We thank Lamb and colleagues1 for their recent article in CHEST (January 2010) addressing the need to standardize the training of interventional pulmonologists. We also appreciate the corresponding editorial by Ost et al2 that provided additional points of discussion. We agree that setting up strict criteria regarding the volume of procedures required may significantly limit the availability of these techniques to our patients. Many formally trained interventional pulmonologists have not met all the suggested standards, and current interventional pulmonary programs may close if unable to meet strict volume requirements. Additionally, we put forth that some procedures considered to be “interventional” perhaps should be part of the training of every general pulmonologist. For instance, in our fellowship program, we strive to train all our fellows to use endobronchial ultrasonography and to perform balloon bronchoplasty. We believe that learning curves are highly individualized and, hence, that the final decision to certify an individual to perform a procedure should be left to the program director and not be limited to procedure volumes.