# 201 **5**

6/30 /201 5 

# EJ	Screening	Report	for	Secondary	Aluminum Major	Sources

## Contents Executive Summary
................................................................................................................................................................. 4 About the Data
........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Demographic Data
............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Statistical Summary
................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Category Totals and T Tests
................................................................................................................................................. 8 Near Source Data
.................................................................................................................................................................. 1 4 Map and Charts
..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 8 Meaningful I nvolvement Summary
..................................................................................................................................... . . 2 4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Justice Screening Report National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Aluminum (Major Sources) Docket: EPA ‐ HQ ‐ OAR ‐ 2010 ‐ 0544 Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

### Executive Summary In February 2012, the EPA proposed the residual risk and technology review (RTR) for secondary aluminum production. After considering public comments, the agency published a supplemental proposal in December 2014, which included an updated risk assessment and some minor changes to the proposed requirements. There have been no changes to the demographic analysis as a result of this recent supplemental proposal, therefore this document serves as the final report. To gain a better understanding of the secondary aluminum source category and near

- source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of within 3 miles from sources in the source categ ory for this rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demogr aphic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse hu man health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. 

### Background Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproport ionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United States. E.O. 12898 informed the development and implementation of the EPA’s Environmental Justice ( EJ ) program and EJ policies. Consistent with the E.O. and the Presidential Memorandum that accompanies the E.O., the agency’s EJ policies promote environmental protection by focusing attention and agency efforts on addressing the types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low

- income and indigenous populations. E.O. 12898 and the agency’s EJ policies do not mandate particular outcomes for an action, but they demand that decisions involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. Where feasible, actions should prevent or address and mitigate EJ concerns. A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the decision

- making process. Certain groups may not have participated in the decision

- making process historically because of economic (e.g., income), social (e.g., language barriers, education levels, distrust of government) and structural reasons. A critical concern is whethe r, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities taking place in their community, as well as the requirements, conditions and parameters by which such regulated activities must operate (e.g. , permit conditions). The EPA aims to notify and engage the public in a variety of ways. Each rule is reviewed to identify appropriate mechanisms to promote meaningful involvement, which may include notices on the EJAir website, community call discussions, fact sheets, community meetings and/or webinars. Additionally, when reliable source location data is available, the EPA strives to provide a screening report of near source populations. It is important to note that while the EPA provides near

- source data, whether or not a facility

- level analysis is appropriate depends on the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) authority for the subject rule. For example, CAA sections 112 (d) and 112(f), which address hazardous air pollutants, require the EPA to establish emission standards that apply to all sources in specified categories or subcategories. In the case of the CAA 112(f), the EPA sets standards to ensure the public is protected with an ample margin of safety based on the maximum exposed individual risk ( MIR) or the facilit y in the source category that poses the highest risks to the public , and must consider specific statutory factors, including costs, energy and safety.

# About the DataDemographic Indicators Percent Mi nority % minority as fraction of population, where minority is defined as all but Non
‐ Hispanic White Alone (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).
Percent Low Income % low income (un der 2 ti mes the poverty threshold) as fraction of individuals for whom ratio was determined (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).
Percent Less than Hig h School % with less than high school degree (as fraction of those age 25+) (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).
Percent Linguistic Isolation % l i nguistically isolated (as fraction of households) (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).
Percent Under Age 5 % u nder age 5 as fraction of population (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).
Percent Over Age 64 % over age 64 as fraction of population (So urce: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).

# Statistical SummaryCategory Totals and T-Tests The EPA compares aggregated study area demographics to U.S. demographics in three tables within this section:

 Table 1
–

Demographic totals for the entire source category and U.S. demographic totals  Table 2
–

Demographics averaged across study areas vs. U.S. average demographics  Table 3
–

Proportion of study areas with populations exceeding U.S. average demographics Table 1 is simply calculated by summing the demographic data in the study areas; however, urban study areas can often skew the data. Therefore, Tables 2 and 3 use statistical inference to answer two additional and specific questions : 1. On average, how much do the demographics within the study areas differ from the U.S. population? 2. How often do the demographics within the study areas exceed U.S. average demographics? Table 2
– Hypothesis Test for Question 1 (T-test for population average) 1  Null Hypothesis (H 0 ): The proportion of the population in demographic category X within a given study area is a normally-distributed random variable with mean EQUAL TO the U.S. average.  Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 ): The proportion of the population in demographic category X within a given study area is a normally-distributed random variable with mean NOT EQUAL TO the U.S. average.  Test statistic: T = (Study area average %
– U.S. average %)/Standard Error  If H 0 is true, then T has a T-distribution with mean = 0 and degrees of freedom = # study areas
– 1. The p-value is the probability that H 0 is true given the value of T calculated from the demographic data.  Statistical Conclusions: o If the p- value is large (≥ 0.05): The a verage proportion of the study area population in demographic category X is not significantly different from the U.S. average. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and the T-statistic is POSITIVE: The average proportion of the study area population in demographic category X is significantly greater than the U.S. average. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and the T-statistic is NEGATIVE: The average proportion of the study area population in demographic category X is significantly less than the U.S. average.  Study areas with fewer than 100 total residents are ignored. Table 3
– Hypothesis Test for Question 2 (T-test for occurrence) 1  Null Hypothesis (H 0 ): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is EQUAL TO 50%.  Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 ): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is NOT EQUAL TO 50%.  Test statistic: T = (% of study areas > U.S. average
– 50%)/Standard Error  If H 0 is true, then T has a T-distribution with mean = 0 and degrees of freedom = # study areas
– 1. The p-value is the probability that H 0 is true given the value of T calculated from the demographic data.  Statistical Conclusions: o If the p- value is large (≥ 0 .05): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is not significantly different from 50%. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and T > 0: The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is significantly greater than 50%. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and T < 0: The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is significantly less than 50%.  Study areas with fewer than 100 total residents are ignored. A qualitative summary on the statistical significance immediately follows the tabular data in this section.

1 T-tests are designed for use when the number of study areas is large. Other tests may be used in place of T-tests for Tables 2 and 3 when there are fewer than 50 study areas.

## Statistical Data

Category Totals and T-Tests Table 1 - Category-wide Total Population Minority Linguistically Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income NEAR SOURCE TOTAL 1,143,454 30% 3% 7% 13% 16% 36% NATIONAL TOTAL 307,727,594 36% 5% 7% 13% 15% 32% Table 2 - Hypothesis Test 1 (Average Population) H 0 : Average % of Population Near Sources in Category X = National % in Category X # of Study Areas >= 100 total population (N) 51 H 1 : Average % of Population Near Sources in Category X ≠ National % in Category X Minority Linguistically

Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income 18% 2% 7% 14% 17% 37% 2.396% 0.269% 0.169% 0.503% 0.817% 1.418% -7.3588 -13.3113 7.1599 2.0945 1.9165 3.7101 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0412 0.0609 0.0005 Table 3 - Hypothesis Test 2 (Occurrence) H 0 : % of study areas with Nearby Population in Category X above National Average = 50% H 1 : % of study areas with Nearby Population in Category X above National Average ≠ 50% Minority Linguistically

Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income 16% 6% 61% 57% 47% 71% 5.092% 3.295% 6.837% 6.935% 6.989% 6.380% -6.7382 -13.3902 1.5774 0.9896 -0.4208 3.2268 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1210 0.3272 0.6757 0.0022 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL No Significance (P >= 0.05) Significant (P < 0.05) Significantly Less (P < 0.05 and T Stat is negative) Demographic Summary

STATISTIC AVERAGE % NEAR FACILITIES STANDARD DEVIATION T STATISTIC P-VALUE

STATISTIC % STUDY AREAS > NATIONAL AVG STANDARD DEVIATION T STATISTIC P-VALUE

## Statistical Summary (Category Totals and T-Tests)

Demographic Category Minority

Summary of the data:

Demographic Category Linguistically Isolated

Summary of the data: Table 3 indicates that 6% of study areas have a greater Linguistically Isolated population than the national average. This is significantly less from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.
The national proportion (Table 1) and average proportion (Table 2) of Linguistically Isolated populations living in the study areas are both less than the national average. Furthermore, 6% of the study areas have Linguistically Isolated populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the proportion of Linguistically Isolated populations living in the study areas is significantly less than the national average. Table 1 indicates that nationally, 30% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Minority. This is -6 point(s), or -16.7%, compared to the national average of 36% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 18% of the people living in the study areas are Minority. The -18 point difference in the average proportion is significantly less when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 16% of study areas have a greater Minority population than the national average. This is significantly less from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.

The national proportion (Table 1) and average proportion (Table 2) of Minority populations living in the study areas are both less than the national average. Furthermore, 16% of the study areas have Minority populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the proportion of Minority populations living in the study areas is significantly less than the national average.

Table 1 indicates that nationally, 3% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Linguistically Isolated. This is -2 point(s), or -40%, compared to the national average of 5% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 2% of the people living in the study areas are Linguistically Isolated. The -3 point difference in the average proportion is significantly less when compared to the national average.

## Statistical Summary (Category Totals and T-Tests)

Demographic Category Age 0 - 4

Summary of the data:

Demographic Category Age 65+

Summary of the data: Table 1 indicates that nationally, 7% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Age 0 - 4. This is approximately equal to the national average of 7% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 7% of the people living in the study areas are Age 0 - 4. The 0 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 61% of study areas have a greater Age 0 - 4 population than the national average. This is not significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.
The national proportion (Table 1) of Age 0 - 4 populations living in the study areas is approximately equal to the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is significantly greater than the national average. Furthermore, 61% of the study areas have Age 0 - 4 populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the average proportion of Age 0 - 4 populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average, but there is a large amount of variability among the study areas.

Table 1 indicates that nationally, 13% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Age 65+. This is approximately equal to the national average of 13% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 14% of the people living in the study areas are Age 65+. The 1 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 57% of study areas have a greater Age 65+ population than the national average. This is not significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.
The national proportion (Table 1) of Age 65+ populations living in the study areas is approximately equal to the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is significantly greater than the national average. Furthermore, 57% of the study areas have Age 65+ populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the average proportion of Age 65+ populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average, but there is a large amount of variability among the study areas.

## Statistical Summary (Category Totals and T-Tests)

Demographic Category Without a HS Diploma

Summary of the data:

Demographic Category Low Income

Summary of the data: Table 1 indicates that nationally, 16% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Without a HS Diploma. This is 1 point(s), or 6.7%, greater than the national average of 15% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 17% of the people living in the study areas are Without a HS Diploma. The 2 point difference in the average proportion is not significant when compared to the national average.

The national proportion (Table 1) and average proportion (Table 2) of Low Income populations living in the study areas are both greater than the national average. Furthermore, 71% of the study areas have Low Income populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the proportion of Low Income populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average. Table 3 indicates that 47% of study areas have a greater Without a HS Diploma population than the national average. This is not significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S. The national proportion (Table 1) of Without a HS Diploma populations living in the study areas is greater than the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is not significantly different than the national average. Furthermore, 47% of the study areas have Without a HS Diploma populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the average proportion of Without a HS Diploma populations living in the study areas is not significantly different than the national average, and there is a large amount of variability among the study areas.

Table 1 indicates that nationally, 36% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Low Income. This is 4 point(s), or 12.5%, greater than the national average of 32% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 37% of the people living in the study areas are Low Income. The 5 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 71% of study areas have a greater Low Income population than the national average. This is significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.

## Aggregated Data Statisical Summary Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Median Near-Source Population Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test

(Table 2) Occurrence Binomial Test (Table 3) Population 307,727,594 1,143,454 Minority 36% 30% -17% Significantly Less Significantly Less Linguistically Isolated 5% 3% -40% Significantly Less Significantly Less Age 0 - 4 7% 7% 0% Not Significant Not Significant Age 65+ 13% 13% 0% Not Significant Not Significant Without a HS Diploma 15% 16% 7% Not Significant Not Significant Low Income 32% 36% 13% Not Significant Significant Demographic National Near Source (Table 1) % Difference

Near vs. National

# Near Source Data

## Raw Data Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64

2 NJ 119,596

Aluminum Shapes L.L.C. 110000321492 42.4% 37.3% 4.0% 20.8% 7.1% 11.7% NY 74,325

Crestwood Metal Company 110001598281 13.5% 11.2% 1.7% 6.9% 5.2% 12.8% 12,728 ALCOA - MASSENA WEST 110000582735 6.7% 40.2% 0.8% 11.9% 7.0% 18.2% 4,816 Novelis Corporation 110000325407 2.8% 35.1% 0.1% 12.7% 7.3% 12.6%
3 PA 76,458

Alumax Mill Products Inc. 110000334200 25.4% 30.8% 4.3% 11.8% 6.8% 16.1% 13,278 Sapa Extrusions 110011900149 4.3% 28.3% 0.4% 13.9% 5.3% 15.6% WV 1,388

Alcan Rolled Products L.L.C. 110007885547 0.1% 31.9% 0.0% 18.8% 3.6% 19.5%
4 AL 4,771

Wise Alloys LLC - Alloys Plant 110000516683 27.5% 31.6% 1.2% 14.9% 7.1% 15.4%
3,431 Wise Alloys LLC-Alloys Reclamation Plant 110000367745 26.7% 36.0% 1.1% 14.9% 7.2% 16.6% 1,262 Aleris Specifiation Alloys Inc. 110000368414 7.4% 29.2% 0.8% 25.2% 3.1% 22.7% GA 24,642

William L. Bonnell Co. Inc. 110000357300 43.5% 45.9% 4.4% 22.1% 8.8% 10.4%
3,703 Novelis Corporation 110000358693 61.8% 64.7% 0.4% 31.8% 6.0% 10.4% KY 13,986

J.L. French Corp 110003218704 13.2% 46.2% 0.3% 26.0% 6.6% 17.5% 13,807 Owls Head Alloys Inc 110015680253 12.5% 32.7% 1.8% 9.3% 6.2% 7.9%
13,440 Novelis Corporation 110000379135 7.2% 37.1% 0.3% 14.4% 6.8% 10.7%
9,454 Southwire Co 110000918348 1.8% 33.5% 0.0% 16.1% 5.3% 18.7%
3,591 Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000380748 5.6% 54.2% 3.3% 29.6% 7.0% 15.8% 1,682 Logan Aluminum 110043784982 1.4% 41.5% 0.0% 28.4% 5.1% 22.0% 1,280 Aleris Rolled Products Inc. 110000540665 6.7% 40.6% 1.0% 15.0% 7.7% 10.7%
753 Century Aluminum-Sebree 110038162118 10.7% 30.7% 0.8% 13.3% 7.5% 11.0%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64

4 SC 38,381 JW Aluminum Co 110017416090 29.1% 26.0% 1.4% 10.8% 7.2% 8.1%
29,135 ALUMAX OF SOUTH CAROLINA 110002329454 29.6% 27.1% 0.8% 12.4% 7.3% 7.6%
TN 34,924

Alcoa Inc. (North plant) 110000372383 14.1% 34.0% 2.3% 14.8% 5.9% 15.3%
32,022 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA INC. - SOUTH

PLANT 110000916812 15.6% 36.6% 2.6% 15.5% 6.3% 14.4%

2,822 William L. Bonnell Company

Inc.(The) 110001994307 4.7% 33.3% 0.2% 22.4% 7.0% 14.0%

5 IL 60,928 Aleris Recycling 110000432309 69.4% 41.6% 4.8% 17.9% 7.5% 11.6% IN 112,892 Jupiter Aluminum Corporation 110000397936 59.8% 43.2% 6.1% 21.9% 8.2% 10.9% 11,612 Aluminum Recovery Technologies Inc. 110013327480 11.8% 36.6% 1.4% 15.5% 6.5% 13.9% 7,690 Aleris Specification Alloys Inc. 110000401761 3.4% 35.5% 0.0% 18.4% 4.4% 20.9% 5,643 Recycling Services of Indiana 110000592680 2.0% 31.5% 0.5% 13.2% 6.1% 12.6% 3,870 Superior Aluminum Alloys 110000493788 3.1% 27.1% 0.3% 13.1% 5.9% 14.8% 1,556 ALCOA INC. - WARRICK OPERATIONS 110000602045 4.5% 9.4% 0.0% 11.5% 7.0% 13.6%
MI 15,351

Aleris Recycling Inc/Aleris Specification Alloys Inc. 110056956058 13.6% 40.4% 4.6% 14.0% 6.9% 12.3%

13,777 Aleris Recycling 110000409111 9.5% 44.5% 4.9% 14.0% 7.5% 13.4% OH 10,091

Aleris Rolled Products Inc. 110000390871 3.1% 46.2% 0.0% 17.4% 6.8% 16.5% 9,832 Aleris Recycling 110000390862 3.1% 46.7% 0.0% 17.6% 6.9% 16.5% WI 41,720 Mercury Marine - Fond Du Lac

Complex 110041059975 10.0% 31.7% 1.3% 11.8% 6.8% 14.1%

35,071 J. L. French Corp. 110000416880 18.9% 32.1% 2.5% 13.9% 6.3% 16.1% 25,587 J. L. French Corp. 110000416782 18.0% 29.5% 2.8% 12.8% 6.3% 15.6%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64
6 AR 13,755

JW Aluminum Company 110033003096 22.1% 47.9% 4.6% 17.6% 8.6% 10.5% 3,448 Reynolds Foil Inc dba reynolds Consumer Products Company 110000597738 7.5% 30.7% 1.3% 11.1% 5.9% 11.9%
TX 20,015

Alumax Mill Products Inc. 110018919946 29.3% 31.9% 1.3% 11.5% 8.3% 11.6% 6,124 Alcoa Mill Products - San Antonio 110000464499 63.7% 49.3% 5.1% 25.2% 6.6% 9.9%

47 Alcoa Inc. 110008144025 17.8% 42.3% 0.6% 12.3% 7.5% 14.7%
7 IA 49,207 Alcoa Inc. 110000416005 19.3% 27.1% 2.3% 10.6% 6.7% 15.7%
19,393 Nichols Aluminum Casting 110000742563 26.9% 42.7% 2.2% 19.1% 5.7% 12.2% MO 111,950

JW Aluminum St. Louis 110000441095 39.1% 47.7% 5.3% 21.4% 7.7% 10.3% 10,816 Hydro Aluminum Wells -

Monett 110017977723 21.7% 42.5% 6.1% 22.1% 8.6% 14.2% 487 NORANDA ALUMINUM INC NEW MADRID 110017980639 9.3% 59.7% 0.0% 25.6% 9.4% 4.5%
8 SD 12,902 Sapa Extrusion 110000427716 10.9% 35.5% 0.5% 12.5% 6.8% 15.7%

10 WA 2,140

Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco

Works 110040947820 11.0% 21.4% 0.5% 7.4% 5.2% 16.4% 1,875 Aluminum Co of America Wenatchee Works 110000491156 38.0% 49.1% 6.4% 27.5% 7.8% 11.9%

# Map	and	ChartsCategory Total % is calculated by summing all of the study area demographic data. Category Average % is calculated by averaging the demographic data by the number of study areas where the total population >= 100.

36%

5% 7% 13% 15% 32% 30%

3% 7% 13% 16% 36%

18%

2% 7% 14% 17% 37%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

MINORITY LINGUISTICALLY ISOLATED AGE 0 - 4 AGE 65+ NO HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA LOW INCOME 

# Percentage Comparisons to National Averages

NATIONAL AVERAGE % CATEGORY TOTAL % CATEGORY AVERAGE %The national average = 36%

Frequency

The national average = 5% 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% More Frequency 21 14 9 2 2 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25Frequency 

# Minority Demographic Histogram

0-2% 2-4% 4-6% 6-8% 8-10% 10-12% More Frequency 33 7 9 3 0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Frequency 

# Linguistically Isolated Demographic HistogramFrequency

The national average = 7%

The national average = 13%

0-2% 2-4% 4-6% 6-8% 8-10% 10-12% More Frequency 0 2 10 34 6 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Frequency 

# Age 0 - 4 Demographic Histogram

0-4% 4-8% 8-12% 12-16% 16-20% 20-24% More Frequency 0 3 15 21 10 3 0 0 5 10 15 20 25Frequency 

# Age 65+ Demographic HistogramThe national average = 15%

The national average = 32%

0-4% 4-8% 8-12% 12-16% 16-20% 20-24% More Frequency 0 2 9 19 8 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Frequency 

# No High School Diploma Demographic Histogram

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% More Frequency 1 1 8 21 18 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25Frequency 

# Low Income Demographic Histogram

# Meaningful	Involvement	Summary

### Meaningful Involvement

Outreach and Mate rials

 Broadcast rulemaking notice on the publically available websites Regulations.gov , Reginfo.gov and the Action Initiation List (AIL)
.  Fact sheet: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum2nd/alum2pg.html
 Held a 60 day public comment period Additional Information

 The Basics of the Regulatory Process: o http://www2.epa.gov/laws

‐ regulations/basics

‐ regulatory
‐ process  Search for Regulations o http://www.regulations.gov
 Get Involved with EPA Regulations o http://www2.epa.gov/laws

‐ regulations/get

‐ involved
‐ epa ‐ regulations
 Frequent Questions about Dockets o http://www.epa.gov/docket11/faqs.htm
 Follow the Action Initiation List (AIL) o http://www2.epa.gov/laws

‐ regulations/actions

‐ initiated
‐ month#notification
 Where You Live o http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htm
 Air Pollution Training o http://www.apti

‐ learn. net  National Ambient Air Quality Standards o http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html o http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
 Community Air Screening How
‐ To Manual o http://www.epa.gov/oppt /cahp/pubs/howto.htm
 Risk Assessment and Modeling
– Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library o http://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk

‐ assessment ‐ and
‐ modeling
‐ air
‐ toxics
‐ risk
‐ assessment ‐ reference

‐ library
 Technology Transfer Network o Rules and Implementation: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html o Evaluating Exposures to Toxic Air Pollutants
– A Citizen's Guide: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/3_90_023.html o Risk Assessment for Toxics
– A Citizen’s Guide: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/3_90_024.html o Taking Toxics out of the Air: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/takingtoxics/ o Air Pollution and Health Risk: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/3_90_022.html o Health Effects Notebook for HAPs: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html