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<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 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