Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0078
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-03-28T04:00Z

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



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.

“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 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-OAR-2009-0837-0013 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.  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-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 -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 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.”

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

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 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-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-by-run 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 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%

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 run-by 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

	Reference Method Measurement

	Corrected based on pre-test and post- test 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 pre- test and post- test system bias checks

	Corrected based on run-by-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%

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 pre-test and post-test system bias checks 

	Corrected based on run-by-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 pre-test and post-test system bias checks

	Corrected based on run- by-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%

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 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:     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/reporting-instructions.htm
l" 
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.   

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 newly-affected 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
control.  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.

“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 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 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 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-HQ-OAR-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.

	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 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 fuel-specific 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 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.

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-OAR-2009-0837-0069 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.”

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.  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)

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.

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 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.

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. 

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 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.

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 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 on-site 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 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, 

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.

“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.

2) Comment:  “EPA is requesting comment on 4 options to ensure an
ample number of samples are analyzed by NIST.  (Page 33395)

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.

Option 2 allows EPA to reduce the number of cylinders audited per
production site, so NIST could analyze and report on all audited
cylinders.

Option 3 allows EPA to select fewer production sites from specialty gas
producers to audit. 

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?

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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf" 
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.

“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) 

“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-OAR-2009-0837-0035)

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 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 -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 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
ASTM-D7036-04.”

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)

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
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)

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: 

The AETB’s quality manual; 

The results of any external or internal audits performed by the AETB
during the prior 12 months; 

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
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 on-site 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. 

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 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-HQ-OAR-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, 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 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 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 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 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).  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:”

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.”

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.”

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, architect-engineers, 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-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 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.

	“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 single-blend 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-OAR-2009-0837-0046)

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 
EPA-HQ-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 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 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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=28040ec960b490ca0aafa21f4
6de6efc&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=16&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=13%20CFR%20121.201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLb
Vlb-zSkAl&_md5=20cdd3754bc5031f8663e9a8648d753a"  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."
   HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=17&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20603&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=7706f7a5b57e6c8ffe73a18a42323923"  5 U.S.C. 603  and  
HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=18&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20604&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=d18efe794c4aab9071be778414940e8e"  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 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 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)

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 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
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 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.

 “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.”

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1