Table of Contents

Commenter	Page

	Utility Air Regulatory Group	1

Air Liquide	24

Scott-Marrin, Inc.	26

Airgas	27

Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases	28

Jack Herbert	29

Source Evaluation Society	31

United Sciences Testing, Inc.	33

Liberty Electric Power, LLC	36

Praxair Distribution, Inc.	37

Stork Testing & Metallurgical Consulting, Inc.	41

Specialty Gases of America, Inc.	45

Florida Municipal Power Agency	46

Lakeland Electric	47

GE Energy	47

Summa Consultants, Inc.	49

Weston Solutions, Inc.	54

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners	57

Institute of Clean Air Companies	59

Source Testing and Consulting Services, Inc.	61

Scott Evans (on behalf of STAC)	66

Air Quality Services	68

Response to Comments on PGVP/AETB Proposed Rule

 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

The Utility Air Regulatory Group Comments (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0043)

1) Comment:  “When EPA last proposed to revise Part 75 in 2006, the
primary purpose was revision of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to support the agency’s move to the new Emissions
Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) for reporting emissions.
Because that move also was part of a broader effort to reengineer the
way the agency collects information from sources and shares that
information with the public, UARG’s comments also addressed some
concerns regarding that process. Although UARG generally supported the
reengineering effort, UARG expressed concern regarding the increasing
complexity of the reporting program, the cost of implementing EPA’s
proposed new requirements, and the potential for the public and other
regulatory bodies to misunderstand the often overly conservative Part 75
data that EPA planned to make publicly available. See Comments of the
Utility Air Regulatory Group on EPA’s August 22, 2006 Proposed
Revisions to 40 C.F.R. Parts 72 and 75, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0079 (Oct.
23, 2006). With respect to data dissemination, UARG asked EPA to ensure
that Part 75 data provided to the public under its new system were
appropriately explained, including identification of potential
overestimation due to use of missing data substitution procedures and
other conservative assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

that the data are appropriately explained.”

Response:  The Agency has no evidence that ECMPS has added complexity to
the reporting of Part 75 data nor has the commenter provided concrete
examples in its comments supporting such conclusion.  Instead, the
feedback EPA has received indicates that ECMPS has simplified the
reporting for most sources.  Data substitution has the potential to
create overestimation of emissions, however, this overestimation tends
to be relatively small for most sources.  The Agency estimates that over
all Part 75 units, substitute data is less than 1.2 percent of data  for
any parameter (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0061 in the
docket).  However, the Agency will work to better explain the Part 75
data that are posted on its web site.

2) Comment:  “EPA also continues to vastly underestimate the costs of
its reporting program. In the Information Collection Request (ICR)
prepared to support the 2006 proposal, EPA estimated

only modest costs for implementation of ECMPS. For example, EPA
estimated that the annualized cost of revising a source’s data
acquisition and handling system (DAHS) to comply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

years when estimating current burdens.”

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

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

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

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

hotline.”

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

3) Comment:  “The PGVP also would require Part 75 sources to use only
calibration gases produced by participating sites when performing Part
75 calibration error tests, linearity tests, and when using reference
Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E to perform Part 75 relative accuracy test audit
(RATAs).”  “EPA also proposes to add new sections to Appendix B to
state that Part 75 tests performed using Protocol gas from a vendor that
is not participating in the PGVP cannot be used to validate data under
Part 75.”

Response:  If a Part 75 source uses EPA Protocol gas as its calibration
gas, it must obtain that gas from an EPA Protocol gas production site
that is participating in the PGVP.  However, other calibration gases
from participating and non-participating sites are available for use
under Part 75 (see Part 75, Appendix A, section 5).  These gases are:
standard reference materials, primary reference materials, NIST
traceable reference materials, research gas mixtures, and gas
manufacturer’s intermediate standards.

4) Comment:  “As proposed, these provisions include elements that are
very important to UARG. First, § 75.21(g) would make clear that sources
can continue to use previously purchased cylinder gas bottles after the
effective date of the rule, or after removal of a production site from
the PGVP list, until the bottle either expires or the cylinder gas
pressure reaches 150 psig. This provision is necessary to ensure that
Part 75 sources have adequate gas supplies during the initial
implementation of the PGVP, and thereafter. For the same reasons, UARG
requests that the PGVP program not take effect until at least 30 days
after publication to allow production sites time to provide notification
to EPA, and that EPA provide Part 75 sources notice of any production
site “delistings,” so that gas purchases can continue without
interruption. Second, Figure 3 to Appendix B makes clear that failure of
a cylinder to meet the 2.0 percent criterion does mean that an
individual producer is not meeting that criterion with its other
cylinders. This statement is important to UARG to ensure that PGVP audit
findings do not affect a gas company’s certification of other Protocol
gases purchased by Part 75 sources.”

Response:  The PGVP portion of the final rule requiring sources subject
to Part 75 that use EPA Protocol gas having to procure such gas from
PGVP participating production sites will take effect 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.  However, the PGVP recordkeeping
and reporting will take effect 180 days after publication.

5) Comment:  “With respect to cost, EPA states in the ICR only that
those “PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased cost of
two dollars or less per cylinder.” EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0013 at 13.
While that increase in cost does not sound unreasonable, EPA has not
provided sufficient information in its discussion for UARG to evaluate
whether that estimate is realistic.EPA does not say how many vendors
were contacted or on what information those vendors based their
estimates. EPA should revise its ICR to include a more detailed analysis
including the projected cost of the NIST audit process. UARG is
concerned not only with the unlimited potential for gas companies to
pass program costs on to Part 75 customers, but also with the
possibility that program costs might cause some companies or sites to
decline participation.  Competition among gas vendors is critical to
ensuring good availability and reasonable costs.  EPA should address
those potential issues prior to finalizing the program.”

Response:  EPA has revised the final ICR supporting statement to include
additional supporting information, including adding in 600 hours of
contractor time to account for ECMPS software changes, adding costs for
DAHS upgrades for facilities without an existing service contract that
would affect approximately 20 percent of CEMS sources, and adding text
to describe the cost break downs for both the AETB and the PGVP
provisions.

	EPA has not received any comments from specialty gas companies stating
that they would not participate due to PGVP costs.  See EPA’s response
to Airgas’s #1 Comment.

6) Comment:  EPA should explain why such detailed reporting of start and
end dates and hours corresponding to use of a particular type of
Protocol gas is required and why the reporting of Protocol gas type
codes is important.  EPA should allow an “other blends” gas type
category.  EPA should be clear that it is still allowing the use of a
blend of gases as both zero gas and span gas.  “UARG generally
believes that tracking of information on individual gas cylinders is not
necessary and EPA has provided no justification for it.”

Response:  Some PGVP related information was originally planned to be
reported in the monitoring plan.  However, because the reporting of this
information will now be in the quarterly electronic emissions report or
reported prior to that report, start and end dates and times are no
longer required and have been removed from the final rule.  The final
rule will only require ECMPS reporting of a gas level code (low, mid or
high-level concentration), a code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used,
the PGVP vendor ID, cylinder expiration date, and cylinder number.  The
reporting of low, mid or high-level concentration is already required by
§ 75.59(a)(3).  The reporting of Protocol gas type code is important
for informing future PGVP audits.  The reporting of the PGVP vendor ID
is essential to allow EPA to determine that each EPA Protocol gas
cylinder used by a Part 75 source is from a participating EPA Protocol
gas production site.  Two commenters preferred that the PGVP be more
rigorous.  Therefore, EPA has added electronic recordkeeping and
reporting of cylinder expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all
cylinders used for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or
quality assurance test required under Part 75.  The Agency believes that
this will strengthen the PGVP by reducing or eliminating the use of
expired cylinders, and by improving the tracking of cylinder
information.  Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already
require these two items to be recorded in limited situations or in
hardcopy only, and section 75.60(b)(6) already requires these two items
to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA
Regional Office upon request.  The Protocol gas type codes have been
revised to include an Other EPA-Approved EPA Protocol  Gas Blend
category.  However, sources will need to receive EPA approval to use it.
 EPA has found that if an “Other” category is allowed, sources will
sometimes simply use that category instead of selecting the correct one.
  EPA will add new codes to ECMPS as needed; the ECMPS system allows
these types of additions to be made quickly and easily.  EPA will make
clear in the electronic reporting instructions that the list is not
exclusive, and that other types of EPA Protocol gases could be made to
meet customer needs.  Appendix A, § 6.3.1 of the final rule clarifies
that a Protocol gas blend may be used as both a zero gas and span gas
where appropriate.

7) Comment:  The costs of including these Protocol gas type codes,
including the costs of revising and debugging reporting software must be
included in the ICR.

Response:  The cost of recording and reporting Protocol gas type codes
is included in the ICR.  Section 6 of the ICR states: “In addition,
the estimates in this ICR reflect a small burden to Part 75 sources for
a one-time rule review and an incremental increase in the annual burden
associated with minor modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements (i.e., for tracking AETB and PGVP-related information and
data).  EPA has amended the ICR supporting statement to include the cost
of revising and debugging reporting software.

8) Comment:  The need for the proposed AETB requirements is
questionable.  The ASTM D 7036-04 (the ASTM standard) provisions are
subjective, arbitrary or unclear and are not designed to have each item
enforced as a federal regulatory requirement.  There is no evidence that
compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes.  A more
appropriate approach is to encourage voluntary compliance.

Response:  EPA addressed many of these concerns in the response to
comments for the 2006 proposed rule (see Document ID #
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0110 in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132).  These
concerns were also discussed in the preamble of the January 24, 2008
final rule (see 73 FR 4325, January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector
General report, and in several correspondences from State air agencies
(see Document ID #s  EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0015, -0016, -0062, and -0063,
and Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0035 in the dockets).  The
following responds to the need for the proposed AETB requirements, the
concern that the provisions in the ASTM standard are subjective,
arbitrary or unclear, and the concern that there is no evidence that
compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes.

Small and large stack testing companies, sources subject to Part 75, and
State and EPA regulators in the ASTM D 7036-04 work group believe that
implementation of the ASTM Practice will result in improved data
quality.  EPA believes the evidence is strong that unqualified,
under-trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on
testing projects.  EPA and State air agencies have had experiences with
tests that have been invalidated or called into question due to poor
performance by testing contractors (see Document ID #s referenced in the
previous paragraph).

	EPA believes that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a
Qualified Individual on site do not guarantee proper performance of any
individual test, but feels strongly that these will increase the
likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data generation.
EPA also believes that third party (e.g., State agency) oversight helps
ensure that testing is properly conducted and strongly encourages such
oversight to continue.  Regarding the concern that there is no evidence
that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes, EPA notes
that there is also no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard
won’t prevent mistakes.

	Voluntary compliance with any minimum competency standard has not
worked for the past 30 years, which is how long EPA and other
organizations have tried to develop an acceptable standard for stack
testers.  There are many reasons why voluntary compliance has not
worked, including disagreement among stack test companies on a minimum
competency standard, and the practice of sources often hiring the lowest
bidder.  The lack of voluntary compliance with a minimum competency
standard is also why various States, including Louisiana, have developed
their own stack testing regulatory standards.  A driving force for the
development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the patchwork of
standards that was beginning to occur throughout the U.S.  If each State
were to develop its own standard for stack testing, testing costs would
increase as stack testers performing work in multiple States would have
to pay for, qualify in and abide by differing requirements in multiple
jurisdictions.  EPA notes that the Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel
its stack testing accreditation program (see Document ID
#EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0072 in the docket) and in its place substitute
accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04.  Louisiana DEQ also agrees to recognize
third party accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council.

9) Comment:  “EPA proposes to revise the definitions of “Air
Emission Testing Body” (AETB) and “Qualified Individual” (QI).
Proposed § 72.2. An AETB would be an entity that provides a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response:  The Agency generally agrees.  However, if during a test, an
observer determines that  no QI was overseeing or supervising the test,
then the test is invalid and must be repeated with a QI that complies
with ASTM D 7036-04 and Part 75.

10) Comment:  “EPA proposes to add a new § 75.21(f) identifying by
section which tests must be conducted by an AETB, and stating to which
tests the requirement to conform to the ASTM

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

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

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

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

performs other sorts of tests.”

Response:  The Agency agrees.

11) Comment:  Commenter is concerned that a statement in the preamble
allows for the invalidation of large amounts of data if, e.g., six
months after the completion of a RATA EPA were to discover that a QI was
not on site during the test period.

Response:  EPA agrees that section 6.1.2(e) requires discovery during
the test period that a QI was not on site overseeing and supervising
test projects in order for data to be called into question.  EPA has
removed the misleading statement in the preamble.

12) Comment:  EPA solicits comment on whether the rule should require
that AETBs be accredited by an external organization (something neither
the rule nor ASTM D7036-04 requires).  UARG does not believe that a
requirement for external certification can be supported. First, there
currently is only one national accreditation organization providing
accreditation of any sort -- STAC, and that organization in unlikely to
be able to handle the volume of AETBs seeking to perform testing under
Part 75.  However, even if STAC could meet demand, no regulation should
be designed around the services of a single private organization.
Second, accreditation is expensive and likely would only become more so
without significant competition among providers. Unless EPA could
demonstrate a clear substantive advantage to external accreditation,
those costs cannot be justified. At this point, EPA has no evidence to
suggest that accreditation is any better at assuring compliance with the
ASTM practice than self-certification. Finally, requiring accreditation
would have the effect of making accreditation organizations the sole
arbiters of compliance with the ASTM practice. Currently, an AETB that
loses accreditation as a result of a dispute over interpretation of the
ASTM practice can enforce its own interpretation through self
certification.  Given the subjective nature of many of the ASTM practice
requirements and the industry’s limited experience in implementing it,
such independence is essential to UARG’s support for the current
proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a new proposal.

Response:  EPA agrees.

14) Comment:  The AETB recordkeeping and reporting deadlines in sections
75.59 and 75.64, respectively, are confusing.  “Although the use of
both an effective date and a deadline is confusing, as UARG understand
the proposal even if the final rule were published less than 6 months
before deadline in § 75.64(a)(5), sources would still have 6 months
from the effective date of the final rule before the AETB provisions
would become effective. However, any AETB information that is required
to be recorded on or after both the effective date of the AETB provision
and the deadline in 75.64(a)(5) would have to be reported prior to or
concurrent with the relevant electronic quarterly report. UARG requests
that EPA confirm that understanding.”

Response:  Any AETB information required to be recorded by the rule
would have to be reported prior to or concurrent with the relevant
electronic quarterly report.  The Agency received requests to extend the
AETB compliance deadline from three commenters.  No commenter thought
that EPA was providing too much time.  Even though EPA believes that the
Source Evaluation Society and their contractors who implement the
Qualified Individual tests have adequate capacity to handle a large
increase in tests (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0054 in the
docket), the Agency agrees that a 365 days from publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register compliance deadline for the AETB related
provisions is more reasonable for several reasons.  Only approximately
30 percent of the roughly 400 stack testing companies have at least one
qualified individual.  Even these companies may not yet be fully
compliant with ASTM D 7036-04.  The large amount of near term stack
testing necessary to respond to the Agency’s requests for information
collection under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to assess the
emissions of HAPs from electric generating units and other industrial
sources (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0060 in the docket)
provides even less time for companies to come into compliance with the
AETB provisions.  Therefore, to better ensure that every stack test
company has a reasonable chance to comply with ASTM D 7036-04, EPA has
extended the deadline in section 75.21(f) and the recordkeeping
deadlines in section 75.59 for AETB-related data elements to 365
calendar days from publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.  The commencement date in section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to
Part 75 has also been extended to 365 calendar days from publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register.  The AETB reporting deadline in
section 75.64(a)(5) has been similarly revised.

15) Comment:   “Section 75.22 establishes requirements for and
limitations on the use of reference methods under Part 75. EPA proposes
to revise § 75.22(a)(5) to add a new subsection (v) disallowing an
option provided under Method 7E to conduct multiple sampling runs before
performing post-run checks. EPA’s rationale for the restriction is
concern that drift correction of individual runs based on the results of
checks performed after multiple runs will not be accurate if the drift
is not uniform over the entire test. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,400. UARG does
not disagree that, at some point, drift corrections may become less
accurate following multiple runs, but not enough to require a post-run
check after every run. A requirement to perform a post run bias or
system calibration error check after every three runs would be
sufficient to ensure accurate drift corrections without needlessly
adding to the length of the test. EPA should limit the number of runs
allowed before performing a post-run check to three, rather than
prohibiting multiple runs altogether.”

Response:   Several commenters have questioned EPA’s proposal not to
allow the use of provisions recently added to EPA Method 7E when
conducting the reference methods for Part 75 purposes.  The provision of
the method in question allows multiple test runs to be quality assured
for bias and drift as a group rather than individually.  This change
made in the method allows the user to conduct bias and drift checks only
at the beginning and end of a series of test runs, rather than
conducting these checks before and after each individual run.  The
rationale for this is that if the tester can pass the quality assurance
at the beginning and end of the series of runs, then the intermediate
runs must be valid, and the quality of the reference method data has not
been compromised by taking this shortcut.   However this assumption is
not necessarily true.

Two commenters favor allowing 63 minutes of continuous sampling time
between bias and drift checks.  According to the commenters, sampling
for 63 consecutive minutes at a time is desirable because 63 minutes
corresponds to the time needed to perform three 21-minute runs of a CEMS
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and also is long  enough to obtain a
complete compliance test (i.e., stack test) run.  Compliance tests often
consist of three one-hour runs, and many sources have both RATA
requirements and compliance test requirements.  The commenters favor
eliminating the bias and drift checks after each RATA run because it
reduces the amount of time required to perform the testing.

Generally speaking, it is good practice to perform emission testing in
the most efficient manner possible without sacrificing data quality.
However, EPA believes that the added assurance of data quality provided
by performing bias and drift checks after each 21-minute RATA run far
outweighs the small amount of time that could be saved by skipping the
intermediate QA checks.  Further,  there is no reason why three
21-minute RATA runs cannot be averaged together to make one 63-minute
compliance test run.

For typical compliance test applications of the method where the user is
only concerned with showing compliance with an emissions limit, the
accuracy of the individual test runs is not as essential as it is for
Part 75 applications.  The Agency does not object to the change made to
Method 7E when the method is used for compliance test applications.
Since the average of all test runs is used to assess compliance, the
run-by-run percent inaccuracies due to changing bias and drift over the
course of the testing will tend to cancel, resulting in acceptable
overall average that is only slightly different from the average value
that would have been obtained had the more stringent run-by-run quality
assurance procedures been followed.   Thus, for compliance testing
purposes, the commenters are correct in asserting that little is gained
from performing the quality assurance testing before and after each run,
so long as the overall specifications for bias and drift are met at the
beginning and end of each test series.

However, under Part 75 the reference method measurements are generally
used for a very different purpose and the inaccuracy that can be
introduced by not following the run-by-run quality assurance is
unacceptable.  For Part 75, the reference methods are primarily used to
directly assess the accuracy of a continuous emissions monitoring system
on a run-by-run basis.   The purpose of the relative accuracy test
audits (RATA) is to conduct at least nine quality-assured independent
reference measurements and compare those measurements to nine
simultaneous measurements made by a continuous emissions monitoring
system in its normal mode of operation.  Since each run directly
compares CEMS measurements to reference method measurements, any drift
in the reference monitor during the course of the run must be assessed
and accounted for.  Method 7E provides a means of adjusting the
reference method measurements for moderate drift (less than 3.0% of the
span gas value over the course of a run).  This correction is intended
to tie the resulting reference value more closely to the EPA Protocol
calibration gas standards which are traceable to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST).  The correction assumes that over
the duration of the test run, the profile of any drift observed is
linear.  The longer the interval between bias/drift checks, the less
likely it is that this linear approximation will hold true.  Because the
RATA is intended to compare nine independent, quality-assured reference
measurements to nine simultaneous measurements from a CEMS, EPA finds
that performing a bias and drift evaluation before and after a series of
runs increases the uncertainty in the individual run measurements and
has the potential to introduce error that would otherwise be eliminated
by performing the bias and drift evaluation before and after each run.
EPA believes that mass-based regulatory programs, such as the trading
programs supported by Part 75 monitoring, need the added assurance of
data quality provided by run-by-run bias and drift evaluations.  The
run-by-run quality assurance is consistent with Method 7E as it was
originally written, and avoids the risk of adding bias and uncertainty
to the CEMS data through the RATA process.  To demonstrate the errors
that can result from quality-assuring a series of Method 7E runs instead
of performing run-by-run QA, consider the following examples:

Assume that the reference method uses a 30.0 ppm span gas.  Assume that
the direct analyzer calibration is perfect and that the system bias for
the zero level gas is always perfect (i.e., 0.0).   By doing this we can
focus on the effects of various upscale drift profiles.  Note that any
drift in the zero response would also factor into the proper correction
of reference values and would result in further measurement
uncertainties if ignored.

Table 1, below, illustrates four possible drift profiles over a series
of test runs.  The first case is an ideal, constant rate drift profile
where the drift is linear over the entire test.  The second is a curved
profile where the monitor drifts in one direction (upward) but does so
slowly at first then more rapidly near the end of the test.   The third
presents a variable drift profile where one of the runs would be
invalidated for failing the post-run system bias check.  The fourth is
also a case of variable drift where the bias is always within acceptable
limits, but the drift during one of the runs would be unacceptable.
Such drift can be caused when a test trailer becomes suddenly impacted
by the sun and rapidly heats up before the mobile air conditioning can
compensate.  Each of these profiles represents possible changes in
system response during the course of a test, which would be detected and
properly addressed if run-by-run system bias and drift checks were
performed.

For each of the four drift profiles, the upscale system bias and system
drift check results for each test run are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 shows that for Case 3, run #7 should be invalidated, based on
excessive bias (5.3%)  that developed during the test.  Note, however,
that this bias is not seen in the subsequent test runs, because the
monitor drifted back to a point within the bias specification.  Table 3
shows that for Case 4, run #5 exhibited excessive drift (3.3%) and thus
should be considered an invalid run.

Table 1: Example Reference Method System Drift Profiles

Case 1:

Linear Profile

	Case 2:

Delayed Curved Profile

	Case 3:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run

Case 4:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run

Pre 1 Start of Testing	30	30	30	30

Pre 2	30.1	30	29.8	29.8

Pre 3	30.2	30.1	30	29.6

Pre 4	30.3	30.1	30.4	29.5

Pre 5	30.4	30.2	30.5	29.2

Pre 6	30.5	30.3	30.7	30.2

Pre 7	30.6	30.4	31.2	31.1

Pre 8	30.7	30.5	31.6	31

Pre 9	30.8	30.7	31.2	31

Post 9 End of Testing	30.9	30.9	30.9	30.9

Table 2: System Bias Results (5.0% limit)

	Case 1:

Linear Profile

	Case 2:

Delayed Curved Profile

Case 3:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run

	Case 4:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run

Pre 1	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

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

Pre 3	0.7%	0.3%	0.0%	-1.3%

Pre 4	1.0%	0.3%	1.3%	-1.7%

Pre 5	1.3%	0.7%	1.7%	-2.7%

Pre 6	1.7%	1.0%	2.3%	0.7%

Pre 7	2.0%	1.3%	4.0%	3.7%

Pre 8	2.3%	1.7%	5.3%	3.3%

Pre 9	2.7%	2.3%	4.0%	3.3%

Post 9	3.0%	3.0%	3.0%	3.0%

Table 3: Drift Evaluation (3.0% limit)

Case 1:

Linear Profile

	Case 2:

Delayed Curved Profile

	Case 3:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run	Case 4:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run

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

Run 2	0.3%	0.3%	0.7%	-0.7%

Run 3	0.3%	0.0%	1.3%	-0.3%

Run 4	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	-1.0%

Run 5	0.3%	0.3%	0.7%	3.3%

Run 6	0.3%	0.3%	1.7%	3.0%

Run 7	0.3%	0.3%	1.3%	-0.3%

Run 8	0.3%	0.7%	-1.3%	0.0%

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

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

Note that for all four Cases, the pre-test and post-test responses give
identical results and show no excessive bias or drift.  Therefore, based
solely on the results of these checks, all of the test runs in the
series would be declared valid---all four Cases would look exactly the
same to a tester who only conducted the pre-test and post-test system
bias and drift tests.  However, the actual drift profiles and the
results of the run-by-run QA checks clearly indicate that checking bias
and drift only before and after a series of test runs can mask
significant bias and drift problems, and could lead to an erroneous
conclusion about the validity of the individual test runs.

For each of the four drift profiles, Tables 4 through Table 7, below,
compare the reference method measurements, corrected run-by-run for bias
and drift, against  the same measurements corrected  using only the pre-
and post-test system bias test results.  For the first Case with uniform
linear drift, Table 4 shows that for both QA methods, the overall
average of the nine reference method runs is the same, and no apparent
benefit is gained by performing run-by run QA checks.  However, it is
also evident that the run-by-run corrected values start off being 1.3%
higher than the pre- and post-test corrected values and end up being
1.3% lower.  Thus, even for the ideal case of uniform linear drift, the
two QA methods can give significantly different values for the
individual reference method (RM) runs.   In Part 75 applications, the
exact RM values are important, because for each RATA run, the arithmetic
difference between the CEMS reading and the RM value enters into the
relative accuracy calculations.

Table 4: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements

for Case 1 Linear Drift Profile

	Reference Method Measurement

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

	Corrected based on run–by-run system bias checks

	Run by run % difference

Run 1	25	24.6	25.0	-1.3%

Run 2	24	23.6	23.9	-1.0%

Run 3	26	25.6	25.8	-0.7%

Run 4	22	21.7	21.7	-0.3%

Run 5	24	23.6	23.6	0.0%

Run 6	22	21.7	21.6	0.3%

Run 7	26	25.6	25.4	0.7%

Run 8	28	27.6	27.3	1.0%

Run 9	27	26.6	26.3	1.3%

Average	24.9	24.5	24.5	0.0%

Tables 5 through 7 compare the two QA methods for the more realistic
Cases 2 through 4, in which the drift profile is non-uniform and
variable.  Tables 5 through 7 show, once again, that when the two QA
methods are applied, even though the percentage difference between the
average reference method values may be small, the drift-corrected RM
values for the individual runs can be significantly different.  This is
especially clear in Tables 6 and 7.  And, as previously seen in Tables 2
and 3, there are actually two runs that would have been disqualified for
excessive bias or drift based on the results of the run-by-run QA
checks.  Both of these runs  would have been declared valid if only the
pre- and post-test system bias and drift checks were performed.

Table 5: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements

for Case 2 Curved Profile

	Reference Method Measurement

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

	Corrected based on run-by-run system bias checks

	Run by run % difference

Run 1	25	24.6	25.0	-1.5%

Run 2	24	23.6	24.0	-1.3%

Run 3	26	25.6	25.9	-1.1%

Run 4	22	21.7	21.9	-1.0%

Run 5	24	23.6	23.8	-0.7%

Run 6	22	21.7	21.7	-0.3%

Run 7	26	25.6	25.6	0.0%

Run 8	28	27.6	27.5	0.5%

Run 9	27	26.6	26.3	1.1%

Average	24.9	24.5	24.6	-0.4%

Table 6: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements

for Case 3 Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run

	Reference Method Measurement

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

	Corrected based on run-by-run system bias checks

	Run by run % difference

Run 1	25	24.6	25.1	-1.8%

Run 2	24	23.6	24.1	-1.8%

Run 3	26	25.6	25.8	-0.8%

Run 4	22	21.7	21.7	0.0%

Run 5	24	23.6	23.5	0.5%

Run 6	22	21.7	21.3	1.6%

Run 7	26	25.6	24.8	3.1%

Run 8	28	27.6	26.8	3.1%

Run 9	27	26.6	26.1	2.0%

Average	24.9	24.5	24.4	0.7%

Table 7: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements

for Case 4 Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run

	Reference Method Measurement

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

	Corrected based on run- by-run system bias checks

	Run by run % difference

Run 1	25	24.6	25.1	-1.8%

Run 2	24	23.6	24.2	-2.5%

Run 3	26	25.6	26.4	-3.0%

Run 4	22	21.7	22.5	-3.6%

Run 5	24	23.6	24.2	-2.5%

Run 6	22	21.7	21.5	0.7%

Run 7	26	25.6	25.1	2.0%

Run 8	28	27.6	27.1	1.8%

Run 9	27	26.6	26.2	1.6%

Average	24.9	24.5	24.7	-0.8%

While these four examples are hypothetical, they nevertheless represent
real possibilities that could exist during the course of testing.  There
are so many factors that can affect drift profiles,  that the only safe
way to ensure proper correction or invalidation of the RM data is to do
the run-by-run quality assurance, which, incidentally, was part of the
original Method 7E.

EPA does not collect the actual reference method test data for Method 7E
electronically in a manner that can be further analyzed.  Therefore, we
cannot propoerly assess how reducing the number of required bias and
drift checks will impact data quality.  We have no way of knowing how
many test runs that should be invalidated would be assumed to be valid
if we were to allow bias and drift checks to be done only before and
after a series of runs.  However, we do know that we can avoid that
issue entirely by requiring the quality assurance checks to be performed
before and after each run for Part 75 applications.

In summary, EPA maintains that in view of the way that Method 7E data
are used in the Part 75 programs, run-by-run system bias and drift
checks are necessary to eliminate measurement error that would otherwise
be introduced by not quality-assuring each run individually.  This QA
approach also applies to Method 6C (the instrumental reference method
for SO2) and to Method 3A (the instrumental method for O2 and CO2), when
those methods are used for Part 75 applications.

16) Comment:  “EPA proposes to remove provisions of the rule that were
adopted in the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and vacated by the D.C.
Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008), to
re-promulgate other provisions that were revised in CAMR and then
vacated, and to remove or revise other related provisions that reference
mercury and sorbent trap monitoring systems. UARG supports these
revisions.  Because EPA’s preamble identifies no other changes in
these provisions than removal of the references to mercury and mercury
monitoring systems, UARG assumes that no other revisions to the
republished provisions were intended and asks that EPA confirm that in
the final rule. If EPA has proposed other changes, EPA should issue a
supplemental proposal identifying and justifying the proposed change.

“In addition, UARG has identified two provisions not included in
EPA’s proposal that also should be republished because the portions
referencing mercury monitoring were vacated in CAMR. Section
75.53(e)(1)(iv) refers to reporting of information on Hg monitors and
sorbent trap monitoring systems, and § 75.53(e)(1)(x) refers to
information on each stack using an Hg component monitor. Although the Hg
portions of these provisions are no longer in effect, to be consistent
with the other proposed revisions and to avoid confusion, EPA should
revise and repromulgate these provisions without the references to Hg,
sorbent trap monitoring system, and Hg. EPA also should ensure that
these requirements have been removed from the reporting format, schema,
and instructions.”

Response:  The proposed rule revisions that would remove all references
to mercury (Hg) monitoring from Part 75 have been finalized without
modification.  However, the commenter has correctly identified two
references to Hg monitoring in §75.53(e) which EPA apparently
overlooked.  The Agency has also identified a third reference in
§75.53(e) and another reference in §75.57 that were inadvertently
overlooked.  Section 75.53(e)(1)(i)(E) refers to Hg emission controls,
and Method of Determination Code (MODC) “15” in Table 4a in §75.57
refers to “Hg concentration”.  The final rule removes all four of
these references to Hg monitoring from Part 75.  All references to Hg
monitoring and reporting have also been removed from the “ECMPS
Reporting Instructions” (see the June 17, 2009 version and September
16, 2009 addendum, which are posted on the Clean Air Markets Division
web site at the following address:     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/reporting-instructions.htm
l"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/reporting-instructions.html
.  However, certain schema elements had already been incorporated by the
time of the court vacatur of CAMR, (e.g., <CalibrationStandardData>
record intended to collect whether elemental or oxidized mercury
standards were used for daily calibration).  EPA continues to affirm
that it is unnecessary to remove such records from the reporting format
(or schema) since there are no requirements to use these fields or any
of the mercury specific codes.  As such these records are in essence
vestigial, lying behind the scenes unnoticeable by anyone who isn’t a
DAHS programmer able to understand the format code and view these few,
unused fields.  Removing such would unnecessarily result in added
reprogramming cost to both the tax payer and industry.

Note that minor changes have been made to a few of the rule sections in
which the Hg monitoring provisions were found.  These changes were
described under “Miscellaneous Corrections and Additions” in the
preamble to the proposed rule, and have been finalized without
modification.

17) Comment:  “Section 75.4(b) addresses the deadline for completion
of monitoring system certification tests for new and newly affected
units. EPA proposes to revise §§ 75.4(b)(2) and (c)(2) to remove the
alternative 90 unit operating day time frame for completing tests, and
to allow all units up to 180 calendar days. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399.  EPA
states the purpose of the change is to clarify and simplify the deadline
determination.

“Although UARG does not object to this specific revision, which allows
units more time to complete testing, EPA’s rationale for the change is
unclear. Calculation of operating days is neither difficult nor unclear
for Part 75 sources. Part 75 defines unit operating day as a day during
which a unit combusts any fuel and Part 75 requires sources to record
each unit’s operating time on an hourly basis. 40 C.F.R. §§ 72.2 and
75.57(b)(2). As a result, to the extent EPA is suggesting that operating
days are not sufficiently clear to be used as a measure of time under
any other provision of Part 75, UARG disagrees. In short, UARG supports
this revision because it provides more time, but does not necessarily
agree with EPA’s stated reasons.”

Response:  The proposed revisions to §§75.4(b)(2) and 75.4(c)(2) have
been finalized without modification.  However, for the record, EPA
wishes to clarify its reasons for making these rule changes.  The Agency
agrees with the commenter that calculation of the number of unit
operating days is neither difficult nor unclear in the regulation.  For
new Acid Rain Program (ARP) units under §75.4(b)(2),  the difficulty
lies in determining when a unit’s 90th operating day occurs in
relation to the date on which the unit commenced commercial operation
(CCO) (i.e., whether the 90th operating day is prior to, coincident
with, or after the 180th calendar day following CCO).  For
newly-affected Acid Rain units under §75.4(c)(2), it is also difficult
to establish when the  unit’s 90th operating day occurs in relation to
the date on which the unit first operates after becoming subject to the
ARP.

In accordance with 40 CFR 72.9(c)(3)(iv), a new or newly affected Acid
Rain unit is required to hold allowances equal to its SO2 emissions as
of the deadline for monitor certification.  Historically, for new units
that date has been either the 90th operating day after CCO (if operating
day 90 occurs before calendar day 180) or the 180th calendar day after
CCO (if calendar day 180 occurs before the 90th operating day).  Newly
affected units under §75.4(c)(2) that have lost their Acid Rain-exempt
status are required to hold allowances either 90 operating days after
the date on which the unit “first operates after becoming subject to
the requirements of the Acid Rain Program” or 180 calendar days after
that date (whichever occurs first).

The emissions reporting provisions of §75.64(a) further complicate the
process of determining the exact date on which SO2 allowance holding
must begin.  Section 75.64(a) requires new or newly-affected units to
begin reporting emissions data on the earlier of: (1) the date on which
monitor certification is completed; or (2) the expiration of the monitor
certification deadline.   Most units complete certification well before
the deadline and begin electronic data reporting at that point.
However, the first electronic report submitted to EPA does not contain
any unit operating data prior to the date on which monitor certification
was completed.  This often makes it impossible to determine from the
report whether 90 unit operating days elapsed between the CCO date (or,
if applicable, the date on which the unit first operated after becoming
ARP-affected) and the date on which certification testing was completed.
  Without that information, the date on which SO2 allowances are first
required to be held cannot be established with certainty.   This places
an unnecessary administrative burden on EPA and regulated source because
EPA must require the sources to submit information identifying the 90th
operating day.

To simplify things, EPA has changed the window of time allotted for new
and newly-affected Acid Rain units to complete monitoring system
certification from a 90 operating day/180 calendar day window to 180
calendar days from a known date, i.e., from the CCO date (for new units)
or from the date on which the unit first becomes subject to the Acid
Rain Program (for newly-affected units).   Section 75.61(a)(2) already
requires the Designated Representative (DR) to provide notification to
EPA of the date on which a new Acid Rain unit commences commercial
operation.  For a newly-affected Acid Rain unit, §75.61(a)(2) already
requires the DR to provide notification of the date on which the unit
becomes subject to the ARP.

18) Comment:  “Section 75.4(e) addresses the deadline for completion
of monitoring system certification tests for units that have added a new
stack or control device. EPA proposes to revise § 75.4(e) to remove the
reference to “existing unit” and make the provision applicable to
“certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests” at
all “affected units” that complete construction of a new stack or
flue, flue gas desulfurization system (FGD) or add-on NOx emission
control.  EPA also proposes to add language stating that if the project
involves both a new stack and a new control device, the deadline for
completion of testing must be determined from the date that emissions
exit the new stack. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399.

“UARG supports EPA’s proposed expansion of the provision to include
all affected units and all testing that may be triggered as a result of
construction of a new stack or control device. This revision is
consistent with the original intent of the provision, which was to
address deadlines for units that must relocate, replace, or retest
monitoring systems as a result of the addition of new controls,
regardless of when the unit commenced construction. UARG does not
believe the provision was ever intended to draw a distinction between
“existing” units as that term is defined under § 72.2 and other
units with previously certified monitoring systems. The addition of
recertification and diagnostic tests also is consistent with its EPA’s
intent and past implementation of the provision through guidance.

“However, UARG objects to EPA’s proposal to hold units that are
constructing both a new stack and a control device to a single testing
deadline based on use of the new stack. Although most sources likely
would try to time operation of a new control device to coincide with any
testing deadline created under § 75.4(e) as a result of use of a new
stack, there is no valid policy reason for limiting an owner/operator to
a single deadline or set of tests to validate the monitoring system. If
both a new stack and new control device are constructed, but there is a
delay between operation of the new stack and operation of the control
device, the unit should be allowed to certify the system initially
following operation of the new stack and then later recertify (or
perform appropriate diagnostic testing) based on a new deadline after
emissions pass through the control device. In that case, the subsequent
operation, not installation, of the control device would trigger a
separate, second testing deadline.

“If the owner/operator completes recertification on the monitoring
systems on a new stack prior to operating the new control device, data
from those monitoring system are valid unless or until the new control
device is operated. If operation of that new control device also
triggers testing of one or more monitoring systems, missing data
procedures under § 75.4(e) should be used for that system (or those
systems) until the second recertification or diagnostic testing is
completed with the control device operating. There is no policy basis to
require an owner/operator to miss a testing deadline, and trigger use of
missing data procedures, simply because a control device has not
operated within a certain period of time after operation of a new stack.
If EPA has a valid policy reason for limiting the number of
recertifications or diagnostic testing events under this provision, or
for applying missing data substitution procedures in that

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

Response:   EPA agrees in part with the commenter.  As noted above,
§75.4(e)(2), on its face, applies only to existing units (which are
generally units commencing commercial operation before November 1, 1990
and serving a generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe)
and thus was not intended to cover new units.  However, EPA agrees that
it is appropriate to expand §75.4(e)(2) to provide a similar approach
for monitoring compliance deadlines and missing data substitution for
new stack construction and add-on SO2 or NOx control installation at
both existing and new units and to cover recertification and diagnostic
tests, in addition to the certification tests covered by the existing
provision.  In addition, EPA agrees that in cases where a project
involves both new stack construction and installation of add-on SO2 or
NOx controls, the initial routing of flue gas through the new stack and
the initial operation of an add-on control device (i.e., when reagent is
first injected) should, if necessary, be treated as two separate events,
each of which is allotted a flexible 90 operating day/180 calendar day
window to complete all required certification and/or recertification
and/or diagnostic testing of the monitoring systems installed on the new
stack. Two separate compliance windows may be needed in cases where
there is a long interval of time between the starting dates of the two
events. Therefore, a new paragraph, (e)(3), has been added to §75.4(e)
to allow for  completion of CEMS certification and/or recertification
and/or diagnostic testing requirements for both new stack construction
and new add-on SO2 or NOx controls either: (a) within the window of time
provided for new stack construction; or (b)  within the separate window
of time applicable to such event provided under §75.4 (e)(1).

EPA also revised §75.4(e) to address the reporting of CEMS data, in
cases where only one compliance window is used, and where both windows
are used.  Section 75.4(e)(2), as revised, addresses how to report
emissions or flow rate data after emissions first pass through the new
stack or flue, or reagent is first injected into the flue gas
desulfurization system or add-on NOx emission controls, until all
required certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests
are successfully completed.  For example, if section 2 of Appendix A to
Part 75 requires two spans and ranges for the monitor that measures the
pollutant being removed by the add-on SO2 or NOx controls, certification
of the high measurement scale is sufficient to initiate reporting of
quality-assured data from that monitor.  All data recorded on the
certified high scale, including data that would ordinarily be required
to be recorded on the low scale, may be reported as quality-assured for
up to 60 unit or stack operating days after the first injection of
reagent into the control device.  Then, all required tests of the low
measurement scale must be completed within the 90 operating day/180
calendar day compliance window of time associated with the first
injection of reagent into the control device.

EPA believes that it is appropriate to allow temporary reporting of data
on a certified high measurement scale in the case of installing and
operating new add-on SO2 or NOx controls, primarily because it often
takes several days or weeks to stabilize a new add-on emissions control
device so that the desired percentage reduction in the SO2 or NOx
emission levels is consistently achieved.  During this period of time
(known as the “shakedown” period), a significant percentage of the
data from the SO2 or NOx monitor (as applicable) is likely to be too
high to be read on the low scale.  Further, even data that can be
recorded on the low scale during the shakedown period cannot be reported
as quality-assured, because a RATA must be performed on the low scale in
order to certify it, and this test cannot be done until the control
device has been stabilized.  The Agency believes that accepting low
readings recorded on a certified high scale for a short period of time
will not adversely impact the overall accuracy of the emissions data.
Other certified CEMS that have only one (high) measurement scale record
data on the lower part of the scale during short-term events such as
startup and shutdown, and  these data are accepted as quality-assured.

Revised §75.4(e)(2)(ii) allows conditional data validation procedures
in §75.20(b)(3) to be used for the entire 90 operating day/180 calendar
day window associated with new stack construction or addition of a new
emissions control device, rather than limiting the amount of time
available to complete the required testing to the shorter timelines in
§75.20(b)(3)(iv) .  This is appropriate for new stack construction
because the monitoring systems on the new stack are brand new systems
that must undergo certification testing.  The provisions of
§75.20(b)(3) and sections 6.3.1(a), 6.3.2(a), 6.6.4(a), and 6.5(f) of
Appendix A to Part 75 clearly allow conditional data validation to be
used for the entire window of time specified in §75.4, for the initial
certification of monitoring systems.  For the installation and operation
of add-on emissions controls, it is also appropriate to allow the use of
conditional data validation for the entire 90 operating day/180 calendar
day window, because instability during the shakedown period prevents the
required RATAs associated with the control device addition from being
done during that time period, and the shakedown period often extends
beyond the shorter conditional data validation timelines provided in
§75.20(b)(3)(iv).

A new paragraph, (e)(4), has also been added to §75.4(e) to address
special requirements that apply, in addition to the requirements in
paragraph (e)(2), to a project involving both a new stack and a new
add-on SO2 or NOx control device. For such a project, the emissions data
recorded by each CEMS on the new stack, starting on the date and hour on
which emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack and
ending on the hour before the date and hour on which reagent is first
injected into the control device, may be reported as quality assured (as
provided in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) and (iv)) only if  (1) a RATA of the
CEMS (as described in paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) or (ii)(A), depending on
the CEMS involved) is successfully completed either prior to the first
injection of reagent into the control device or in a period after the
first injection when the control device is not operating; and (2) the
rest of the required certification tests are successfully completed
within the 90 operating day/180 calendar day compliance window that
begins with the initial routing of flue gas through the new stack.  For
example, if the certification testing is done this way and conditional
data validation is used in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the
CEMS data may be reported as quality-assured, starting at the hour of
the probationary calibration error test, provided that all of the major
tests are passed in sequence, with no failures.  The RATA must be
performed prior to the initial injection of reagent into the control
device, or in a period after the first injection when the control device
is not operating, because the characteristics of the stack gas matrix
(e.g., gas concentrations, temperature, moisture content, and
concentration and flow profiles) when the control device is brought
on-line will differ significantly from the stack characteristics of the
uncontrolled unit.  Therefore, to validate CEMS data in the uncontrolled
time period between the first use of the new stack and the initial
injection of reagent, a RATA that represents the actual stack conditions
during that time interval must be performed and passed.  The other,
required certification tests, i.e., 7-day calibration error tests, cycle
time tests, and linearity checks, are not affected by the
characteristics of the stack gas matrix, and can be performed at any
time during the allotted window of time, whether or not reagent is being
injected.

Of course, under §75.4(e)(2), to the extent additional testing
requirements are triggered by the installation of the new add-on SO2 or
NOx controls in a project involving both a new stack and such new
controls, these tests must be successfully completed during the 90 unit
operating day/180 calendar day window that begins with the initial
injection of reagent.  Note that EPA intends to revise Questions 15.4,
15.6, and 15.7 in the “Part 75 Emissions Monitoring Policy Manual”
to be consistent with today’s revisions to §75.4(e).

	Even though EPA did not solicit comment on it, the commenter suggested
that EPA should consider broadening the provision to include any type of
emission control that might require recertification or diagnostic
testing of the monitoring systems on an affected unit.  At this time,
the Agency has no plans to make this amendment to §75.4(e), but will
consider it if and when pollutants other than SO2 and NOx that are
likely to require installation of add-on emission controls become
subject to Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements.

19 Comment:  “EPA proposes to add a number of new recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for monitoring plans and quarterly reports. 75
Fed. Reg. at 33,399. Many of these new provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“EPA misconstrues the nature of its obligation to support new
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, provide reasonable
implementation periods, and estimate the costs of compliance.  Although
UARG agrees that EPA’s reporting format must be consistent with the
reporting requirements in Part 75, the fact that a requirement to report
information is already in EPA’s reporting format (unlawfully) is not a
sufficient reason for adding a new requirement to the rule.  To revise
the rule to require reporting of the information, EPA must explain why
the information is important to its implementation of the program.
Although EPA may have genuine need for the information, that need is not
identified in the proposal. Similarly, EPA cannot deprive sources of a
reasonable implementation period or avoid including the requested
information in its ICR simply because the Agency previously unlawfully
required sources to report it. EPA must explain why it wants this
information, estimate how must it will cost (or has cost) to collect and
report the information in EPA’s reporting format, and provide sources
a reasonable period of time after publication of the final rule to
collect the required information and make any necessary software
adjustments.”

Response:  Throughout the process of development, EPA published many
versions of the reporting formats and detailed instructions and took
extensive comment on these working documents.  The Agency is confident
that all sources subject to Part 75 have already incorporated these data
elements into their DAHS and met the corresponding reporting deadlines.
However, in the unlikely event that a source subject to Part 75 has not
reported these data elements to EPA, it may submit a petition under
75.66 requesting additional time to comply.  The cost of recording and
reporting these data elements was included in the ICR for the January
24, 2008 final rule (73 FR 4337).

The following paragraphs explain why the data elements in §§
75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F),
(g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and (h)(5), §§
75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)–(H), §§ 75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L),
(a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G), (d)(3)(xii) and (xiii) are important for
program implementation.

	The final rule includes activation and deactivation dates for various
records for the monitoring plan data elements that were inadvertently
left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008
final rule.  The original EDR format was designed with the incorrect
notion that certain information collected in the monitoring plan would
not change or would only be updated at quarterly intervals.  We now know
that these assumptions are incorrect and that it is not only important
to collect the data elements listed in Subpart F, but also to know when
the data were applicable.  The expansion in the usage of date fields to
track the change in reported data is necessary for data management and
has proven to lower the reporting burden by reducing confusion and
simplifying the manner in which changes to monitoring plan information
may be reported.

	In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation
dates for the exhaust configuration for the units in the monitoring plan
because it affects the certification or recertification deadline for the
relevant monitoring systems.

	In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(C), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation
dates for the following items: stack exit height (ft) above ground level
and ground level elevation above sea level, and the inside
cross-sectional area (ft2) at the flue exit and at the flow monitoring
location (for units with flow monitors, only), and appropriate codes to
indicate the material(s) of

construction and the shape(s) of the stack or duct cross-section(s) at
the flue exit and (if applicable) at the flow monitor location because
EPA needs to know when changes are made to these parameters for program
evaluation (modeling), ECMPS QA checks on mass emission calculations,
and proper application of default wall effect correction factors (Method
2H and CTM-041), respectively.

	In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(F), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation
dates for the maximum hourly heat input capacity of each unit to
determine when new appendix E heat input vs NOx correlation, and maximum
potential velocity values should commence.

In 75.53(g)(1)(v)(F), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation
dates for measurement scale and dual span information to determine when
certain QA checks should commence and the appropriateness of span, range
and calibration gas values.

In 75.53(h)(2)(i) and 75.53(h)(5), the Agency needs the activation and
deactivation date for peaking unit and gas-fired unit, respectively, for
qualification information because it can affect the monitoring and QA
requirements.

In 75.53(g)(1)(v)(G), the Agency needs to know if an autoranging
analyzer is being used because it affects the type of ECMPS QA checks.

In 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)-(H), the Agency needs the operating codes for the
following to accommodate and determine the proper use of all missing
data scenarios outlined in appendix E, section 2.5: unit operated on
emergency fuel; correlation curve for the fuel mixture has expired;
operating parameter is outside of normal limits; uncontrolled hour;
operation above highest tested heat input rate point on the curve;
operating parameter data missing or invalid; designated operational and
control equipment parameters within normal limits; and operation below
lowest tested heat input rate point on the curve.

In 75.59(a)(1)(iii), EPA needs the minute recorded in addition to the
date and hour for the following: all daily and 7-day calibration error
tests, and all off-line calibration demonstrations, including any
follow-up tests after corrective action.  An affected unit may attempt
more than one daily calibration in a given hour.  ECMPS requires
reporting of the date, hour, and minute of each calibration injection,
but Subpart F currently includes reporting of only the date and hour.
Without data on the minute of each calibration injection, it impossible
to establish which attempt in a given hour was first, second, or
otherwise and so it is difficult for EPA software to validate data for
specific hours.  Therefore, DAHS vendors suggested and industry
generally supported adding the minute of the hour to the reported date
and time for each calibration sequence.

	In 75.59(a)(5)(ii)(L), EPA needs units that do not produce electrical
or thermal output to record the average stack gas velocity at the
operating level being tested to determine the range of operation and
whether the unit is at the proper operating level for a relative
accuracy test audit (RATA).  (For a non-load unit, Appendix A
§<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(2) provides for use of average velocity in lieu of
electrical or thermal load for determining the range of operation and
the appropriate operating levels for performing RATAs.)

In 75.59(a)(5)(iii)(H), EPA needs the RATA frequency code to help
determine whether the affected unit is performing RATAs at the required
frequency and to determine the appropriate operating levels for flow
RATAs.

	In 75.59(a)(12)(iv)(G), EPA needs the fuel code for Ozone Season Only
reporters for a fuel flowmeter accuracy test extension for two reasons.
An affected unit can obtain a fuel-specific extension of the fuel flow
meter accuracy test deadline for a fuel flow meter used for less than
168 hours during a calendar quarter for which no emission report is
submitted.  A fuel code is necessary for units that have the ability to
combust multiple fuels so that the extension is provided for the correct
fuel flow meter system, and to ensure that the appropriate appendix D
substitute data procedure is applied.

In 75.53(g)(1)(vi)(J), the Agency needs to know the group identification
code because it is used to cross reference the fuel-and-unit-specific
default NOx emission rate used by a specific unit that is part of an
identical group.  In 75.59(d)(3)(xii) and 75.59(d)(3)(xiii), EPA needs
the number of tests and the number of units, respectively, in the group
of identical low mass emitting units to ensure that the requirements of
§75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B) and Table LM-4 are met.

20) Comment:  “EPA proposes to add new §§ 75.62(d) and 75.63(d) to
require submission of a hard copy cover letter and certification
statement with each hard copy monitoring plan and certification or
recertification application, and to allow inclusion of explanatory text
or comments in the electronic portion of a monitoring plan and
certification or recertification application. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,400.
UARG does not object to the cover letter requirement for hard copy
reports and supports the explicit authorization for explanatory
information or comments to support the certification statements embedded
in EPA’s ECMPS reporting software. Although UARG does not believe EPA
has the authority to prohibit sources from including such text, the
rules would be improved by making the option explicit in the rules.
Since quarterly reports also are required to contain compliance
certifications, UARG requests that EPA revise § 75.64(g) to explicitly
state that explanatory text or comments to support the certification may
be included in a quarterly report as well.”

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter that Part 75 would be improved
by explicitly allowing explanatory information and/or comments to be
added to the quarterly electronic data reports, in support of the
certification statements embedded in the ECMPS software.  Therefore, the
text of §75.64(g) has been revised accordingly.  The reference to cover
letters accompanying the electronic quarterly reports is outdated and
has been removed.  However, cover letters are still allowed for hardcopy
monitoring plan and certification or recertification submittals in
§75.62 and §75.63, respectively.

21) Comment:  “Section 4 of Appendix A addresses requirements for
sources’ DAHS. EPA proposes to revise this provision to remove
references to technology (e.g., ASCII flat files, electronic transfer
via modem, and IBM-compatible personal computer diskettes) that are not
used under EPA’s ECMPS program and to require instead that the DAHS
record information “in an electronic format.” UARG supports these
revisions, which are consistent with comments UARG made on the 2006
proposed rule. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132-0079. UARG also supports EPA’s
proposal to remove references to mercury monitoring systems from this
section.”

Response:  The Agency agrees with the comment.

22) Comment:  EPA should include: (1) the cost for staff time to develop
and implement the quality manual required by the ASTM practice,
including document control procedures, hiring of additional personnel,
performance of annual audits, and documentation of corrective action,
(2) application fees and the cost of preparing applications for
accreditation and/or QI qualification, (3) the cost of QI exams,
including tuition for preparatory courses, exam fees, and travel
expenses, (4) any new costs associated with preparation of test plans
and reports to comply with the specific criteria in the practice, and
(5) cost of required records storage and backup.

Response:  The Agency believes that AETBs should already be operating in
a manner consistent with ASTM D 7036-04.  However, EPA revised the ICR
to include additional supporting detail for the estimated burden
associated with increased annual quality-assurance and maintenance for
each unit.  Based on information provided by stack testing firms, a
conservative one percent increase was applied to the previously
established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent facility.  This
is based on the average stack testing industry costs of preparing a
QA/QC manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification ($1,200), and annual
operating costs of maintaining the quality control system ($5,000 –
$50,000 depending on size).  The increased stack testing overhead costs
translate into an increased performance test cost of $68 to $549 per
RATA test depending on the size of the company.  The increase cost per
test drops even further if applied to all types of tests performed by
typical stack testing companies.  The costs will be passed through to
the customers, which are generally sources subject to Part 75, including
large electric utility and industrial companies.  See Document ID#s
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0051, -0055, -0059, and -0071 for additional cost
details.

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

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

Response:  The Agency has decided to finalize a refined PGVP in §
75.21(g) instead of requiring compliance with ISO 17025.

	EPA has no objection to specialty gas companies certifying or
accrediting to ISO 17025 “General Requirements for the Competence of
Testing and Calibration Laboratories”, but encourages companies to
participate in the PGVP.  Certifying or accrediting to ISO 17025 can be
beneficial.  However, the purpose of the ISO standard is different than
the purpose of the PGVP.  The purpose of ISO 17025 is to better assure
that a laboratory has proper quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) practices in place.  The idea is that if proper QA/QC practices
are in place, better products will result.  However, this may not always
be the case.  As a matter of fact, one manufacturer (Scott Specialty
Gases, now a part of Air Liquide) pointed out that ISO 17025
certification is not only extremely expensive, but it does not guarantee
that a better protocol product will be manufactured.  For example, one
gas manufacturer which held certification to the ISO standard registered
at least 1 failure in a blind audit (see Document ID #
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0069 and -0070 in the docket).

The only audits that ISO 17025 requires are internal audits of
procedures, not products.  The ISO standard states that these internal
audits are to be conducted “periodically”, with no time frame
specified.  The results of these audits are to be provided to clients of
the laboratory, but it is not clear that the results would be publicly
available.  Thus potential future clients may not be aware of how the
laboratory was performing. The Agency believes that the PGVP audit
results should be publicly available to allow potential EPA Protocol gas
customers to make a more informed purchasing decision.

	The accuracy of EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases are
used to help ensure that the national emission reduction goals of the
Clean Air Act are met.  The Agency’s goal is to implement a cylinder
audit program to better ensure the quality of these gases.  EPA believes
the best way to do that is to implement a PGVP and have a blind sample
of cylinders analyzed by an independent, nationally recognized
laboratory, e.g., the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  A
blind sample is necessary to ensure that the cylinders analyzed are more
representative of routine production at each production site rather than
representative of the best possible performance that would likely occur
if the production site knew that its cylinder was being audited.

	Small and large specialty gas companies commented that requiring
conformance to ISO 17025 would be significantly more expensive than
complying with the PGVP (see Document ID #s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0057,
-0065, -0066, -0067, -0068, -0069, -0070, and -0073 in the docket).  One
large specialty gas company stated that the PGVP would be more cost
effective and would provide an actual representation of the quality of
EPA Protocol gas cylinders.

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

Response:  The commenter does not provide any supporting data.  EPA
believes the costs are reasonable and justified.  See previous response.
 Eleven commenters, including one representing seven specialty gas
companies representing the vast majority of EPA Protocol gases in the
U.S., supported the PGVP, and three commenters opposed it.  A 2003 EPA
audit (see Document ID #s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0011, -0074, -0075, and
-0076 in the docket) of EPA Protocol gases found an unacceptably high
failure rate (11% of all components analyzed, with 57% of the production
sites failing at least one gaseous component) with respect to the + 2%
standard in 40 CFR Part 75.  A 2009 EPA Inspector General audit (see
Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0064 in the docket) also found an 11%
failure rate over all components analyzed, with 39% of the production
sites failing at least one gaseous component.  The IG recommended that
EPA implement an ongoing PGVP.  A 2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found
a 10% failure rate over all components analyzed, with 40% of the
production sites failing at least one gaseous component.  The Agency
believes that these results indicate a need for improvement.

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

Response:  To obtain cylinders to be audited, EPA agrees with the
commenter that perhaps the best way to ensure a blind sample is by
hiring companies that normally use EPA Protocol gases.  The Agency also
agrees that obtaining a blind sample of cylinders is better assured if
the cylinders are not purchased directly by EPA headquarters or an EPA
contractor that normally does not use EPA Protocol gases.

4) Comment:  “EPA should retain discretion to adjust the numbers of
sites or cylinders or timing of testing.”  “Should EPA adopt Option
1 in the final rule, the rule should make clear that a facility would
remain on the qualified producer list if it is registered and has met
all other requirements for that year, regardless of whether cylinders
have been audited from that facility or not.”

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter that Option 4 is the preferred
option and provides the Agency maximum flexibility in implementing the
PGVP.  As suggested, the Agency has revised the final rule to clarify
that a facility would remain on the qualified producer list if it is
registered and has met all other requirements for that year, regardless
of whether cylinders have been audited from that facility.

5) Comment:  “Gas producer proof of cancellation of order should be
permitted to be made electronically and within 4 to 6 weeks rather than
2 weeks.”

Response:  The Agency agrees with the commenter.  However, EPA had
allowed only two weeks to receive an invoice cancellation from the
production site for two reasons: (1) to minimize the time required to
complete the PGVP annual audit because EPA would not ship cylinders to
NIST prior to receiving an invoice cancellation or credit receipt; and
(2) to minimize any demurrage charges from a production site that had
submitted the required information to participate, but then changed its
mind after EPA had procured its cylinders for audit.  Because of the
time commonly required to issue or cancel invoices, EPA has allowed up
to 45 calendar days to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt
(electronic or hardcopy) in the final rule.  However, to address the
scenario identified in (2) above, §75.21(g)(5)(ii) of the final rule
specifies that in such a situation the cylinders shall be returned to
the production site free of any demurrage.

6) Comment:  “The list of proposed codes should include an option for
“other”.”

Response:   The Protocol gas type codes have been revised to include an
Other EPA-Approved EPA Protocol  Gas Blend category.  However, sources
will need to receive EPA approval to use it.  EPA has found that if an
“Other” category is allowed, sources will sometimes simply use that
category instead of selecting the correct one.   EPA will add new codes
to ECMPS as needed;  the ECMPS system allows these types of additions to
be made quickly and easily.  EPA will make clear in the electronic
reporting instructions that the list is not exclusive, and that other
types of EPA Protocol gases could be made to meet customer needs.

7) Comment:  The proposed analytic uncertainty text (in 5.1.4(b) and
5.1.5) should be adopted.

Response:  Three commenters favored retaining the section 5.1.4(b)
wording currently in Part 75, and only one commenter was against it.
Although, the Agency was concerned about potential enforcement issues
due to the inherent uncertainty related to a 95-percent confidence
interval, it is not aware of any actual issues related to that
uncertainty.  Calculation of a 95-percent confidence interval is
required by section 2.2.2 of the “EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards”.  Therefore, EPA
has retained a 95-percent confidence interval in section 5.1.4(b) of
Appendix A of the final rule.  For consistency, the 95-percent
confidence interval requirement has also been included in the research
gas mixtures provision in section 5.1.5.

8) Comment:  “EPA should adopt a 2% uncertainty for the NIST analysis
of the cylinders.”

Response:  The Agency disagrees.  An expanded uncertainty (coverage
factor k = 2) of 1.0% (NIST calculated combined standard uncertainty of
0.5%) in the NIST analysis was assumed when the PGVP costs were
estimated in the proposed rule.  A 2010 EPA audit of EPA Protocol gases
required a 0.5% uncertainty in the NIST analysis for gas concentrations
commonly used by Part 75 sources.  If EPA were to allow the uncertainty
of the NIST analysis to be up to +2.0%, the audit results would need to
allow for approximately a 4.0% difference between the NIST result and
the vendor result before a cylinder could be said to fail.  A +2.0%
uncertainty for the NIST audit results defeats the purpose of the PGVP.
The Part 75 accuracy standard for EPA Protocol gases is +2.0% (see Part
75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)).  To verify that a gas meets this
standard, ideally NIST would need to have a 0.0% uncertainty.  The
further away the NIST audit results are from a 0.0% uncertainty, the
less certain this standard is achieved.  Section 75.21(g)(9)(ii) in the
final rule allows EPA to approve a greater NIST analytical uncertainty
if required, e.g., for certain low concentration gases.. EPA has added
two new definitions in section 72.2 to help clarify the terms
“expanded uncertainty” and “coverage factor”.

Scott-Marrin, Inc. Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0033)

1) Comment:  The proposed PGVP program is redundant and, therefore,
unnecessary.  The Region 7 EPA office in St. Louis, Missouri has
recently implemented a competing PGVP program.  Why are there two
closely competing PGVP programs within EPA?  In addition, the proposed
PGVP program is exorbitantly expensive because it uses the analytical
services of NIST.  These costs are to be borne by the gas manufacturer
and will, therefore, put an undue financial burden on smaller EPA
Protocol gas producers.

Response:  The ambient PGVP program is administered by Mike Papp (OAQPS,
EPA), with lab work performed by EPA Regions 2 and 7.  This program
serves the ambient monitoring community by checking the accuracy of
ambient-level EPA Protocol gases.  The PGVP proposed on June 11, 2010
(see 75 FR 33392-33420, June 11, 2010) is an audit program for Part 75
source-level EPA Protocol gases and serves the source monitoring
community.  See EPA’s response to Airgas’s #1 comment regarding
cost.

Airgas Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0028, 0030, and 0031)

1) Comment:  “The proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program is
important to maintain the integrity of EPA protocol gas quality.
Historically we have seen that when there is no audit program the
accuracy of the EPA protocol gases tends to drift industry wide.  Such a
program would ensure that vendors are being held to a higher standard of
accuracy as subscribed to in the “EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards.

	“The public information from the audit of EPA protocol gases in the
PGVP would allow all users of EPA protocol gases more knowledge about
different EPA protocol gas manufacturing locations.  Without this
program there could be further accuracy issues which would affect the
quality of data for part 75 facilities reporting emissions.”

	“For gas manufacturers, it would be most helpful if EPA were able to
get a price per cylinder for analysis by NIST that would remain the same
for a minimum of two years.  The reason for the price is it will allow
us to budget for what the maximum cost per manufacturing facility will
be.”

	“As a major Gas manufacturer we have never had any issue getting any
EPA protocol gas to within +-2% from the tag value.  We and others in
our industry have produced thousands of EPA protocol gases for EPA
turbines with NOx routinely down to 2.5ppm and CO down to 3ppm.

“I and other gas manufacturers of EPA protocol gases believe that EPA
should keep the +-2% requirement no matter what the pollutant or the ppm
range of the gas.”

Response:  The Agency agrees with the commenter that the PGVP program is
important to maintain the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases and to help
inform gas users of the performance of each EPA Protocol gas production
site.  EPA Protocol gas production sites may make whatever arrangements
are agreeable between them and NIST regarding costs.

EPA performed an audit of EPA Protocol gases in 2010 and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) analyzed the cylinders EPA
collected in the audit.  NIST provided an initial estimate of $2,000 per
cylinder to analyze tri-blend gas mixtures in the 2010 audit.  The
following costs for the PGVP are based on assumptions similar to those
made for the 2010 audit.  These assumptions are: (a) that only NO, SO2
and CO2 will be analyzed; (b) that only these compounds are within the
gas mixture along with balance gas nitrogen (additional compounds within
the gas mixture, even if they are not analyzed, complicate the analysis
of the primary components); and (c) that the concentrations will all
fall within a relatively narrow band that can be defined in the low, mid
and high ranges.  EPA notes that these assumptions may not hold from
year-to-year, but believes that the following cost estimates are
generally conservative.  The 2010 audit consumed 715 hours of time to
analyze and report on 57 cylinders.  NIST believes they have designed a
better sampling system and can reduce that time to 550 hours for the
same 57 cylinders.  This amount of resources equals $1,500 per cylinder
analysis and report production, and is NIST’s estimate for those
activities for a similar PGVP audit in 2011.  Assuming the above
assumptions hold, NIST has agreed to commit to this cost estimate for
three years, until 2013 (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0058 in
the docket).

The following costs are based on EPA’s 2010 Protocol gas audit.  If
NIST analyzes 4 cylinders from each production site, the total annual
cost due to the PGVP would be approximately $7,200 per production site
(for details on the per cylinder cost, see Document ID#
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0007 in the docket).  This cost includes cylinder
analysis and report production by NIST ($1,667/cylinder), average
one-way shipping costs back to the production site ($91/cylinder), and
average rental ($7/cylinder/month).  The $1,667/cylinder cost estimate
covers some deviations, e.g., there may be carbon monoxide in the gas
mixtures, from the assumptions made for the 2010 audit, and is therefore
higher than the $1,500/cylinder NIST commitment.  The total cost of NIST
analysis, report production, six months cylinder rental, and shipping
back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per cylinder (see
Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0007 in the docket).

EPA estimates that the average increased cost due to the PGVP will be
approximately $2 per cylinder (see Table 3 in the ICR for the final
rule, see Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837).  This estimate was derived from
correspondence with both large and small specialty gas companies, which
based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and
the above cost estimates.  For a small company that sells fewer
cylinders per year, the cost per cylinder will be higher than for a
larger company.  However, even for a small company, the increased $2.00
per cylinder cost due to the PGVP is insignificant in comparison to the
wide range of cost for the same type of EPA Protocol gas cylinder (EPA
found the 2010 cost of the same tri-blend EPA Protocol cylinder ranged
from approximately $225 - $665 in the U.S. (see Document ID#
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0009 in the docket)).

To maintain these costs, scheduling of the PGVP audit activity during
the year must be strictly followed by all the companies involved in the
audit.  Economy of batching similar gas cylinders and receipt of all
similar cylinders within a specific time frame will enable NIST to
control costs.  Those cylinders with the appropriate funding documents
that arrive within that time frame will be part of the audit.  Those
that do not will be excluded.  That is the only way NIST will be able
to control costs.  The costs are further minimized by the 4 cylinder
limit per production site, and the cost containment measures implemented
by NIST and described in the preamble to the proposed rule.

EPA only received one comment supporting an alternative specification
for very low concentration gases, and only one comment specifically
stating that an alternative specification is not necessary.  Given the
comments received, the Agency is uncertain whether an alternative
specification for very low concentration gases is necessary.  EPA did
not receive any supporting data from the commenter that supported such a
specification.  Therefore, EPA will retain the same +2% standard for low
concentration gases in the final rule.

Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases Comments (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0047)

1) Comment:  Enthusiastically supports the proposed Protocol Gas
Verification Program; and strongly urges the Agency to look at ways to
make the program more rigorous.

Linde believes that if the cylinders for audit are procured by local
companies, there would be less chance of compromising the blindness,
e.g., if gases are manufactured in Whitby, Ontario, Canada, then gases
should be procured by a company based locally in the Toronto area.

The commenter suggests that EPA allow 30-45 days for a PGVP participant
to issue either a credit or invoice cancellation.

Linde prefers Option 4 in the proposed rule preamble.  Option 1 allows
for the analysis to take longer than anticipated – perhaps EPA should
investigate other analysis options to ensure timely completion.  Option
2 reduces the number of cylinders per site.  While the proposed four
cylinders do not constitute a representative sample, two cylinders would
be even less so.  Option 3 eliminates some sites from producers with
multiple sites.  As was shown in the Inspector General’s report, it is
possible, indeed likely, that a manufacturer with multiple sites will
have some that “pass” and some that “fail”.

EPA requested comments on the coding of Protocol gases.  There were no
codes for carbon monoxide, CO, as a stand alone in a balance gas.  Linde
suggests that code “C” be used for CO and C2 be used for CO2.

Regarding calibration gas tag values, “In the world of specialty gas
manufacturers this uncertainty has been informally codified as being
expressed at the 95% confidence interval.  This confidence interval is
recognized by the EPA in the “Green Book”, EPA-600/R-97/121,
Appendices A, B, and C, where the methodology for determining the tag
value and the uncertainty associated with the tag value are
described.”  “We believe that the current status is scientifically
defensible and as such should remain.”

Response:  EPA generally agrees with the Linde comments and has made
appropriate changes in the final rule, including allowing 45 calendar
days to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or
hardcopy) in the final rule.

EPA must use “CO2” as the code for CO2 because it is used thoughout
EPA’s database to describe that parameter and EPA wants to maintain
consistent code conventions in the ECMPS reporting software.  The data
structure in ECMPS cannot accommodate a single-blend carbon monoxide
gas.  Under Part 75, carbon monoxide (CO) is not regulated and is not
required to be recorded or reported.  Therefore, a code for that single
blend CO gas cylinder will not be included in the reporting
instructions.

EPA has also slightly revised the last sentence in §75.21(g)(9)(iv) to
allow more flexibility in how EPA reports PGVP audit results on its web
sites.  The Agency believes that the PGVP can be made more rigorous by
allowing greater flexibility in the formatting of audit results, instead
of holding to the same format as in the NIST audit report.  This may
allow potential EPA Protocol gas customers to more easily find and
purchase from the EPA Protocol gas production sites that performed best
in the audit.

EPA has added the following text in section 75.21(g)(9)(iv) to allow
more expeditious posting of audit results: “To be considered in the
final posted audit report, EPA must receive comments and any cylinder
re-analyses from EPA Protocol gas production sites within 60 days of the
EPA Protocol gas production site’s receipt of the draft redacted audit
report sent by EPA.”

	EPA has added electronic recordkeeping and reporting of cylinder
expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any
certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance test
required under Part 75.  The Agency believes that this will strengthen
the PGVP by reducing or eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and by
improving the tracking of cylinder information.  Section
75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two items to
be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy only, and section
75.60(b)(6) already requires these two items to be reported in a
hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA Regional Office upon
request.

	For EPA’s response regarding a 95-percent confidence interval, please
see EPA’s response to Air Liquide’s #7 Comment.

Jack Herbert Comments (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0034)

1) Comment:  “This contains comments from Jack Herbert and Mark Bailey
with agreement by Rai Peterson.  It has not been submitted for Oregon
DEQ approval.

Please remove Appendix A, Section 6.1.2(f).

1)	This section has no legal consequence and no benefit.  Certification
of testers and of a Qualified Individual on or leading the test team
will not change evaluations and use of tests and test reports: with or
without it, regulators should evaluate tests and test reports, and, if
they find the work and records valid, accept the “validity of test
data that otherwise meet the requirements of this part”.

This rule accomplishes requiring certified people to do the test.  Once
such people have performed the test, it has no more legal effect.

2)	This section will give the false impression to those who do not know
that Part 75 requires correct test performance that review is superseded
by tester accreditation and QI participation, that their testing must be
accepted as valid.

a)	It is unfair and a disservice to all to give this impression to
facilities and testers.  It will lead to substandard testing, which may
get approved anyway and costs everyone involved extra effort, time, and
expense.

b)	Many regulatory agencies will have this impression and will not
reject invalid testing performed by accredited testers with QIs on their
teams because they will believe that this section says they have to
accept the test results.

Do not give this false impression.  It will lead to worse testing and
more acceptance of invalid testing.

3)	 Accreditation does not mean a test is valid.  Some regulatory
agencies will believe this section means this.  This section then leads
to lack of review and of enforcement of valid testing; the incentive for
testers will be to get accreditation, then cut corners.

We all know unplanned things happen while source testing that may
require method modification.  However, source testers seem to forget or
not realize they are actually modifying the test method.”

Response:   EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or
operator of a source responsible for certain actions (or inactions)
related to an external AETB’s compliance with ASTM D7036-04 and
attempted to address this in section 6.1.2(f) of the proposed rule by
limiting the responsibility of the owner or operator of a Part 75
source.

	As the commenter states, several sections of Part 75 require affected
units to meet certification and ongoing QA/QC requirements:  §75.4(f)
requires sources using Appendix E to meet those requirements.  Section
75.4(j) requires successful completion of certification tests or use of
maximum potential concentration, maximum potential flow, maximum
potential NOx emission rate, or use appropriate reference methods or
another procedure approved by the Administrator.  Section 75.5(b) states
that no affected unit shall be operated without complying with the
requirements of §§ 75.2–75.75 and Appendices A-G to Part 75.
Section 75.10(b) requires that sources meet the performance
specifications in Appendix A to Part 75.  (The Appendix A relative
accuracy performance specifications are also required for the ongoing
relative accuracy tests in Appendix B to Part 75.)

EPA believes that the language in Appendix A, section 6.1.2(f) is clear
that all Part 75 testing requirements must be met.  However, the Agency
understands the concern of the commenter, and has amended 6.1.2(f) in
the final rule to read as follows:  “Except as provided in paragraph
(e), no RATA performed pursuant to §75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 of
appendix A to this part or section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, and
no stack test under § 75.19 or Appendix E to this part (or portion of
such a RATA or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as defined in § 72.2)
shall be invalidated under this part as a result of the failure of the
AETB to conform to ASTM D 7036-04.  Validation of such tests is
determined based on the other part 75 testing requirements.  EPA
recommends that proper observation of tests and review of test results
continue, regardless of whether an AETB fully conforms to ASTM
D7036-04.”

Source Evaluation Society Comments (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0027)

1) Comment:  “The Source Evaluation Society was organized in 1974 and
now includes over 1,000 individual members actively involved in the
field of emission measurement including air emissions test
professionals, analytical laboratory professionals, regulatory agency
employees, source owner and operator staff members, and equipment and
supplies vendors.  The mission of the Source Evaluation Society (SES) is
to advance the applied sciences relating to source evaluation with
respect to air pollution and air pollution control by:

(1) Promoting the development of concepts and techniques relating to the
field;

(2) Encouraging related professional development and knowledge; and

(3) Striving to ensure the highest professional standards by its
members.”

“The Source Evaluation Society consisting of 1100 plus members of the
stack testing community whole heartedly endorses the new Protocol Gas
Verification Program listed in the Federal Register on June 11, 2010.
The program will be an independent quality check of the EPA protocol
gases which are a vital part of testing for calibration and
verification.  The PGVP program will be a good guide for companies that
are required to use EPA protocol gases to check vendors and their
quality.  The program will put the costs back on the EPA protocol gas
vendors, which is appropriate as EPA does not have sufficient funding to
provide for an independent company.  The published purpose of the
proposed EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) is to ensure the
accuracy of EPA Protocol gases.  SES agrees that a Protocol Gas
Verification Program would be beneficial in providing more accurate
results for stack test data and SES encourages such a program from
EPA.”

	“Many of our members have commented that discrepancies in Protocol
Gas analyses have been noted.  Improving the consistency between
suppliers and within the products of the same suppliers will serve to
minimize these discrepancies, resulting in more accurate determination
of emissions while saving time and expenses expended when trying to
resolve the source of discrepancies.

	“Including the requirement to have both the gases used by the source
for calibrating Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) as well
as those used by the Air Emission Test Body (AETB) conducting accuracy
audits of these systems be prepared by PGVP participating providers will
further serve to minimize these discrepancies.  We further suggest to
EPA that this requirement become part of the Reference Methods (e.g. 3A,
6C, 7E, etc.) used by AETBs when performing any emission test for
regulatory purposes.”

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter.  However, the Agency cannot
amend 40 CFR Part 60 EPA reference methods in this rulemaking because
those changes were not part of the proposed rule and were not subject to
public comment.  Amending the relevant EPA reference methods to require
use of EPA Protocol gases produced by PGVP participants may be
considered in future rulemakings.

2) Comment:  “The proposed amendments state that affected units would
report the vendor ID as a required data element in each electronic
quarterly report, thus confirming that the affected unit’s calibration
gases are being supplied by a participating EPA Protocol gas production
site.  We suggest that provisions should be made for the inclusion of
multiple vendor IDs for different gases as this case is likely to occur
in practice.”

Response:  EPA agrees, and the final rule and ECMPS reporting software
allow this.

3) Comment:  “We support that the names of EPA Protocol gas production
sites participating in the PGVP being made publicly available.  This is
proposed to be accomplished by posting on official EPA Web sites.  We
feel that although EPA believes that annual posting will be frequent
enough to allow EPA Protocol gas users to verify that their calibration
gases are being provided by PGVP participants, other means of official
verification or more frequent updates may be in order, especially during
the initial period of implementation, to accommodate the dynamics of a
developing program and to be consistent with the commencement of
participation beginning with notification to EPA that can occur at any
time in a year.”

Response:  EPA agrees, and will post the names of PGVP participants
quickly after receiving the required information.

4) Comment:  “SES supports the inclusion of the requirement for Air
Emissions Test Bodies (AETBs) to meet the provisions of ASTM D7036 in
the proposed changes.  SES and many of its’ members have been active
in developing and promoting the development of programs designed to
improve the quality of air emissions data.  These include the creation
and operation of our Qualified Source Test Individual (QSTI) and
Qualified Source Test Observer (QSTO) programs, cooperation with the
Stack Test Accreditation Council (STAC), and involvement with The NELAC
Institute through the Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP) Committee.
Many of our members participated as members in the development of ASTM
D7036, Standard Practice for the Competence of Air Emissions Test Bodies
and we feel that it encompasses elements that all professional testing
organizations should include in their operations, without adding
unnecessary burden.

	“We agree with EPA that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and
having a Qualified Individual on site does not guarantee proper
performance of any individual test, but feel strongly that these things
will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high quality
data generation.  SES also agrees that third party (e.g., state agency)
oversight helps ensure that testing is properly conducted.”

Response:  The Agency agrees.

United Sciences Testing, Inc. Comments (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0029)

1) Comment:  “United Sciences Testing, Inc. (USTI) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the EPA proposed rule entitled, “Amendments
to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency
Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” published in the Federal
Register on June 11, 2010. USTI conducts air emissions testing for its
parent company, American Electric Power (AEP), as well as third party
large industrial and electric utility clients. The majority of USTI’s
air emissions testing projects consist of compliance testing for owners
or operators of Part 75 affected units subject to EPA’s proposed
rulemaking. Thus, USTI will be directly affected by EPA’s proposed
rulemaking.

“USTI generally supports this proposed rulemaking, and we also support
the EPA’s goal to improve the accuracy of both air emissions
compliance data and the Protocol gases used by Part 75 affected sources
and air emissions testing companies. We do have questions about specific
provisions and we also have comments on several of the questions EPA
raises in the detailed discussion section of the proposed rule
revisions. USTI offers the following specific comments to the proposed
rulemaking and we also endorse those comments being provided by the
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).

“Proposed Recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59,
75.63 and 75.64:

Under the above-referenced sections, EPA is proposing that AETB’s
performing RATA testing for Part 75 regulated facilities provide certain
information to the owner or operator of the affected unit so the owner
can record in electronic format the following information:

(i) The name, telephone number, and email address of the Air Emissions
Testing Body;

(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in § 72.2
of this chapter;

(iii) (Emphasis added) For the reference method(s) that were performed,
the date that the on-site Qualified individual took and passed the
relevant qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D7036-04; and

(iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam provider.

“While USTI does not object to providing such information to our
testing clients, we note that more than one qualified individual’s
name may need to be provided to accurately reflect how the test was
performed. In addition, multiple dates may need to be listed to reflect
when the Qualified Individuals overseeing a compliance test passed their
relevant qualification examinations.

Example 1: USTI has several clients that ask for around-the-clock flow
RATA testing. When this occurs, USTI provides two test crews that work
12-hour shifts. Thus, two separate Qualified Individuals (QI’s) may be
over-seeing portions of the same flow RATA test. Our understanding is
that both would need to be identified so evidence that a QI was on-site
for the entire test can be documented. Both individuals may also have
passed their respective qualifying exams on different dates. Similar
field situations where more than one QI and more than one examination
date may need to be entered for a single compliance test can occur when
unit issues cause one or more loads of a flow RATA test to be completed
several days or a week or so after the start of the compliance test.

Example 2: USTI may have a single QI that conducts both a flow RATA and
a gas RATA for a specific test location during the same week; however,
the date that the QI passed the qualification examination for the test
methods covering the flow RATA test may be different than the date in
which the QI passed the examination for the test methods covering the
gas RATA test.

“Given these real life examples above, the EPA reporting format that
is established for this data submittal must be robust enough to allow
for multiple QI’s and/or multiple qualification dates to be entered
for each compliance test.

“One approach the EPA may want to take is to have third party exam
issuers assign unique ID numbers to each QI once they pass an applicable
exam. The QI can then use a numeric code to identify both the date that
the individual passed the applicable examination; or alternatively, the
expiration date five-years into the future. The numeric code can also
include the category of test methods covered by the exam similar to how
the Source Evaluation Society categorizes exams into four general
categories.”

Response:  EPA will allow multiple QIs and multiple exam dates to be
entered into ECMPS.

2) Comment:  “On page 33398, under section B, “Amendments to the
Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” the EPA
asks for comments on whether AETB’s that fail to “provide accurate
or complete information” should be subject to have their names posted
on an EPA web site along with a description of the failures to be
remedied.

“USTI agrees with the EPA that this would be a deterrent for
non-compliance with ASTM D7036-04; however, we ask that the EPA
specifically clarify that the determination of accuracy and completeness
of information be solely based on the provisions of ASTM D7036-04. The
other benefit of the EPA web posting is that it would allow owners and
operators of Part 75 affected sources to make more informed decisions
when contracting air emissions testing work with AETBs.”

Response:  See EPA’s response to Scott Evans’ #3 Comment.

3) Comment:  “On page 33398, under section B, “Amendments to the
Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” the EPA
asks for comments on whether AETB’s should be required to be
accredited by a national accreditation body. USTI is NOT in favor of a
mandatory third-party national accreditation program. We believe that
most air emissions testing bodies do not currently have such
qualifications and that it would be unlikely that the hundreds of air
emissions testing companies that offer Part 75 compliance testing could
secure accreditation within a six month window, particularly if many of
them are not yet prepared to meet the full requirements of ASTM
D7036-04. We believe that this action is too inflexible and will likely
result in numerous qualified AETB’s being placed at a competitive
disadvantage simply because they are unable to find an independent
accrediting body to conduct a timely audit prior to January 1, 2011.
There are likely to be a few hundred AETB’s seeking certification and
USTI does not believe that it is possible to have all of these
organizations undergo accreditation between now and the proposed
effective date of this rule. The need to have a national accreditation
program is both impractical and unnecessary. The EPA should allow both
choices: (1) third-party accreditation (or interim accreditation), and
(2) self-certification via a letter of certification signed by a member
of the senior management team of the AETB. While there may be many
others, we cite the following seven reasons:

“1) time constraints are impractical to expect all AETBs to be able to
secure national accreditation in six months, particularly since our
“laboratory” is in the field,

2) the AETB that self-certifies via a letter from senior management will
be subject to enforcement action for fraudulent activities,

3) the owner or operator of a Part 75 affected source has an obligation
to conduct some basic due diligence to verify that the AETB hired to
conduct air emissions testing meets the basic requirements of the ASTM
7036-04 program,

4) the EPA has outlined their enforcement authority under CAA Section
113, to compel AETB’s to provide proof of compliance with ASTM
D7036-04,

5) AETB’s are required to conduct audits at least annually to meet
ASTM D7036-04 requirements,

6) the new EPA reporting requirements outlined under Sections 75.63 and
75.64 will allow the agency to easily verify that a legitimate QI with
up-to-date credentials either conducted or oversaw the applicable
compliance tests, and

7) the AETB’s will be expected to have proof of compliance with ASTM
D7036-04 readily available in the field for inspection and review by the
third-party (state and/or EPA) inspectors that routinely visit affected
sources during compliance testing in the field.

“Collectively, we submit these reasons clearly demonstrate that an
additional level of regulation mandating accreditation by a nationally
recognized accreditation body is not needed, but should remain only as
an option available to the AETB.”

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

4) Comment:  “On page 33401 of the federal register notice under the
section entitled, “8. Calibration Gas Tag Values”, the EPA asks for
comments on the appropriateness of the 2.0 percent specification for
very low gas concentrations. Specifically, the EPA asks if an,
“alternative specification (e.g. in terms of absolute difference) be
more appropriate for very low concentration gases?”

“USTI recommends that the EPA establish a reasonable alternative
specification in terms of absolute difference for very low concentration
gases. With the implementation of CAIR, and the NOx SIP rules as well as
pending regulations likely to further require scrubber and SCR/SNCR
installations, more Part 75 sources and AETB’s conducting RATAs on
those sources will need lower concentrations Protocol Gases for SO2 and
NOx. Meeting a 2.0 percent absolute specification for very low gas
concentrations will likely be challenging and if the majority of
Protocol gas suppliers fail to meet this due to statistical challenge
rather than a real quality issue, end users of the protocol gas will not
be provided with meaningful audit information when making protocol gas
procurement decisions.

Response:  EPA only received one comment supporting an alternative
specification for very low concentration gases, and only one comment
specifically stating that an alternative specification is not necessary.
 Given the comments received, the Agency is uncertain whether an
alternative specification for very low concentration gases is necessary.
 EPA did not receive any supporting data from the commenter that
supported such a specification.  Therefore, EPA has retained the same
+2% standard for low concentration gases in the final rule.

Liberty Electric Power LLC Comments (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0026)

1) Comment:  “The requirement for all generators to revise their
reporting software to add traceable serial numbers for the protocol gas
used in testing adds burden without adding value. This burden will be
greater on small independent power producers, who do not have the
economy of scale to spread the cost across multiple facilities.

“Compliance could be certified by the designated official at the time
of data submission, with certificates of calibration kept by the entity
for the currently required duration. Certificates for protocol gas would
be subject to audit, as with other records which are required but not
submitted. For example, Part 75 requires diagnostic testing after
certain monitor repairs, but the records of post-repair calibrations or
provisional linearity tests are not submitted.”

Response:    EPA has added electronic recordkeeping and reporting of
cylinder expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used
for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance
test required under Part 75.  The Agency believes that this will
strengthen the PGVP by reducing or eliminating the use of expired
cylinders, and by improving the tracking of cylinder information.
Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two
items to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy only, and
section 75.60(b)(6) already requires these two items to be reported in a
hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA Regional Office upon
request.

	EPA has performed many EPA Protocol gas audits over the years and has
found unacceptably high failure rates (see EPA’s response to Air
Liquide’s #2 Comment) related to the Part 75 +2% uncertainty
requirement for EPA Protocol gases.  As you know, these gases are used
to ensure that emission standards and Clean Air Act emission reduction
goals are met nationwide and it is important that the gases are
accurate.  Because the procedures and systems allowing for these data to
be reported are already in place and the additional reporting
requirements are few, the additional reporting costs are relatively
small (see Table 2 in the ICR for the final rule, in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837) .

Praxair Distribution Inc. Comments (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0032)

1) Comment:  We agree with the overall process of the Protocol Gas
Verification Program, but good faith participation is dependant on how
the concern in the next paragraph is addressed to ensure that proper
purchasing of the verification cylinders from the gas manufacturers is
performed.

“EPA is requesting comment on how they can ensure the cylinders
obtained from a given productions site by a third party will not alert
the site that their cylinder is being audited.  We are suggesting the
Agency hire current customers of each of the protocol gas manufactures
to procure the US EPA Protocol Gas cylinders from participating sites
situated in similar geographical regions of the United States, Mexico,
or Canada.  As third party companies will require credit checks, D & B
numbers and contract reviews of the product(s) they will be purchasing,
this will alert most if not all of the gas manufactures listed in the
PGVP program of the PGVP audit.  Using current customer of each of the
Gas manufactures will be very seamless to the PGVP.”

Response:  EPA agrees with Praxair, and notes that how the Agency
intends to obtain cylinders for audit may not have been clear in the
preamble of the proposed rule.  The Agency intends to use nearby
existing customers to the extent practical, and intends to always use
companies that frequently purchase EPA Protocol gases.

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

Option 1 allows all facilities on EPA’s list of participating sites
and that provide EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources to be considered
EPA Protocol gas production sites. In the case where EPA chooses not to
perform an audit the production site on EPA’s list may still market
their products as EPA Protocol gases.

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

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

Option 4 is EPA’s preferred option, allowing EPA to use any
combination in a given year.

“We feel all options are viable but strongly disagree with Option 1
based on past experiences of the former verification program.  Currently
the PGVP process is looking at a minimum of 120 samples per year if
Option 1 is the primary method administered to obtain representative
population of samples from each protocol gas manufacture.  A combination
of Options 2, 3 and 4 are more realistic for obtaining samples but
unfavorable from a statistical point of view for the protocol gas
manufactures.  If two samples are accepted from each protocol gas
manufacture, the probability of obtaining a true representative sample
of the protocol gas manufactures process is decreased by the number of
samples removed from the total population.  This is a give and take,
knowing option 1 will not work for the volume of product but agree with
option 2, 3 and 4 as a combined process.”

Response:  Two commenters supported Option 4 and two commenters
supported Option 4 but without Option 1.  While the Agency understands
the shortcomings of Option 1, EPA believes that this option is necessary
to preserve the ability of EPA Protocol gas producers to sell gases in
possible (but unlikely) situations where cylinder procurement, shipping,
or analyses take longer than expected to complete.  EPA will retain the
maximum flexibility of Option 4 when implementing the final rule.

3) Comment:  “EPA specifically requests comments on the following
proposed codes for the type of EPA Protocol gas used.  These codes would
not be specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting
structure.  (Page 33396)  The codes presented are logical as listed.
Except: We do not agree with the multiple combination codes like SN1 and
SN2 because the requested mixture could potentially include Sulfur
Dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen in the same cylinder, which could be
manufactured as Nitrogen Dioxide.   The combination of Nitrogen Dioxide
and Sulfur Dioxide mixtures cannot be manufactured because the Nitrogen
Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide will react with each other causing stability
issues with the mixture.  Our question, does the SN1 mixture mean Sulfur
Dioxide, Nitric Oxide with the Oxides of Nitrogen reported?

Response:  Based on an August 2, 2010 telephone call from EPA to a
specialty gas company (see Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0056 in the
docket), the Agency believes that an SO2 and NO2 combination may be
possible.  However, if an SO2 and NO2 combination cannot be properly
manufactured, it probably will not be, and any such cylinders that are
improperly manufactured will likely fail if audited in the PGVP.  To
clarify the meaning of the “SN1” code that was in the proposed rule
preamble, the ECMPS PGVP reporting instructions at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf  now
include cylinder gas type codes: “SN” for SO2 and NO, “SN2” for
SO2 and NO2, and “SNX” for SO2, NO, and NO2 instead of “SN1”..

4) Comment:  “We are also suggesting the electronic reporting codes
include a designation for Carbon Monoxide (CO).   We do manufacture EPA
Protocol gas standards consisting of a single certified component of
Carbon Monoxide and a balance gas, (CO = C).”

Response:   Because of the data structure in EPA’s ECMPS reporting
software, single-blend carbon monoxide cannot be accommodated.  Under
Part 75, carbon monoxide is not regulated and is not required to be
recorded or reported.  Therefore, a code for that gas will not be
included in the reporting instructions.

5) Comment:  “Calibration Tag Values:  EPA proposes to amend Part 75,
Appendix A, Section 5.1.4 (b) and 5.1.5 to clarify the meaning of plus
or minus 2.0 percent performance specification for EPA protocol gases
and research mixtures.  Section 5.1.4(b) currently requires calculation
of a 95 percent confidence interval which may provide justification for
a specialty gas company to claim that it is permissible for an EPA
Protocol gas cylinder tag value to be more than 2.0 percent different
than the actual cylinder gas concentration. The Agency generally does
not assign an uncertainty to a performance specification, e.g., cylinder
concentration must be within 2.0% of cylinder tag value, because
performance specifications are used to determine compliance.

“Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state that ``EPA Protocol gas
concentrations must be certified by a specialty gas company to have an
analytical uncertainty to be not more than plus or minus 2.0 percent
(inclusive).''  The Agency requests comments on these proposed changes
to Sections 5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5, particularly regarding the
appropriateness of the 2.0 percent specification for very low gas
concentrations. Would an alternative specification (e.g., in terms of
absolute difference) be more appropriate for very low concentration
gases?

“We agree, this requires work and resolution but the EPA_600_R1997_121
Protocol requires us to include uncertainty of the reference gas, the
variance of the analytical readings, the calibration curve uncertainty
and G2 method uncertainty (if the G2 process is used).  In some
extremes, this calculates to more than 2%.  The higher uncertainty
occurs when there is a G2 analysis and at the extremes of any Hydrogen
Sulfide analysis.  We propose that Part 75 be changed to agree with the
EPA_600_R1997_121 Protocol because the current process as outlined is
scientifically defensible, statically sound and as such should
remain.”

Response:  See EPA’s response to Air Liquide’s #7 Comment.

“Based on the description of the verbiage given below Figure 3, we are
proposing the pass/fail basis of the PGVP be viewed on if the original
tag error band overlaps with the audit analysis error band.  For