EPA chooses not to perform an audit the 

production site on EPA’s list may still market their products as EPA Protocol 

gases.

b. Option 2 allows EPA to reduce the number of cylinders audited per production 

site, so NIST could analyze and report on all audited cylinders.

c. Option 3 allows EPA to select fewer production sites from specialty gas producers 

to audit. 

d. Option 4 is EPA’s preferred option, allowing EPA to use any combination in a 

given year.

“We feel all options are viable but strongly disagree with Option 1 based on past experiences 

of the former verification program. Currently the PGVP process is looking at a minimum of 120 

samples per year if Option 1 is the primary method administered to obtain representative 

population of samples from each protocol gas manufacture. A combination of Options 2, 3 and 4 

are more realistic for obtaining samples but unfavorable from a statistical point of view for the 

protocol gas manufactures. If two samples are accepted from each protocol gas manufacture, the 

probability of obtaining a true representative sample of the protocol gas manufactures process is 

decreased by the number of samples removed from the total population. This is a give and take, 

knowing option 1 will not work for the volume of product but agree with option 2, 3 and 4 as a 

combined process.”

Response: Two commenters supported Option 4 and two commenters supported Option 4 but 

without Option 1. While the Agency understands the shortcomings of Option 1, EPA believes 

that this option is necessary to preserve the ability of EPA Protocol gas producers to sell gases in 

possible (but unlikely) situations where cylinder procurement, shipping, or analyses take longer 

than expected to complete. EPA will retain the maximum flexibility of Option 4 when 

implementing the final rule.

3) Comment: “EPA specifically requests comments on the following proposed codes for the 

type of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be specified in the rule, but rather in the 

electronic reporting structure. (Page 33396) The codes presented are logical as listed. Except: 

We do not agree with the multiple combination codes like SN1 and SN2 because the requested 

mixture could potentially include Sulfur Dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen in the same cylinder, 

which could be manufactured as Nitrogen Dioxide. The combination of Nitrogen Dioxide and 

Sulfur Dioxide mixtures cannot be manufactured because the Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur 

Dioxide will react with each other causing stability issues with the mixture. Our question, does 

the SN1 mixture mean Sulfur Dioxide, Nitric Oxide with the Oxides of Nitrogen reported?
39

Response: Based on an August 2, 2010 telephone call from EPA to a specialty gas company (see 

Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0056 in the docket), the Agency believes that an SO2

and NO2 combination may be possible. However, if an SO2 and NO2 combination cannot be 

properly manufactured, it probably will not be, and any such cylinders that are improperly 

manufactured will likely fail if audited in the PGVP. To clarify the meaning of the “SN1” code 

that was in the proposed rule preamble, the ECMPS PGVP reporting instructions at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf now include cylinder gas 

type codes: “SN” for SO2 and NO, “SN2” for SO2 and NO2, and “SNX” for SO2, NO, and NO2

instead of “SN1”.. 

4) Comment: “We are also suggesting the electronic reporting codes include a designation for 

Carbon Monoxide (CO). We do manufacture EPA Protocol gas standards consisting of a single 

certified component of Carbon Monoxide and a balance gas, (CO = C).”

Response: Because of the data structure in EPA’s ECMPS reporting software, single-blend 

carbon monoxide cannot be accommodated. Under Part 75, carbon monoxide is not regulated 

and is not required to be recorded or reported. Therefore, a code for that gas will not be included 

in the reporting instructions.

5) Comment: “Calibration Tag Values: EPA proposes to amend Part 75, Appendix A, Section 

5.1.4 (b) and 5.1.5 to clarify the meaning of plus or minus 2.0 percent performance specification 

for EPA protocol gases and research mixtures. Section 5.1.4(b) currently requires calculation of 

a 95 percent confidence interval which may provide justification for a specialty gas company to 

claim that it is permissible for an EPA Protocol gas cylinder tag value to be more than 2.0 

percent different than the actual cylinder gas concentration. The Agency generally does not 

assign an uncertainty to a performance specification, e.g., cylinder concentration must be within 

2.0% of cylinder tag value, because performance specifications are used to determine 

compliance.

“Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state that ``EPA Protocol gas concentrations must be 

certified by a specialty gas company to have an analytical uncertainty to be not more than plus or 

minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).'' The Agency requests comments on these proposed changes to 

Sections 5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5, particularly regarding the appropriateness of the 2.0 percent 

specification for very low gas concentrations. Would an alternative specification (e.g., in terms 

of absolute difference) be more appropriate for very low concentration gases?

“We agree, this requires work and resolution but the EPA_600_R1997_121 Protocol requires 

us to include uncertainty of the reference gas, the variance of the analytical readings, the 

calibration curve uncertainty and G2 method uncertainty (if the G2 process is used). In some 

extremes, this calculates to more than 2%. The higher uncertainty occurs when there is a G2 

analysis and at the extremes of any Hydrogen Sulfide analysis. We propose that Part 75 be 

changed to agree with the EPA_600_R1997_121 Protocol because the current process as 

outlined is scientifically defensible, statically sound and as such should remain.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Air Liquide’s #7 Comment.
40

6) Comment: “EPA is also requesting comment on Figure 3 to Appendix B of Part 75- Single 

Component Plus Balance Gas Cylinders EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program Results EPA 

Cylinder Gas Assays Performed by NIST. Page (75FR 33420) 

“Based on the description of the verbiage given below Figure 3, we are proposing the 

pass/fail basis of the PGVP be viewed on if the original tag error band overlaps with the audit 

analysis error band. For example, if the original tag had an error band of 2%, and the audit 

analysis had an error band of 1%, then more than a 3% difference would fail the PGVP. If the 

error band concept is not used, the assumption is there is no propagation of the two errors and the 

NIST audit analysis is error free (has an uncertainty of zero). The uncertainty of the PGVP 

begins at the NIST metrological institute level where even their internal standards have 

uncertainties associated with the tag value. The protocol gas manufactures uncertainty and the 

NIST uncertainties must be propagated in order to achieve a combined error band, which we 

cannot assume one or the other analytical process is error free.”

Response: EPA has amended the statement at the bottom of Figure 3 in part to read: “A 

gaseous component is said to fail when the absolute value of the difference between the audit and 

vendor concentration values is greater than 2.2%. The 2.2% value is determined by using the 

“paired t test” at 95% confidence, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 2.0% (fixed by Part 75, 

Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)) and plus or minus 1.0% (maximum acceptable) for the gas vendor 

and audit, respectively. If the plus or minus 1.0% audit expanded uncertainty value changes, the 

2.2% value may change.”

7) Comment: “If EPA fails to receive from the participating EPA Protocol gas production site a 

written invoice cancellation or a hardcopy credit receipt for the cylinders within two weeks of 

notifying the production site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the cylinders would be 

returned to the production site and that production site would not be eligible for re-listing until 

December 31 of the current year and until it submits to EPA the information required by Sec. 

75.21(g)(1), in accordance with the procedures in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(2) and 75.21(g)(3); (Page 

33395) 
41

“We are not in agreement with the above statement as a means of being eliminated from the 

PGVP because every governmental agency or public and private organization will require 

roughly 30 – 45 days to generate a credit invoice or to “no bill” a product invoice. Two weeks is 

insufficient time for any organization, which handles hundreds of transactions and multiple 

accounts to respond to this request. We are also suggesting, if the above is not accepted, the 

EPA include the cost of purchasing process of the cylinders to be included in the bill that is 

presented to the protocol gas manufactures, instead of us issuing a credit to them. So, if the audit 

analysis costs $1,800 per cylinder, and we charged $200 for the PGVP cylinder, the EPA would 

bill us $2,000.

“We at Praxair Distribution Inc., would like to thank the EPA and NIST for their continued 

efforts to make the PGVP a success.”

Response: The Agency generally agrees with Praxair. However, EPA had allowed only two 

weeks to receive an invoice cancellation from the production site for two reasons: (1) to 

minimize the time required to complete the PGVP annual audit because EPA would not ship 

cylinders to NIST prior to receiving an invoice cancellation or credit receipt; and (2) to minimize 

any demurrage charges from a production site that had submitted the required information to

participate, but then changed its mind after EPA had procured its cylinders for audit. Because of 

the time commonly required to issue or cancel invoices, EPA has allowed up to 45 calendar days

to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or hardcopy) in the final rule. 

However, the Agency has clarified §75.21(g)(5) and §75.21(g)(8) of the final rule that the 

production site shall not charge demurrage. The final rule is clear that EPA will not be billing a 

specialty gas company or an EPA Protocol gas production site. An EPA Protocol gas production 

site is responsible for arranging and paying for: analysis of their cylinders by NIST, their share 

of a draft and final audit report on all cylinders in the audit, the full cost of a draft redacted audit 

report on just that production site’s cylinders, return shipment of their cylinders, and not 

charging for demurrage.

Stork Testing & Metallurgical Consulting, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0837-0035)

1) Comment: We are not in favor of requiring AETBs to be accredited to ASTM D 7036-04.

Response: The proposed rule does not require accreditation. The proposed rule allows the 

option for an AETB to provide a letter of certification for the relevant test methods signed by a 

member of the senior management staff of the AETB.

2) Comment: “We do NOT favor certifying individuals (Qualified Individuals or QI) but rather 

ensuring the testing company that they represent has a QA/QC program in place that ensures 

accurate data.”

Response: EPA received only two comments not in favor of certifying individuals, and many

comments in support of the AETB provisions, including the Source Evaluation Society that

includes over 1,000 individual members actively involved in the field of emission measurement 

including air emissions test professionals, analytical laboratory professionals, regulatory agency
42

employees, source owner and operator staff members, and equipment and supplies vendors. 

Because individuals, not companies, actually do the testing, the Agency believes that certifying 

qualified individuals and requiring them to be at the test site overseeing and supervising tests are

important for the proper conduct of EPA test methods.

3) Comment: “We feel that the test program developed for QIs is excessive. The methods are 

grouped, and may not represent the type of work an individual or firm will conduct. For 

example, if a company elects not to perform 3-D probe work in Method 2F, there is no way to 

exclude these questions from the current QI test which puts this individual at a disadvantage if 

there are questions on the exam concerning a method the firm will not conduct.”

Response: The QI exams provided by the Source Evaluation Society (SES) are created with the 

knowledge and wisdom of many experienced stack testers. Periodically, these exams are 

modified using feedback from people who have taken the exams. 

The interdependency of emissions testing methods is inherent in any emissions testing 

program. EPA and the SES membership, which includes large and small stack test companies,

believe that an individual who can pass a multiple method group exam is one who understands 

emissions testing principles broadly enough to lead a test team and can be expected to address 

the myriad of complicating issues that arise during a source test. 

It is EPA’s understanding that the SES membership can and has evaluated and adjusted 

the qualifications approach from time to time. Stork may determine that working through SES is 

a viable route for addressing particular issues. The Agency supports the QI qualification exam

program in its current form, recognizing that there are opportunities for improvement.

4) Comment: “The requirement for a QI to be on site for every test is excessive.”

Response: EPA believes that every test is important, especially in a cap and trade program

where emissions are traded as a commodity. EPA believes that having a qualified individual 

overseeing and supervising a test provides more assurance that the test will be properly 

performed.

5) Comment: “The requirement for a re-exam every 5 years is excessive, experience should be 

allowed in lieu of all exams.”

Response: The ASTM D 7036-04 workgroup consisting, in part, of individuals from large and 

small stack test companies, thought otherwise. This workgroup thought that experience and 

passing a qualification exam every five years were important to the stack testing and regulated 

community. EPA agrees with this view, and believes the evidence is strong that unqualified, 

under-trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on testing projects. EPA 

addressed many of these concerns in the response to comments for the 2006 proposed rule (see

Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0110 in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132). These 

concerns were also discussed in the preamble of the January 24, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR 4325, 

January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector General report, and in several correspondences from 

State air agencies (see Document ID #s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0015, -0016, -0062, and -
43

0063, and Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0035 in the dockets). The Agency believes 

that requiring a re-exam every five years is a good balance between keeping current with 

changing test methods and not being too burdensome.

6) Comment: “The agencies are all afforded the opportunity to witness any compliance testing. 

The use of “accredited” AETBs may provide agencies with a false sense of security. We feel 

strongly that agencies need to and should witness testing and that this will provide the oversight 

required.”

Response: The Agency has revised section 6.1.2(f) in part to address this issue. EPA agrees that 

agency oversight is very important and that the AETB provisions are no substitute for that 

oversight and do not guarantee that test methods will be properly performed. However, the 

Agency believes that an AETB meeting the requirements of ASTM D 7036-04 will be more 

likely to properly perform test methods.

7) Comment: “Stork performs many test programs, on not only Part 75 regulated sources but 

also Part 60, Part 63 and numerous state regulated emission points. Part 75 sources should not 

have a special criteria for AETBs.”

Response: Unlike Part 60, 63 and state regulated emission points, Part 75 is the monitoring 

portion of several cap and trade programs, including the Acid Rain Program, Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, NOx Budget Program, and the recently proposed Transport Rule. Accurate monitoring of 

mass emissions is critically important for maintaining confidence in the allowance trading 

market, and for ensuring that the nationwide emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act are 

met.

8) Comment: “If this requirement is implemented, the 6 month time line is not sufficient, 

especially when the nature of our business is field oriented.”

Response: See EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment.

9) Comment: “There are existing programs already in place to accredit testing companies and 

laboratories. Adding another program would be redundant.”

Response: The commenter may be referring to the Texas or Louisiana programs. A driving 

force for the development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the patchwork of standards that 

was starting to occur throughout the U.S. If each State were to develop its own standard for 

stack testing, the cost of testing in multiple jurisdictions for stack testing companies would 

increase significantly. These increased costs would likely be passed on to sources subject to Part 

75. .EPA notes that the Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel its stack testing accreditation 

program (see Document ID #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0072 in the docket) and in its place, 

substitute accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04, and agrees to recognize third party accreditors such 

as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council.

10) Comment: “Stork maintains current state required accreditation in Texas (Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality – laboratory methods only) and Louisiana (Louisiana 
44

Department of Environmental Quality – covers both field and laboratory), which should be 

allowed to satisfy the AETB requirement in this rule as an alternative to the referenced ASTMD7036-04.”

Response: See previous response.

11) Comment: “Stack testing companies that have a QA/QC program that meets the standards of 

ISO 17025 and NELAC Chapter 5 should also be approved as an alternative to the ASTM 

standard.”

Response: EPA disagrees. While much of the ASTM standard was based in part on ISO 17025, 

there are important differences to specifically address the needs of stack testing companies. ISO 

17025 is designed specifically for laboratories, not companies that perform stack testing.

12) Comment: “Allow “grandfathered” companies and / or individuals.”

Response: Grandfathering companies and /or individuals would create an uneven playing field, 

and defeat the purpose of the Part 75 AETB provisions which is to require all AETBs to meet 

ASTM D 7036-04.

13) Comment: “Allow the use of other technical, professional licensing (such as Professional 

Engineering licenses which requires extensive experience and continuing education plus ethics 

training).”

Response: Unfortunately, allowing these alternatives does not guarantee that relevant EPA test 

method knowledge and experience will prevail among AETBs and individuals that exercise these 

alternatives.

14) Comment: “Internally developed programs in lieu of the outside administered exams. Self 

administered programs by ethically operated companies will provide the necessary QA/QC 

required for this rule.”

Response: Only one other comment was received on this subject. Internally administered exams 

are allowed only if an external exam for that test method is not available. The current format of 

external exams covers a group of related test methods. If a QI desires to be certified for a 

particular test method and that test method is part of an external exam for a group of methods, 

that QI must take that external exam. An individual that has been qualified with an internal 

exam must re-qualify with an external exam within three years of the availability of an external 

exam or when a re-test is required, whichever is sooner. The ASTM D 7036-04 workgroup (in 

part, made up of small and large stack test companies) confirmed that, in general, external exams 

are a better indication of qualification than an internal exam. The Agency agrees with this view 

because an externally administered exam may be more impartial, provide exam questions that 

have been better vetted, and may be less subject to abuse than an internally developed and 

administered exam.

Specialty Gases of America, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0036)
45

1) Comment: “Specialty Gases of America, Inc. (SGA) has concerns with the additional costs to 

small business due to the proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP). The new costs 

associated with the PGVP will include payment to NIST, shipping costs to the company that the 

EPA has hired, shipping costs to NIST, loss of cylinder rent for six months or more, and 

administrative costs. SGA estimates that this will result in a cost of $2500-$3000 per audited 

cylinder. The value of the protocol gas that is returned with NIST analysis will depend on 

remaining volume of gas and market demand. The cost associated with the protocol gas could be 

lessened if the gas is able to be used as a NIST traceable reference material or a gas manufacturer 

intermediate standard.

Section C. Regulatory Flexibility Act on page 33403 of the proposed rule gives detail on 

assessing the impacts on small entities. There is no information showing the assessment of 

impact on small Specialty Gas Companies who will be required to participate in the PGVP.”

Response: The commenter has not provided any data to support the assertion of $2,500-$3,000 

per audited cylinder due to the PGVP. Page 8 of the “Information Collection Request for the 

Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75 Supporting Statement” (see Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0837) states that the costs associated with the PGVP will be passed through to the customers 

which are generally sources subject to Part 75, including large electric utility and industrial 

companies. Also, see EPA’s response to UARG’s #5 Comment.

It may be possible for a specialty gas company’s agreement with NIST to include a 

provision that the analysis performed by NIST on that company’s cylinders will be sufficient to 

re-label the cylinders as, e.g., a GMIS.

2) Comment: “On page 33395, EPA asks for comments concerning possible situations where 

analyses take longer than one year to complete. 

Option 1 could result in a specialty gas company, who is removed after December 31, being 

unable to be relisted for a length of time that is more than intended to prevent gaming of the 

program. 

Option 3 would benefit large specialty gas companies and would assume that all production sites 

for a specialty gas company would have equivalent capabilities.”

Response: EPA agrees that if the audit report takes longer than one year to complete, e.g., under 

Option 1, so that EPA receives it in the first half of a calendar year and a production site was not 

in the audit report, that production site might not be re-listed for up to two years. This period of 

time before relisting is longer than was intended. In addition, EPA understands that it would be 

unfair to not re-list a production site due to circumstances beyond the production site’s control. 

Therefore, the Agency has revised section 75.21(g)(5) in the final rule to address these concerns.

While the Agency understands the shortcomings of Option 3, EPA believes that this 

option and Options 1 and 2 are necessary to preserve the ability of producers to sell EPA 

Protocol gases and for EPA to implement the PGVP in a variety of possible situations. These 

three options are incorporated in Option 4. Two commenters supported Option 4 and two 
46

commenters supported Option 4 but without Option 1. For the above reasons, EPA will retain 

the maximum flexibility of Option 4 when implementing the final rule.

Florida Municipal Power Agency Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-

0037 & 0039)

1) Comment: “We are not in favor of EPA's proposal to disallow the use of the provision in 

Section 8.5 of Method 7E, which allows multiple test runs to be conducted prior to the bias 

checks, for RATA's conducted under 40 CFR 75, for the following reasons: 

1. This provision already necessitates that all test runs conducted since the previous bias check 

be invalidated if the subsequent bias check reveals drift in excess of the required specification. 

Invalidation of multiple test runs would extend the duration of the test period, leading to 

additional expense and potential operational difficulties (i.e., billing of additional hours by the 

test contractor, overtime for plant employees responsible for monitoring the testing, continuing 

to run the unit at the specified operating level rather releasing the unit back to load control, and 

in some cases continuing to run the unit solely for the purpose of conducting the required test). 

Therefore, we believe the potential for invalidation of multiple test runs is enough of a deterrent 

to discourage the use of equipment and/or testing firms that would have difficulty meeting the 

applicable specifications.

2. The ability to use this provision is of great value to facilities that are required to conduct both 

RATA and compliance tests. The provision facilitates conducting RATA and compliance tests 

simultaneously by allowing 63 minutes of sampling prior to conducting bias checks. This fulfills 

the requirement to conduct a 1-hour compliance test run, while also allowing the collection of 

enough data for three 21-minute RATA runs. The ability to combine RATA and compliance 

testing in this manner reduces the overall amount of time required for testing and is of value to 

industry for the same reasons as those listed in item 1 above.

3. EPA also mentions in the proposal that using this provision unnecessarily complicates the 

bias and drift correction calculations, however, once these calculations are programmed into a 

spreadsheet, they are easy to apply. It is the responsibility of industry and the contracted testing 

firms to ensure that this is done correctly and of agency reviewers to confirm. The possibility of 

having a test report rejected (and subsequently having to redo the test) is enough of a deterrent to 

ensure that sources will check these calculations for accuracy prior to commencing any test.

EPA has not provided any substantial evidence for its reasoning that less accurate results will 

occur other than the statement that “less accurate gas concentration measurements are likely to 

result” (75 FR 33400) (emphasis added). EPA should provide field evidence which shows that 

less accurate results have occurred as a result of this less time consuming procedure before it 

proceeds with any rulemaking on this issue.”

Response: See EPA’s response to UARG’s #15 comment.

Lakeland Electric Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0040)
47

1) Comment: Identical comments as Florida Municipal Power Agency.

Response: See EPA’s response to UARG’s #15 comment.

GE Energy Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0038)

1) Comment: “FR page 33396 Detailed Discussion. EPA specifically requests comments on the 

following proposed codes for the type of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be 

specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting instructions.” “A common quad blend 

consisting of SO2, NOx, CO, and CO2 is conspicuously absent from the list. It should be added 

to list with the code as follows: N1SCC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of 

four certified components, NOX, SO2, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.”

Response: Because NOx can be certified as NO, NO2 or NO and NO2, EPA has added three

codes to the list: SNCC representing SO2, NO, CO and CO2 and a balance gas, SN2CC

representing SO2, NO2, CO and CO2 and a balance gas, and SNXCC representing SO2, NO, NO2, 

CO and CO2 and a balance gas.

2) Comment: “Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(d) While under no obligation to request the following 

information from an AETB, to review the information provided by the AETB in response to such 

a request, or to take any other action related to the response, it is recommended that the owner or 

operator request that the AETB produce the following: 

(1) The AETB’s quality manual; 

(2) The results of any external or internal audits performed by the AETB during the 

prior 12 months; 

(3) A written description of any corrective actions being implemented by the AETB 

during the prior 12 months; and 

(4) Any AETB training records for the prior 12 months.

As an ISO 9001 accredited organization, GEII has extensive records of internal and external 

audit findings and training records. The regulation as worded does not indicate the timeliness of 

the records being requested, only “during the prior 12 months”. It would be preferable to define 

the timing of the requirement and when the request should be made by the owner/operator. It is 

not reasonable to assume “that the testers will have this information with them in their vehicles 

when visiting a site”. The packet of the enumerated information would constitute a rather large 

quantity of documents, and keeping an up-to-date packet in each vehicle would be nearly 

impossible. We recommend that the owner /operator request this information prior to 

mobilization of the test crew to the site, and that the 12 months of information be updated up to 

and including, at most, the previous calendar quarter.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Scott Evan’s #2 Comment. 

3) Comment: “Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(d)(2). The results of any external or internal audits 

performed by the AETB during the prior 12 months; External audits are performed by someone 

other than the AETB. This requirement should be rewritten, for example: “The results of any 
48

internal audits performed by the AETB and any external audits of the AETB during the prior 12 

months.”

Response: The Agency agrees and has revised this provision.

4) Comment: “Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(d)(4). Any AETB training records for the prior 12 

months.” “This statement is very vague. In the detailed discussion, the USEPA states; “The 

agency anticipates that testers would have this information [training information] with them in 

their vehicles when visiting a site in view of the requirements of the ASTM method”. This 

implies that only the QI training information is required to be available to the owner/operator. 

However, the USEPA needs to specify the training in the wording of the regulation so that it is 

clear what is intended.”

Response: The Agency believes that ASTM D 7036-04, sections 5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require 

the AETB to have training and other information available on request, and would therefore 

suggest that the AETB keep this information up to date in the vehicle. However, EPA has

clarified in section 6.1.2(d)(4) of the final rule that the training records for all on site technical 

personnel, including the QI, should be available for the 12 month period through the previous 

calendar quarter.

5) Comment: “Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(e). When QI oversees a test, the QI shall actively

observe the test for its duration. If a QI conducts a test, the QI shall actively conduct the test for 

its duration. However, allowance is made for normal activities of a QI who is overseeing or 

conducting a test, e.g., bathroom breaks, food breaks, and emergencies that may arise during a 

test.” “According to ASTM D 7036-04: ”The AETB shall provide qualified individuals to 

oversee and supervise test projects. The AETB must provide at least one qualified individual onsite at all times during a test project who is qualified in the methods employed for that test 

project.” “It is our opinion that adding further requirements to “actively observe the test for its 

duration” or “actively conduct the test for its duration” exceeds the intent of ASTM D7036-04. A 

test program may consist of multiple locations and multiple test trains, and the phrases “actively 

oversee” or “actively conduct” may place undue and unwarranted burden on the qualified 

individual’s activities, and lead to confusion and variation from site to site and agency to agency

as to interpretation of the requirements of the regulation.“

Response: The Agency partially agrees and has revised section 6.1.2(e) to remove the 

requirement of having a QI actively conduct a test. EPA has also removed the word “actively”, 

but retained the requirement to oversee and supervise a test. The Agency believes that this better 

reflects the intent of ASTM D 7036-04, and would allow a QI to move more freely about a test 

site ensuring that the various facets of the test are being properly conducted.

6) Comment: “Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(g). If the Administrator finds that the information 

submitted to an affected source by an AETB under this section or the information requested by 

an affected source under this section is either incomplete or inaccurate, the Administrator may

post the name of the offending AETB on Agency Web sites, and provide the AETB a description 

of the failures to be remedied. The AETB name will be removed from the EPA Web sites once 

the failures are remedied. 
49

AND

Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(h)

If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to an affected source by AETB under 

this section or the information requested by an affected source under this section is either 

incomplete or inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the Administrator, provide to the 

Administrator evidence within a reasonable time of the demand that any missing information has 

been provided to the affected source and/or that any inaccurate information has been corrected.” 

“Although the purpose of these two paragraphs is understood, we feel they could be combined 

into a single paragraph, and that the both paragraphs should provide an opportunity for the AETB 

to provide or correct any information prior to the imposition of any penalties, and the 

“reasonable time” frame should be defined. We propose the following wording:”

“If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to an affected source by 

an AETB under this section or the information requested by an affected source 

under this section is either incomplete or inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand 

of the Administrator, provide to the Administrator evidence, within 45 days of the 

demand, that any missing information has been provided to the affected source 

and/or that any inaccurate information has been corrected. If the AETB fails to 

respond in the time indicated, the Administrator may post the name of the 

offending AETB on Agency Web sites. The AETB name will be removed from the 

EPA Web sites once the failures are remedied.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Scott Evans’ #3 Comment.

Summa Consultants, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0041)

1) Comment: “Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP). While the proposed rule makes it 

clear that cylinders provided by a PGVP provider will be valid through the earliest of the stated 

expiration date or final cylinder pressure of 150 psi if a PGVP participant leaves the program, it 

is not clear how long cylinders in use will be allowed to be used once the program is 

implemented. Summa recommends that all cylinders ordered before the effective date of the final 

rule be allowed for Part 75 purposes through their stated expiration date or a final pressure of 

150 psi. Summa anticipates that this is EPA’s intention. Clear, definitive wording on this subject 

will prevent the waste – both economic and environmental – of potentially thousands of 

cylinders that may be in use or may have valid service lives as of the effective date of the final 

rule.”

Response: The Agency agrees, and has revised section 75.21(g)(7) and the fourth and 

fifth sentences in section 6.5.10 in appendix A to read: “An EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified 

by or ordered from any non-participating EPA Protocol gas production site no later than 

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION] may be used for the purposes of this part 

until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure 

reaches 150 psig. In the event that an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed from the list 

of PGVP participants on the same date as or after the date on which a particular cylinder has 
50

been certified or ordered, that gas cylinder may continue to be used for the purposes of this part 

until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure 

reaches 150 psig. However, in no case shall the cylinder be recertified by a non-participating 

EPA Protocol gas production site to extend its useful life and be used by a source subject to this 

part.”

The Agency chose to use “certified” instead of “manufactured” because a cylinder could 

be manufactured and certified for, e.g., two years, and then re-certified for up to another two 

years if it was not consumed. EPA did not want cylinders to be re-certified by an EPA Protocol 

gas production site that was not participating in the PGVP and continue to be used for potentially

four years or more after the PGVP takes effect.

2) Comment: “Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETB). Summa 

understands the cited concerns for qualifying emission testing companies to perform Part 75 test 

programs; however, Summa remains unclear about the basis for these concerns.”

Response: The bases of EPA’s concerns regarding AETBs were discussed in the preamble of the 

January 24, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR 4325, January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector General 

report, and in several correspondences from State air agencies (see Document ID #s EPA-HQOAR-2009-0837-0015, -0016, -0062, and -0063, and Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-

0035 in the dockets). Also see EPA’s response to Source Testing and Consulting Service’s #4 

Comment.

3) Comment: “A source testing firm may choose to limit the scope of ASTM D 7036 

conformance to certain test programs. This means that a source testing organization (i.e., and 

AETB) may perform only Part 75 test programs or determine that only Part 75 test programs are 

included within the scope of ASTM D 7036 conformance. Without declaring a scope, all work 

that the AETB performs must conform to the standard which means qualification and 

examination of personnel, test plans, and test reports for every test method and test program that 

the AETB performs. If an AETB fails to declare a scope of ASTM D 7036 applicability, this 

means that an AETB that fails to perform any work in full conformance to ASTM D 7036 

jeopardizes even that work that may have been performed in accordance with the standard. The 

preamble indicates that an AETB is to be evaluated against its quality manual when assessing 

AETB conformance to the standard. Summa recommends that final rule clarify the implication of 

scope declaration when evaluating an AETB’s conformance to ASTM D 7036.”

Response: Section 4.1, Note 3 in ASTM D 7036-04 states: “There is no requirement to define a 

scope of testing. It is a requirement of this practice that prior to performing a test method for the 

first time, the AETB has in place resources, training, and QA/QC consistent with this practice to 

insure data of acceptable quality are produced.” However, it is EPA’s intent in this rulemaking 

that the ASTM D 7036-04 scope of testing be limited to Part 75 relative accuracy test audits, 

and Part 75 stack tests related to Appendix E and low mass emitters performed on sources 

subject to Part 75. EPA understands the concern of Summa Consultants, Inc. and has revised

section 6.1.2(a) of appendix A to part 75 to allow an AETB to limit its conformance to ASTM D 

7036-04 to units subject to Part 75 and to the test methods required by Part 75. Section 6.1.2(b) 

has been similarly revised. Unless a stack test company accredits to ASTM D 7036-04 through, 
51

e.g., the Stack Testing Accreditation Council, the stack test company does not have to meet 

ASTM D 7036-04 for non-Part 75 testing. The Agency notes that for companies that choose to 

accredit to the ASTM standard, it may be possible to limit the scope of accreditation to Part 75 

testing. In any case, the proposed rule does not require accreditation. A letter of certification 

signed by senior management will suffice.

The Agency also wishes to clarify that if an AETB fails to comply with ASTM D 7036-

04 when performing tests at Unit A, but later complies with ASTM D 7036-04 when testing at 

Unit B, the earlier noncompliance at Unit A does not affect the validity of the Unit B testing. 

4) Comment: “Summa understands that currently, there is only one provider of external exams, 

the Source Evaluation Society (SES). SES offers exams in method groups. These groupings may

include methods that an AETB does not perform. It makes no sense for an individual to sit for 

exam that covers material for which the candidate is not qualified to perform or intends to 

perform. This means that the AETB that performs a limited scope of testing may legitimately 

argue that a qualified external exam provider is not available and may choose to offer internal 

exams. Given that AETB management is ultimately responsible for both implementation of the 

standard and competence of personnel (Section 8.1 of the standard), AETB management may

conclude that acceptable external examinations are not available and based on the AETB’s scope 

of conformance to the standard, determine that internal examinations are more appropriate tools 

for ensuring the competence of individuals that it assigns to oversee test programs (i.e., 

“qualified individuals”). The current language in the preamble to the proposed rule favors an 

external exam provider. Summa suggests that EPA recognize the validity of internal examination 

providers when suggesting that sources obtain information about examination providers.”

Response: The QI exams provided by the Source Evaluation Society (SES) are created with the 

knowledge and wisdom of many experienced stack testers. Periodically, these exams are 

modified using feedback from people who have taken the exams. 

The interdependency of emissions testing methods is inherent in any emissions testing 

program. EPA and the SES membership, which includes large and small stack test companies,

believe that an individual who can pass a multiple method group exam is one who understands 

emissions testing principles broadly enough to lead a test team and can be expected to address 

the myriad of complicating issues that arise during a source test. 

It is EPA’s understanding that the SES membership can and has evaluated and adjusted 

the qualifications approach from time to time. Summa may determine that working through SES 

is a viable route for addressing particular issues. The Agency supports the QI qualification exam

program in its current form, recognizing that there are opportunities for improvement.

Only two other comments were received on the subject of external vs internal exams. 

Internally administered exams are allowed only if an external exam for that test method is not 

available. The current format of external exams covers a group of related test methods. If a QI 

desires to be certified for a particular test method and that test method is part of an external exam 

for a group of methods, that QI must take that external exam. An individual that has been 

qualified with an internal exam must re-qualify with an external exam within three years of the 
52

availability of an external exam or when a re-test is required, whichever is sooner. The ASTM D 

7036-04 workgroup (in part, made up of small and large stack test companies) confirmed that, in 

general, external exams are a better indication of qualification than an internal exam. The 

Agency agrees with this view because an externally administered exam may be more impartial,

provide exam questions that have been better vetted, and may be less subject to abuse than an 

internally developed and administered exam.

5) Comment: “The proposed rule lists information that a source may request from an AETB to 

demonstrate that it conforms to ASTM D 7036. Generally, this list includes training and 

examination records, the quality manual and corrective actions. There are important problems 

regarding the submittal and use of this information. 

“A quality manual can be as simple as a recitation of the standard or a more sophisticated 

document which describes how the AETB will actually implement what the standard requires. In 

the latter case, the quality manual may contain substantial confidential business information. 

Summa suggests that the underlying goals of the quality manual request could be fulfilled by

asking the AETB to provide the quality manual cover page, the quality manual table of contents, 

and the Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) checklist which shows where each element 

of ASTM D 7036 is addressed in the quality manual. If EPA cannot support this simplified 

approach to documenting the evidence of an AETB’s quality manual, EPA must afford AETBs 

the opportunity to declare quality manual content as confidential business information to protect 

it from disclosure.”

Response: The Agency agrees and has revised section 6.1.2(d)(1) of appendix A to part 75 to 

read: “The AETB’s quality manual. For the purpose of application of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, 

AETB’s concerned about the potential for public access to confidential business information 

(CBI) may identify any information subject to such a claim in the copy provided”

6) Comment: “Corrective action reporting will vary with each AETB. Accordingly, evaluating 

an AETB based on reported corrective actions is far from objective. Instead, sources should 

request that the AETB provide performance data as set forth in Section 7.4.4. of ASTM D 7036-

04. Certainly, corrective actions are a subset of performance data. Allowing the source to request 

performance data allows the source to request information that can objectively guide the 

selection of an AETB for a Part 75 project. Limiting the requested information to corrective 

actions may mean that an AETB that is more dedicated to the process of continual improvement 

is slighted in the selection process because it is more thorough in its documentation of 

improvement needs as evidenced by corrective actions.”

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised section 6.1.2(d)(3) of appendix A to 

part 75 to read: “Performance data (as defined in section 3.1.9 of ASTM D 7036-04 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6)) collected by the AETB, including corrective actions 

implemented, during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter”.

7) Comment: “Training and experience requirements are clearly specified in ASTM D 7036 and 

can be documented and objectively evaluated. As described in item “b” above, examination 
53

procedures need to reflect the scope of accreditation and management decisions because these 

procedures may vary to reflect the needs of the AETB.”

Response: EPA agrees that the training provisions in ASTM D 7036-04 are clear. The Agency

believes that ASTM D 7036-04, sections 5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require the AETB to have training 

and other information available on request, and would therefore suggest that the AETB keep this 

information up to date in the vehicle. However, EPA has clarified in section 6.1.2(d)(4) of the 

final rule that the training records for all on site technical personnel, including any QIs, should be 

available for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter. The examination and 

scope issues have been addressed in the responses to Summa Consultant’s Comments #3 and #4.

8) Comment: “The proposed rule specifically references ASTM D 7036-04. The final rule needs 

to allow an AETB to conform to a more current version of the standard if one should be 

developed.”

Response: In order to incorporate by reference a more current version of ASTM D 7036-04,

EPA would need to do a rulemaking.

9) Comment: “The proposed rule allows EPA to fine AETBs that fail to produce proper 

credentials up to $32,500/day. Certainly, AETBs that misrepresent their qualifications should 

bear the consequences of their actions and a fine is an appropriate course of action. On the other 

hand, sources still have the responsibility to properly qualify vendors. Accordingly, proposed 

fines for AETBs should in no way relieve a source of its compliance duties, or associated fines 

for failing to comply, if it has not acted diligently to properly qualify an AETB for the work. 

Otherwise, the public will bear the full burden of a source’s decision to contract emission testing 

to a low-cost, and perhaps unqualified, provider.”

Response: EPA generally agrees. However, it is unreasonable to expect that a Part 75 source 

should be expected to ensure that an AETB outside of the source’s management structure is 

complying with the hundreds of requirements associated with ASTM D 7036-04 each time it 

wants to hire an AETB to do a relative accuracy test audit. The wording of section 6.1.2(f) of 

appendix A to part 75 essentially limits the liability of a Part 75 source in such situations. Of 

course, sources are still responsible for ensuring that required Part 75 QA/QC tests are properly 

conducted and passed. Also, see EPA’s response to Jack Herbert’s Comment #1.

10) Comment: “The proposed rule allows AETBs to self-declare conformance to ASTM D 7036 

or undergo a third-party assessment that would support interim or final accreditation. The 

preamble seeks comments on this approach. Until there is complete clarity and transparency in 

the accreditation process, AETBs must have the option of self-declaring conformance. Although 

there may be AETBs that attempt to self declare conformance to the standard without putting any

of the required systems in place or AETBs that obtain STAC interim or final accreditation and 

never take a look at the quality manual again, AETBs that can produce the information set forth 

in the proposed rule (and are subject to the proposed fines) are not likely to fall into either of 

those categories. The documentation that an AETB must furnish under the proposed rule is 

adequate to demonstrate conformance to ASTM D 7036. If the final rule includes similar 
54

documentation requirements, AETBs should be able self-declare conformance to ASTM D 

7036.”

Response: EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04.

Weston Solutions, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0042)

1) Comment: “Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP). While the proposed rule makes it 

clear that cylinders provided by a PGVP provider will be valid through the earliest of the stated 

expiration date or final cylinder pressure of 150 psi if a PGVP participant leaves the program, it 

is not clear how long cylinders in use will be allowed to be used once the program is 

implemented. WESTON recommends that all cylinders in service, manufactured, or ordered

before the effective date of the final rule be allowed for Part 75 purposes through their stated 

expiration date or a final pressure of 150 psi. WESTON anticipates that this is EPA’s intention. 

Clear, definitive wording on this subject will prevent the waste – both economic and 

environmental – of potentially thousands of cylinders that may be in use or may have valid 

service lives as of the effective date of the final rule.”

Response: The Agency generally agrees, and has revised section 75.21(g)(7) and the 

fourth and fifth sentences in section 6.5.10 in appendix A to read: “An EPA Protocol gas 

cylinder certified by or ordered from any non-participating EPA Protocol gas production site no 

later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION] may be used for the purposes of 

this part until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas 

pressure reaches 150 psig. In the event that an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed 

from the list of PGVP participants on the same date as or after the date on which a particular 

cylinder has been certified or ordered, that gas cylinder may continue to be used for the purposes 

of this part until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas 

pressure reaches 150 psig. However, in no case shall the cylinder be recertified by a nonparticipating EPA Protocol gas production site to extend its useful life and be used by a source 

subject to this part.”

The Agency chose to use “certified” instead of “manufactured” because a cylinder could 

be manufactured and certified for, e.g., two years, and then re-certified for up to another two 

years if it was not consumed. EPA did not want cylinders to be re-certified by an EPA Protocol 

gas production site that was not participating in the PGVP and continue to be used for potentially

four years or more after the PGVP takes effect.

2) Comment: “Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETB). WESTON 

maintains a rigorous quality management system and has participated in the Louisiana 

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) since inception. Importantly, 

LELAP covers both the sampling and analytical aspects of emission testing, including the test 

methods and procedures for Part 75 test programs. We have previously explained our concerns 

about maintaining an additional quality management system and prefer that EPA allow AETBs 

to adopt and conform to any established quality management system that covers the scope of the 

AETBs work. In the absence of such an approach, WESTON offers the following comments:”
55

Response: A driving force for the development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the 

patchwork of standards that was beginning to occur throughout the U.S. If each State were to 

develop its own standard for stack testing, testing costs would increase as stack testers 

performing work in multiple States would have to pay for, qualify in and abide by differing 

requirements in multiple jurisdictions. EPA notes that the Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel 

its stack testing accreditation program (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0072 in 

the docket) and in its place substitute accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04. Louisiana DEQ also 

agrees to recognize third party accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council.

#3 Comment: “A source testing firm may choose to limit the scope of ASTM D7036 

conformance to certain test programs. This means that a source testing organization (i.e., and 

AETB) may perform only Part 75 test programs or determine that only Part 75 test programs are 

included within the scope of ASTM D7036 conformance. Without declaring a scope, all work 

that the AETB performs must conform to the standard which means qualification and 

examination of personnel, test plans, and test reports for every test method and test program that 

the AETB performs. If an AETB fails to declare a scope of ASTM D 7036 applicability, this 

means that an AETB that fails to perform any work in full conformance to ASTM D 7036 

jeopardizes even that work that may have been performed in accordance with the standard. The 

preamble indicates that an AETB is to be evaluated against its quality manual when assessing 

AETB conformance to the standard. WESTON recommends that final rule clarify the 

implication of scope declaration when evaluating an AETB’s conformance to ASTM D 7036.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Summa Consultants #3 Comment.

4) Comment: “WESTON understands that currently, there is only one provider of external 

exams, the Source Evaluation Society (SES). SES offers exams in method groups. These 

groupings may include methods that an AETB does not perform. It makes no sense for an 

individual to sit for exam that covers material for which the candidate is not qualified to perform 

or intends to perform. This means that the AETB that performs a limited scope of testing may

legitimately argue that a qualified external exam provider is not available and may choose to 

offer internal exams. Furthermore, we have had several employees sit for and pass the exam. 

Our experience with the exam indicates that the exam does not cover the topics that would 

actually enable an individual to properly and safely perform the tests. Given that AETB 

management is ultimately responsible for both implementation of the standard and competence 

of personnel (Section 8.1 of the standard), AETB management may conclude that acceptable 

external examinations are not available and based on the AETB’s scope of conformance to the 

standard, determine that internal examinations are more appropriate tools for ensuring the 

competence of individuals that it assigns to oversee test programs (i.e., “qualified individuals”). 

The current language in the preamble to the proposed rule favors an external exam provider. 

WESTON suggests that EPA recognize the validity of internal examination providers when 

suggesting that sources obtain information about examination providers.”
56

Response: See EPA’s response to Summa Consultants #4 Comment.

5) Comment: “The proposed rule lists information that a source may request from an AETB to 

demonstrate that it conforms to ASTM D7036. Generally, this list includes training and 

examination records, the quality manual and corrective actions. There are important problems 

regarding the submittal and use of this information.

A quality manual can be as simple as a recitation of the standard or a more sophisticated 

document which describes how the AETB will actually implement what the standard requires. 

In the latter case, the quality manual may contain substantial confidential business information. 

WESTON suggests that the underlying goals of the quality manual request could be fulfilled by

asking the AETB to provide the quality manual cover page, the quality manual table of contents, 

and the Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) checklist which shows where each element 

of ASTM D7036 is addressed in the quality manual. If EPA cannot support this simplified 

approach to documenting the evidence of an AETB’s quality manual, EPA must afford AETBs

the opportunity to declare quality manual content as confidential business information to protect 

it from disclosure.”

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and has revised section 6.1.2(d)(1) of 

appendix A to part 75 to read: “The AETB’s quality manual. For the purpose of application of 

40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, AETB’s concerned about the potential for public access to 

confidential business information (CBI) may identify any information subject to such a claim in 

the copy provided”

6) Comment: “Corrective action reporting will vary with each AETB. Accordingly, evaluating 

an AETB based on reported corrective actions is far from objective. Instead, sources should 

request that the AETB provide performance data as set forth in Section 7.4.4. of ASTM D7036-

04. Certainly, corrective actions are a subset of performance data. Allowing the source to 

request performance data allows the source to request information that can objectively guide the 

selection of an AETB for a Part 75 project. Limiting the requested information to corrective 

actions may mean that an AETB that is more dedicated to the process of continual improvement 

is slighted in the selection process because it is more thorough in its documentation of 

improvement needs as evidenced by corrective actions.”

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised section 6.1.2(d)(3) of appendix A to 

part 75 to read: “Performance data (as defined in section 3.1.9 of ASTM D 7036-04 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6)) collected by the AETB, including corrective actions 

implemented, during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter”.

7) Comment: “Training and experience requirements are clearly specified in ASTM D7036 and 

can be documented and objectively evaluated. As described in item b above, examination 

procedures need to reflect the scope of accreditation and management decisions because these 

procedures may vary to reflect the needs of the AETB.”
57

Response: EPA agrees that the training provisions in ASTM D 7036-04 are clear. However, one 

commenter suggested that EPA better specify which training records should be available on 

request. The Agency believes that ASTM D 7036-04, sections 5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require the 

AETB to have training and other information available on request, and would therefore suggest 

that the AETB keep this information up to date in the vehicle. However, EPA has clarified in 

section 6.1.2(d)(4) of the final rule that the training records for all on site technical personnel, 

including any QIs, should be available for the 12 month period through the previous calendar 

quarter. The scope and examination issues have been addressed in the responses to Weston 

Solutions’ Comments #3 and #4, respectively.

8) Comment: “The proposed rule specifically references ASTM D7036-04. The final rule needs 

to allow an AETB to conform to a more current version of the standard if one should be 

developed.”

Response: In order to incorporate by reference a more current version of ASTM D 7036-04, 

EPA would need to do a rulemaking.

9) Comment: “The proposed rule allows AETBs to self-declare conformance to ASTM D7036 

or undergo a third-party assessment that would support interim or final accreditation. The 

preamble seeks comments on this approach. Until there is complete clarity and transparency in 

the accreditation process, AETBs must have the option of self-declaring conformance. Although 

there may be AETBs that attempt to self declare conformance to the standard without putting any

of the required systems in place or AETBs that obtain STAC interim or final accreditation and 

never take a look at the quality manual again, AETBs that can produce the information set forth 

in the proposed rule (and are subject to the proposed fines) are not likely to fall into either of 

those categories. The documentation that an AETB must furnish under the proposed rule is 

adequate to demonstrate conformance to ASTM D7036. If the final rule includes similar 

documentation requirements, AETBs should be able self-declare conformance to ASTM 

D7036.”

Response: EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04.

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-

0044)

1) Comment: “CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boiler owners, architectengineers, related equipment manufacturers, and university affiliates with members representing 

20 major industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities in every region of the country and a 

representative distribution of almost every type of boiler and fuel combination currently in 

operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promote the exchange of information within the industry

and between industry and government relating to energy and environmental equipment, 

technology, operations, policies, law and regulations affecting industrial boilers. Since its 

formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, reasonable, cost-
58

effective energy and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO supports regulatory

programs that provide industry with enough flexibility to modernize – effectively and without 

penalty – the nation's aging energy infrastructure, as modernization is the key to cost-effective 

environmental protection.

CIBO believes that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an 

appropriate partner agency for the auditing and verification of cylinder gas producers. In the 

preamble (74 Fed. Reg. 33395), EPA discusses a transitional period for the owner on the use of 

cylinders from suppliers that choose not to participate in EPA’s PGVP or sites removed from the 

PGVP participants. CIBO believes that this transition period is appropriate and appreciates 

EPA’s clarification regarding continued use of these cylinders. CIBO requests that EPA add a 

code to the list of codes to designate gas blends that will not be contained in the rule; NSCC = 

EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of four certified components, NOx, CO2, SO2 

and CO, and a balance gas.”

Response: Because NOx can be certified as NO, NO2 or NO and NO2, EPA has added three

codes to the list: SNCC representing SO2, NO, CO and CO2 and a balance gas, SN2CC

representing SO2, NO2, CO and CO2 and a balance gas, and SNXCC representing SO2, NO, NO2, 

CO and CO2 and a balance gas.

2) Comment: “With respect to the minimum competency requirements for air emissions testing 

(AETB), CIBO appreciates EPA’s position that personnel conducting emissions testing 

demonstrate a minimum competency, or work under the supervision of personnel who have 

demonstrated a minimum competency. While CIBO recognizes that these provisions have been a 

possibility since the 2006 rulemaking (71 Fed. Reg. 49300), we are concerned with the proposed 

implementation of January 1, 2011, and request that EPA work closely with stakeholders to 

ensure a smooth transition not only for the sources affected by the provisions, but also for the 

emissions testing firms that will seek to have personnel take examinations to become Qualified 

Individuals (QI) such that their firms can be designated as AETBs for purposes of this rule.

“Certain small affected sources may need time to identify AETBs in their area that fulfill 

EPA’s requirements, and if those firms are not qualified vendors, to proceed through the internal 

bidding and contracting processes (safety verification, insurance, contracting, etc) with vendors 

that do meet the AETB requirements. Therefore, EPA should make the compliance deadline 

January 2012 for AETBS intending to perform Part 75 RATA testing.

“In any event, EPA should clarify the “effective date,” which determines the “date that is 

six months from the effective date of final rule,” and should clarify what obligations are required 

by January 1, 2011. Statements in the proposal concerning compliance deadlines are 

contradictory.”

Response: See EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment.

3) Comment: CIBO supports the ability of owner/operators to have personnel demonstrate 

QI/AETB, as many companies have employees with knowledge and experience in stack testing 

and Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA testing). However, EPA should, in a supplemental 
59

proposal, provide clarification of how the ASTM provisions would apply to owners who select 

this method of compliance. For example, how would an owner who contracts with firms manage 

the QA/QC program?

Response: The provisions in ASTM D 7036-04 apply equally whether the AETB is an internal 

group or an external company. If a parent company with an internal AETB contracts the services 

of that AETB to perform stack testing at other firms, the ASTM D 7036-04 QA/QC provisions 

are applied no differently. The parent company would need to set-up the proper AETB 

management substructure, following the ASTM provisions, within the company’s management 

system. Although EPA is not endorsing nor here opining on such systems, examples include the 

Emissions Testing group (an AETB) within GE International, Inc., (the parent company) and 

Dominion Generation, both of which have interim accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04 through the 

Stack Testing Accreditation Council.

Institute of Clean Air Companies Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-

0045)

1) Comment: “While our member companies would prefer a more rigorous audit program we 

fully appreciate the Agency’s regulatory and budgetary constraints implementing the PGVP.”

Response: The Agency has tried to balance the need to better ensure accurate calibration gases 

with the costs of providing that assurance. Regarding ways to make the program more rigorous, 

see EPA’s response to Linde’s #1 Comment.

2) Comment: re: Procurement of US Protocol Gas Cylinders “The Institute would recommend 

the Agency allow 30-45 days for the invoice nullification or credit to occur as two weeks is 

insufficient time for large organizations handling hundreds of transactions and multiple account 

managers to respond.”

Response: EPA has revised the final rule to allow 45 calendar days to receive an invoice 

cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or hardcopy).

3) Comment: “While we understand not all proposed options will collect a statistically valid 

number of cylinders, ICAC would suggest options 2 and 3 afford the Agency the required 

flexibility to address certain situations such as the expansion in the number of production sites, 

delays in cylinder analysis and potential budgetary constraints.

“Option 2, while reducing the number of cylinders analyzed from a production site still 

ensures all cylinders selected are analyzed by NIST on an annual basis. Option 3 will afford an 

EPA Protocol production site that manufactures only a select type of EPA Protocols to 

participate in the program without penalty if that particular site is not chosen to be audited in a 

given year.
60

“ICAC member organizations prefer an annual analysis and reporting for all audited 

cylinders. Option 1 fails to ensure Part 75 sources receive timely information on participating 

EPA Protocol production site.”

Response: While the Agency understands the shortcomings of Option 1, 2 and 3, EPA believes 

that these options are necessary to preserve the ability of producers to sell EPA Protocol gases in 

possible (but unlikely) situations where cylinder procurement, shipping, or analyses take longer 

than expected to complete, and for EPA to implement the PGVP under a variety of possible 

conditions. These three options are incorporated in Option 4. Two commenters supported 

Option 4 and two commenters supported Option 4 but without Option 1. For the reasons 

previously stated, EPA will retain the maximum flexibility of Option 4 when implementing the 

final rule. Consistent with the preamble discussion in the proposed rule (see 75 FR 33395, June 

11, 2010), the Agency has also revised section 75.21(g)(10) to allow a participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site to continue to sell EPA Protocol gas cylinders in the event that none 

of its cylinders are audited.

4) Comment: “ICAC would suggest the electronic reporting instructions include the code for 

carbon monoxide (CO) equal to EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single certified 

component CO and a balance gas, (CO = C). Currently the proposed rule identifies carbon 

dioxide as (CO2). We submit the code should be reported as C2.”

Response: EPA must use “CO2” as the code for CO2 because it is used thoughout EPA’s

database to describe that parameter and EPA wants to maintain consistent code conventions in 

the ECMPS reporting software. The data structure in ECMPS cannot accommodate a singleblend carbon monoxide gas. Under Part 75, carbon monoxide is not regulated and is not required 

to be recorded or reported. Therefore, a code for that single blend gas cylinder will not be 

included in the reporting instructions.

5) Comment: re: Calibration Gas Tag Value: “In order to “tighten” the confidence interval 

would require the enlargement of the uncertainty, as an example, instead of +/-2% at the 95% 

confidence interval one might have +/-3% at the 99% confidence interval. We believe that the 

current status is scientifically defensible and as such should remain.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Air Liquide’s #7 Comment.

6) Comment: “ICAC appreciates the Agency’s efforts to work with NIST to implement certain 

cost containment measures for cylinder analysis. ICAC would suggest the cost for NIST 

cylinder analysis should be locked in for a minimum of two years so that the EPA Protocol gas 

supplier community can budget for the analysis as part of their participation in the PGVP.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Airgas’s #1 Comment.

Source Testing and Consulting Services, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0837-0046)
61

1) Comment: “I do not believe that either of these programs is actually necessary and are 

contrary to the spirit of the Paperwork Reduction Act. I feel that both add unnecessary layers of 

bureaucracy.”

Response: The Agency disagrees. The commenter doesn’t provide any specific information in 

support of this position which makes it difficult to respond. The ASTM D 7036-04 workgroup 

consisting, in part, of individuals from large and small stack test companies, thought that 

experience and passing a qualification exam every five years were important to the stack testing 

and regulated community and the every five years exam frequency was a good balance between 

keeping current with test method changes and being too burdensome. EPA agrees with this 

view, and believes the evidence is strong that unqualified, under-trained and inexperienced 

testers are routinely deployed on testing projects. EPA and State air agencies have had 

experiences with tests that have been invalidated or called into question due to poor performance 

by testing contractors (see EPA Inspector General Report of EPA’s Oversight of State Stack 

Testing Programs, and several correspondences from State air agencies, Document ID #s EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0837-0015, -0016, -0062, and -0063, and Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0132-0035 in the dockets).

Eleven commenters, including one representing seven specialty gas companies 

representing the vast majority of EPA Protocol gases in the U.S., support the PGVP, and three 

commenters oppose it. A 2003 EPA audit of EPA Protocol gases found an unacceptably high 

failure rate (11% of all components analyzed, with 57% of the production sites failing at least 

one gaseous component) with respect to the + 2% standard in 40 CFR Part 75. A 2009 EPA 

Inspector General audit (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0064 in the docket) also 

found an 11% failure rate over all components analyzed, with 39% of the production sites failing 

at least one gaseous component. The IG recommended that EPA implement an ongoing PGVP. 

A 2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found a 10% failure rate over all components analyzed, with 

40% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component.

2) Comment: “As a stack tester with 26 years experience, a testing company primary owner 

having worked at 3 different firms and also worked under contract to EPA (EMB, OAQPS and 

OSW), I have encountered some “bad gases” from time to time, from just about every supplier 

you can think of. It is one of the biggest aggravations you can imagine when you are in the field 

and don’t know it. It can be hard to figure out, even. That said, it is rare – extremely rare. The 

degree of incidence may vary some with manufacturer, but I have seen this happen in nearly all I 

have used (and I have used a lot) but not much with any of them. In a way, I encourage this part 

of the rule, but it will not stop the occasional bad gas. Why? Because this is not a systemic 

problem, it is an intermittent one, and statistically very small. The vast majority (all) of the 

manufacturers that I have used produce consistent and quality gases on average. If I experience 

problems with one, I stop using them or ask them to take corrective action. That is the way the 

market works.”

Response: The accuracy of EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases are used to help 

ensure that the national emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act are met. Every recent 
62

audit of EPA Protocol gases has found cylinders that fail the Part 75 required +2.0% 

performance specification (see previous response, and Document ID #s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0837-0011, -0064 in the docket, and the 2010 gas audit report). These failures were found using

a small sample size of cylinders from each specialty gas company in the U.S. There is no reason 

to think these samples weren’t random. Therefore, it is likely that for the companies that had 

failed audited cylinders, other cylinders from those companies would fail.

3) Comment: “Some of the problems experienced in the field have to do with: 1) Two gases 

from the same batch of the same constituent with different concentrations get the labels swapped. 

2) A gas that is used for an upscale on one component and a zero on another (not certified at the 

zero point) is contaminated with a trace level of the gas it was used to zero (I’m not sure you 

thought about that, but it happens periodically, particularly with CO zeroed on an oxygen 

containing gas – recognizing CO does not come under Part 72 or 75). 3) A moderately high 

reported non-certified NO2 value in an NO (NOX) calibration gas. The issue is that you probably 

will not catch many of these anomalies in your audit and if you get the odd bad one then you 

might unfairly think that is what they all are like from that vendor. They all do it at times in one 

form or another. Most of the gas manufacturers are large enough that it shouldn’t affect prices 

too much, but I think it is unwise to say it will save costs by avoiding retests. I don’t see that. A 

decent stack tester will review his gases versus the facilities if there is an issue. A few facilities 

require the tester to use the site gases when doing a test, which makes some sense.”

Response: EPA understands that cylinders may get contaminated in the field. The PGVP 

program cannot address those potential problems since the cylinders audited in the PGVP come 

unopened directly from an EPA Protocol gas production site. However, if a source follows 

proper cylinder regulator procedures available from specialty gas companies, instances of such 

contamination would be reduced. Section 75.21(g)(9)(v) of the proposed rule addresses the issue 

involving moderately high, non-certified NO2 value in a NOx calibration gas claiming NIST 

traceability for both NO and NOx by requiring such cylinders obtained for audit to be analyzed 

by NIST for both NO and NOx components.

4) Comment: “The AETB requirements, however, are my main concern. My company and I are 

most affected by that, as are other small stack testing firms. Are there really a lot of stack tests 

that are required to be redone, as the rule seems to suggest? I don’t think so. In fact, I have done 

hundreds and hundreds, likely over 1000 and there are only two instances I can think of that me 

or my staff had to re-conduct a test, only one of them regulatory and for a fairly trivial reason 

and that was over 15 years ago. Is that common? I know a lot of people in the industry and I 

don’t believe this could be the case, or don’t hear about it and it is clearly exaggerated in the 

rule, if even frequent.”

Response: Small and large stack testing companies, sources subject to Part 75, and State and 

EPA regulators on the ASTM D 7036-04 work group believe that implementation of the ASTM 

Practice will result in improved data quality. EPA also believes the evidence is strong that 

unqualified, under-trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on testing projects.

EPA and State air agencies have had experiences with tests that have been invalidated or called 

into question due to poor performance by testing contractors (see EPA Inspector General Report 

of EPA’s Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs, and several correspondences from State air 
63

agencies, Document ID #s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0015, -0016, -0062, and -0063, and 

Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0035 in the dockets).

The Agency believes that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a 

Qualified Individual on site does not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but 

feels strongly that these things will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high 

quality data generation. EPA also agrees that third party (e.g., State agency) oversight helps 

ensure that testing is properly conducted.

5) Comment: “Regardless, being a stack tester is a difficult life and the ones that stay with it 

(few will) are worth a lot, particularly the good ones – not just to industry but to EPA. Many

very good ones tend to break off into smaller companies to pursue the American Dream of being 

in business for yourself or part of one. Many good small stack testing companies exist and range 

in size from as few as 3 to as many as 12 to 15. Our company has only 12 employees and 3 of 

them are administrative. I know well and work with another company (an SES hall of fame 

person) who only has 3 people, only two being technical. There are many other examples 

throughout the US. Contrast that with Clean Air Engineering, TRC, Metco, URS, Arcadis, or 

MacTech.

“These larger companies (some may even qualify as a small business under SBA, but the scale 

difference is dramatic) clearly have an economic advantage over smaller companies in 

developing their AETB documents and procedures as well as getting the QSTI for its employees, 

or at least certain ones. This is a hardship on truly small businesses, some at least of which do the 

best work for you folks.”

Response: For the cost analysis performed for the proposed rule, a small entity is defined as: (1) 

A small business as defined by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The 

primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address regulatory

alternatives "which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities." 5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the small entities can pass through 

costs to their customers or rate payers, if the rule generally does not regulate small entities, or the 

rule relieves regulatory burden or otherwise generally has a positive economic effect on all of the 

small entities subject to the rule. 

The marginal increase in burden that is estimated in the information collection request for 

the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Nearly all sources subject to Part 75 are large electric generating facilities that will face 

an incremental increase in cost associated with very small increases in the testing fees charged 

by AETBs and PGVP vendors. For AETBs, the main costs to comply with the ASTM D7036-04 

standard are associated with taking a qualified stack test individual competency exam, and 

developing or revising a quality assurance manual. PGVP vendors will be required to have a 

small number of their cylinders analyzed each year, and provide annual notification to EPA with 
64

basic information on their facility and other information relevant to the PGVP. The costs will be 

passed through to the customers, which are generally sources subject to Part 75, including large 

electric utility and industrial companies. 

Small and large companies were involved in the ASTM D 7036-04 technical work group, 

and each had equal say in the final standard. A review of the Source Evaluation Society web site 

indicates a number of small stack test companies with Qualified Source Testing Individuals, 

including Air-Tech Environmental, LLC, and a QSTI from the commenter’s company, Source 

Testing and Consulting Services, Inc.

6) Comment: “The economic analysis you have used is highly flawed, and was clearly not done 

by someone familiar with the industry, at least not from the business side of it. This will not 

drive prices down, and whatever increase in price there is cannot necessarily be passed on to the 

customer. In addition, smaller firms suffer from this more, even though they may be the better 

choice in many cases. The market should decide. High quality work rises to the top and gets 

repeat customers. Test failures due to the tester are not something a client wants and won’t 

tolerate much, if at all.”

Response: The Agency has included more supporting detail in the final rule ICR cost analysis. 

The economic analysis performed for the information collection request required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act took into account the major costs associated with the proposed rule, 

including the AETB provisions. The major costs associated with the AETB provisions are 

taking an exam meeting the requirements of ASTM D 7036-04 (QSTI exam), and developing or 

revising a quality assurance manual. The QSTI exam cost was obtained from the Source 

Evaluation Society, and the cost to develop or revise a quality assurance manual came from 

small and large stack testing companies.

7) Comment: “The EPA in this particular rule also assumes in its economic analysis that the 

majority of tests done are for Part 75. That is patently false, at least for many if not most 

companies. Only a fraction of our current business is Part 75 work, but it is a fraction we do not 

want to lose.”

Response: The economic analysis only included Part 75 tests because the proposed rule only 

applies to Part 75 sources. Unless a stack test company accredits to ASTM D 7036-04 through, 

e.g., the Stack Testing Accreditation Council, the stack test company does not have to meet 

ASTM D 7036-04 for non-Part 75 testing. The Agency notes that for companies that choose to 

accredit to the ASTM standard, it may be possible to limit the scope of accreditation to Part 75 

testing. In any case, the proposed rule does not require accreditation; a letter of certification 

signed by senior management will suffice.

8) Comment: “Oversight is the regulatory community’s responsibility, which you are trying to 

put on the testing communities and industries backs. There are 250 QSTI’s (Qualified Stack 

Testing Individuals) in the country currently (really many more qualified than that, just so many

that took some of the exams) and only four (4) QSTO’s (Qualified Stack Testing Observers)

located in only two states (Michigan and Missouri). There are clearly no people in EPA who 

have a QSTO, or not according to the Source Evaluation Society. If you are going to proceed 
65

with this, shouldn’t the QSTI have authority over the non-QSTO observer or reviewer or 

shouldn’t every writer of regulations and observer be QSTO certified? That costs money though, 

better that the burden lies on the little guy?”

Response: The Agency agrees that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036-04 and having a 

Qualified Individual on site does not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but 

feels strongly that these will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data 

generation. EPA also agrees that third party (e.g., state agency) oversight helps ensure that 

testing is properly conducted. EPA encourages anyone observing tests to become a QSTO.

9) Comment: “In addition, the rule puts potential fines, even criminal penalties on companies 

that are measurers of the pollution, not the producers of it. That is clearly NOT in the spirit of the 

Clean Air Act. The fines as listed, even a small unintentional violation could drive a small firm 

out of business in as little as one or two days at the whim of an Administrator. Citation below: 

“First, as described below, under Section 6.1.2(g), the EPA could list the offending AETB on its 

Web sites. Secondly, as more fully explained below, since EPA’s authority to make the demand 

is premised on Clean Air Act Section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414)(CAA), a non-compliant AETB could 

be subject to enforcement action by EPA under CAA Section 113. The CAA provides for several 

levels of enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. The CAA allows 

for injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and administrative penalties of up to $32,500 

per day. EPA believes that the availability of these enforcement tools, coupled with the owner or

operator’s express right to require the enumerated information from the AETB, are significant 

deterrents and will result in better quality testing.”

“As a contributor to the well being of the environment for over 25 years, to EPA, industry and to 

the health of ordinary Americans, I take serious offense to the tone and ridiculousness of this 

portion as well as other inferences to the poor quality of test data. This is simply untrue and an 

inopportune burden for the testing community to bear. Did you even consider what the insurance 

requirement adders might be? I didn’t think so.”

Response: The Agency only pursues these CAA fines after careful consideration. These fines 

have always been available to the Agency, and can be and have been applied to pollutant

emitting sources or others violating the Clean Air Act. The purpose of expressly stating these 

fines in the proposed rule is to better ensure full compliance with ASTM D 7036-04.

10) Comment: “Finally, if the EPA intends to go through with the rule as is, they absolutely

must allow a 1 year period from the time of finalization for the AETB’s to get their appropriate 

documents and certifications in order. Otherwise, it is clearly discriminatory toward favored EPA 

contractors and larger companies.”

Response: See EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment.

Scott Evans (on behalf of STAC) Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-

0050)
66

1) Comment: “On behalf of the Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC), I would like to 

thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. STAC is an third 

party accrediting body composed of representatives from the various stakeholder groups 

involved with stack testing. This include representatives from Air Emission Testing Bodies 

(AETBs), regulatory authorities, and user's of stack testing services. STAC performs third party 

accreditations of AETBs to verify their conformance with ASTM D7036-04.

“In general, STAC is in agreement with the approach EPA has taken with this proposed rule. In 

particular, we support the requirements that:

“1. AETBs conform to the ASTM D7036-04 standard.

2. Qualified Individuals (as defined in the ASTM standard) be on site during testing

3. Owners and operators keep records documenting AETB and QI conformance with the 

requirements of the ASTM standard

4. The commencement date be six months following the effective date of the final rule”

Response: The Agency generally agrees with the comment. However, please see EPA’s

response to UARG’s #14 Comment regarding the commencement date.

2) Comment: “We feel that the recommendation in Appendix A, Section 6.1.2(d), to have the 

owner or operator collect certain documents such as the quality manual, etc. from the AETB be 

modified as follows:

“While under no obligation to request the following information from an AETB, to review the 

information provided by the AETB in response to such a request, or to take any other action 

related to the response, it is recommended that the owner or operator request that AETBs 

complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section produce the following:

“(1) The AETB's quality manual

(2)....

If an AETB has obtained a third party certificate of accreditation, the owner or operator is 

assured that these documents exist and have been reviewed for conformance with the ASTM 

standard. The owner or operator will have a copy of this certificate in accordance with paragraph 

(b). However, for those AETBs submitting a letter of certification, there is no such assurance and 

thus the requirement to produce them is necessary to provide that additional assurance for this 

class of AETBs.”

Response: EPA agrees that an AETB that provides a certificate of accreditation or interim 

accreditation by a recognized national accreditation body is more likely to be in full conformance 

with ASTM D 7036-04. However, the Agency also believes that ASTM D 7036-04, sections 

5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require the AETB to have training and other information available on 

request, and would therefore suggest that the AETB keep this information up to date in the 

vehicle regardless of whether the AETB is accredited. In response to this commenter and to 

other commenters who had requested that information be available for the 12 month period 

through the previous calendar quarter, that confidential business information not be required, that 
67

performance data also be included, and that training records be clarified, the Agency has revised 

section 6.1.2(d) in the final rule to read:

“While under no obligation to request the following information from an AETB, to 

review the information provided by the AETB in response to such a request, or to take any other 

action related to the response, the owner or operator may find it useful to request that AETBs 

complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section provide a copy of the following:

(1) The AETB’s quality manual. For the purpose of application of 40 CFR Part 2, 

Subpart B, AETB’s concerned about the potential for public access to confidential business 

information (CBI) may identify any information subject to such a claim in the copy provided;

(2) The results of any internal audits performed by the AETB and any external audits of 

the AETB during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter;

(3) Performance data (as defined in section 3.1.9 of ASTM D 7036-04 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 75.6)) collected by the AETB, including corrective actions implemented, during

the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter; and

(4) Training records for all on site technical personnel, including any Qualified 

Individuals, for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter.”

3) Comment: “We agree that posting the names of offending AETBs on the EPA website would 

provide a deterrent for non-conformance with ASTM D7036-04 and generally agree with this 

approach. However, we feel that paragraph 6.1.2(g) be amended to ensure that an AETB is 

notified and has the opportunity to correct any deficiencies before the name is posted on the 

website. Also, are concerned about the responsiveness of EPA in updating this list once the 

AETB has provided EPA with the required information. Therefore, we would like to see a 

requirement added that EPA respond to an AETB's submittal within 30 days as to whether the 

submittal is sufficient to remedy the problem. If so, the name of the AETB would be removed 

from the list. If EPA fails to respond within 30 days, the submittal is assumed to be sufficient to 

remedy the problem and the name is removed from the list.”

Response: EPA generally agrees. Another commenter had requested that the determination of 

accuracy and completeness in section 6.1.2(g) be solely based on the provisions of ASTM D 

7036-04. However, EPA believes that the determination of accuracy and completeness should 

be based on ASTM D7036-04 and part 75 taken together because part 75 limits the application of 

ASTM D 7036-04. The Agency has therefore revised section 6.1.2(g) to read: “An owner or 

operator who has requested information from an AETB under paragraph (d) of this part who 

believes that the information provided by the AETB was either incomplete or inaccurate may

request the Administrator’s assistance in remedying the alleged deficiencies. Upon such a 

request, if the Administrator concurs that the information submitted to a source subject to part 75 

by an AETB under this section is either incomplete or inaccurate, the Administrator will provide 

the AETB a description of the deficiencies to be remedied. The Administrator’s determination 

of completeness and accuracy of information will be solely based on the provisions of ASTM 

D7036-04 (incorporated by reference, see § 75.6) and this part. The Administrator may post the 

name of the offending AETB on Agency web sites (including the CAMD web site 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/aetb.html) if within 30 days of the Administrator 

having provided the AETB a description of the deficiencies to be remedied, the AETB does not 

satisfactorily respond to the source and notify the Administrator of the response by submitting 
68

the notification to aetb@epa.gov. The AETB need not submit the information it provides to the 

owner or operator to the Administrator, unless specifically requested by the Administrator. If 

after the AETB’s name is posted, the Administrator, in consultation with the source, determines 

that the AETB’s response is sufficient, the AETB’s name will be removed from the EPA web 

sites.”

4) Comment: “STAC believes that eventually, EPA should require third party accreditation for 

all AETBs. However, we recognize that the accreditation program in the United States is just 

getting underway and that the requirement for all AETBs to be accredited may be premature. 

However, we would like to see paragraph 6.1.2(b)(2) amended to include a "sunset clause" for 

self-certified AETBs. We believe that five years after the effective date of the final rule, AETBs 

should not have the option to self-certify and must have a certificate of accreditation from a third 

party accreditation body. We believe this five year period provides more than ample time for the 

maturation of AETB accreditation programs in this country.”

Response: STAC did not provide any evidence to suggest that accreditation is any better at 

assuring compliance with ASTM D 7036-04 than self-certification. Over time, if evidence 

develops that self-certification is no longer appropriate, then at that time the Agency could 

consider proposing revisions of the rule to require accreditation.

Air Quality Services Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0049)

1) Comment: “AQS is a small business that provides air pollution monitoring, testing, and 

consulting services to a variety of sources that are affected by the Part 75 CEMS program. We 

provide Relative Accuracy Testing to these facilities. We are vitally interested in all aspects of 

compliance monitoring and testing, and offer the following comments/questions:

Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP). The transition to the new program need to be 

clarified : how long can a cylinder that is in use before the effective date (of the new rule) 

continue to be used after the effective date?”

Response: See EPA’s response to Weston Solution’s #1 Comment.

2) Comment: “Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies. AQS 

understands and fundamentally agrees with the establishment of minimum competency

requirements. In order to provide the most flexibility to AETBs, and potentially reduce costs to 

sources, the AETB should have the ability to determine which test methods to select for 

"certification", and utilize an examination relevant to those test methods. Internal examinations 

should be afforded the same consideration as external examinations.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Summa Consultants #4 Comment.

3) Comment: “In proposed §6.1 .2(d) of Part 75 Appendix A, EPA recommends that 

owners/operators request the AETB to produce the Quality Manual, audit results for the previous 

12 months, any corrective actions in the previous 12 months, and relevant training records . The 

development and implementation of a suitable Quality Manual (QM) is quite costly, and testing 
69

companies should not be expected to release such intellectual property. AQS recommends that 

EPA revise this recommendation so that the QM table of contents would be sufficient.”

Response: See EPA’s response to Summa Consultant’s #5 Comment.

4) Comment: “AQS recommends that EPA clarify what is related to the "effective date" (which 

would then define the "date that is six months from the effective date of final rule"), and what is 

related to January l, 2011. Some statements seem contradictory.”

Response: The effective date of the final rule will be 30 days from the date it is published in the 

Federal Register. EPA has extended the deadline in section 75.21(f), and the recordkeeping 

deadlines in section 75.59 for AETB-related data elements to the DATE THAT IS 365 DAYS

FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. The 

commencement date in section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to Part 75 has also been extended to the 

DATE THAT IS 365 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER. The deadline in section 75.64(a)(5) for submittal of the information 

required in §§75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4) has been similarly revised. Also, see EPA’s 

response to UARG’s #14 Comment explaining why the Agency extended the AETB-related 

deadlines.

As required in § 75.21(g)(6), on and after the date that is 60 days from publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register, sources subject to Part 75 that use EPA Protocol gas will need 

to purchase such gas from PGVP participants (or from a reseller that sells unaltered gas from a 

PGVP participant). However, § 75.21(g)(7) allows existing EPA Protocol gas cylinders to be 

used up.

As required in § 75.59(a)(9)(x) and § 75.64(a)(5), PGVP recordkeeping and reporting for 

sources subject to part 75 commence 180 calendar days from publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register.