1 **SUPPORTING STATEMENT NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR**  **HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS:**

**SECONDARY ALUMINUM**  **PRODUCTION PART A**  **1.0 Identification of the Information Collection**  (a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

“National Emissi on Standards for Secondary Aluminum Production

. ” This is a new information collection request (I CR) , and the EPA tracking number i s XXXX.XX
. (b) Short Characterization. This I CR covers information collection requirements in the proposed amendments to the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR)

. The p otential respondents are owners or operators of any existing , new , or reconstructed secondary aluminum production p lant

. Per the applicability section of subpart RRR , the following affected sources at a secondary aluminum production plant are covered: aluminum scrap shredders ; thermal chip dryers ; scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns ; group 2 furnaces; sweat furnaces ; dross

- only

furnaces ; rotary

dross coolers ; and secondary aluminum processing units, which includes group 1 furnaces and in

- line fluxers

. The secondary aluminum industry

consists of approximately 161 secondary aluminum production facilities, of which the EPA estimates 53 to be major sources of HAP. The proposed amendments would correct and clarify various rule requirements and provisions. Specifically, the proposed amendments would add work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for selected affected sources; add a definition of affirmative defense; add a requirement to report performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); add provisions allowing owners and operators to change furnaces designations; add requirements to test uncontrolled furnaces; add requirements to test for hydrogen fluo ride in addition to hydrogen chloride in furnaces where fluorine

- containing fluxes are used; add operating requirements such as monitoring of lime injection rates; and make corrections and clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monito ring, and performance testing requirements. The information collection requirements associated with the proposed amendments to the NESHAP are listed in Attachment 1

. **2. Need For and Use of the Collection**  (a) Need/Authority for the Collection

. Section 112 of the C lean Air Act (C AA) require s the EPA to establish NESHAP for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy ) of any single2

HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP

. An area source is a stationary source that is not a major source (i.e., an area source does not emit and does not have the potential to emit more than 10 t py of any single HAP or more than 25 t py of any combination of HAP )

. Both major and area sources are subject to subpart RRR
. For major sources, these technology

- based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, en ergy requirements, and non

air quality

health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology

(MACT) standards. Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review these technology

based standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every

8 years. Inaddition, section 112(f) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine for source categories subject to certain CAA s ection 112(d) standards whether the emissions limitations provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. For MACT standards for HAP “classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen” that “ do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risk s to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory

to less than 1

- in

- 1 million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source category

(or subcategory

) as necessary

to provide an ample margin of saf ety to protect public health. Indoing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards, if the EPA determines that the existing standards are sufficiently protective. The EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental effect, but must consider cost, energy, safety

and other relevant factors in doing so. Certain records and reports are nec essary for the Administrator to confir m the compliance status of sources subject to NESHAP , identify any new or reconstructed s ources subject to the standards, and confirm that the standards are being achieved on a continuous basis. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by

section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414) and set out in the part 63 NESHAP General Provisions

. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for operating permits (i.e., title V permits ) are contained in 40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR 71.6. Under parts 63 and 70 or 71, the owner or operator must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report or record. (b) Use/Users of the Data. The information will be used by the delegated authority ( s tate agency, or Regional Administrator if there is no delegated s tate agency ) to ensure that the standards and other requirements are being achieved. Based on review of the recorded information at the site and the reported information, the delegated permitting authority can identify facilities that may not be in compliance and decide which3

facilitie s, records or processes may need inspection

. **3. Nonduplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria**  (a) Nonduplication. A computer search of the EPA ’ s ongoing I CRs revealed no duplication of informatio n - gathering efforts. (b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB. This section is not applicable because this is a rule

- related I CR. (c) Consultations. The proposed amendments w ere developed in consultation with individual secondary aluminum production companies and trade association s . The non

- EPA persons consulted on the information collection activities are identified in Table 1. **TABLE 1. PERSONS CONSULTED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES** 

**Contact Organization**  **Telephone No.** Charles Johnson, Jr. The Aluminum Association , Inc. 703

- 358

- 2981 Mike P alazzolo Alcoa , Inc. 412

- 553

- 4832 Gary Barnett Aleris International, Inc. 216

- 910

- 3697 Steve Royer Lo gan Aluminum, Inc. 270

- 755
- 6390 (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection. If the relevant information was collected less frequently, the delegated permitting authority ( s tate or the EPA) w ill not be reasonably assured that a facility is in compliance with the standards. (e) General Guidelines. None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded. (f) Confidentiality. All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B

Confidentiality

of Business Info rmation (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). (g) Sensitive Questions. This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature. **4. The Respondents and the Information Requested**  (a) Respondents/NAIC S Codes

.4

Potential respondents under s ubpart RRR are owners or operators of any existing or new facility engaged in Secondary Aluminum Productions operations

. Secondary Aluminum Production facilities are primarily classified under NAI CS code 33131 4 , Secondary Aluminum Production

. There are an estimated 161 facilities that would be subject to the proposed amendments to the NESHAP. (b) Information Requested. (i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements. Attachment 1 , In formation Requirements, summarize s the data items, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements , for the Secondary Aluminum Production s ource c ategor y . (ii) Respondent Activities. Th e respondent activities that will be required by the proposed amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP are identified in Table 3 an d are introduced in section 6(a). (i i i) Summary of Requirements. The EPA is including in T able 2 an estimate of the burden associated with performing an affirmative defense. The EPA is providing this as an illustrative example of the potential additional administrative burden a source may incur to assert an Affirmative Defense in response to an action to enforce th e standards set forth in subpart RRR
. This illustrative estimate is not considered a duplicate estimate of cost under the General Duty to Minimize Emissions clause under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), which states: “At all times, the owner and operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determining whether such operation and m aintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.” To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA provides an administrative adjustment to this I CR that e stimates the costs of the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records, including the root cause analysis, associated with a single incident totals approximately $3, 14 2 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the records and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden5

because these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source choose s to take advantage of the affirmative defense. Inthis source category, we estimate that one facility per year will have a control device malfunction that would cause an exceedence of an emission limit and for which the facility would choose to assert the use of the affirmative defense provisions. Thus for this source categor y, the EPA is assigning annual burden of $3,142 associated with affirmative defense. **TABLE 2**  **. COST ESTIMATE FOR ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS** 
**Personnel Num** **ber of**

**Personnel Time Requirement** 

**(hou rs)**  **Total Hours Hourly Rate**  **($/hr) Total**  Technical Personnel 3 6 18 98.20 $ 1,768 Managerial Personnel 2 6 12 114.49 $ 1,374 Total 5 30 $ 3,14 2 **5. The Information Collected** 

**– Agency Activities, Collection Methodology and Information**  **Management** (a) Agency Activities. The Agency

activities associated with the proposed amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP are provided in Table 4 and are introduced in section 6(c). (b) Collection Methodology and Management

. Data and records maintained b y the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs of the delegated permitting authority

. The EPA is the permitting authority until the s tate or local agency is delegated authority

to implement the final amendments to the rule. Therefore, information contained in any report submitted to the Regional Administrator will be entered into the Air Facility System (AFS), which is operated and maintained by the EPA ’ s Office of Compliance. AFS is the EPA’s database for the c ollection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately

125,000 industrial and government

- owned facilities. The EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional o ffices and EPA headquarters. The EPA and its delegated a uthorities can edit, store, retrieve and analy ze the compliance data. (c) Small Entity Flexibility. The Small Business Administration defines a small entity engaging in Secondary Aluminum Production as a firm having no more than 750 employees . Of the 31 entities affected by this proposed rule, ten of them are small. Of these ten, only one is estimated to experience a positive cost as a result of6

the rule, and that one small entity will have an impact that is an annualized cost of less than 0.01 percent of its sales. After considering the economic impacts of these proposed changes on small entities, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. To red uce impacts, we are propos ing new provisions that would increase the industry ’s flexibility as to how they operate group 1 furnaces . In addition, we are correcting certain provisions of the rule as well as proposing revisions to help clarify the rule’s int ent. (d) Collection Schedule

. The specific frequency

for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 3 for the Secondary Aluminum Production s ource c atego ry . **6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection**  (a) Estimating Respondent Burden. The annual burden estimates for the proposed amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP are shown in Table 3

. These numbers were derived from estimates based on the EPA’s experience with other standards. No burden estimate s are provided for new sources because no new facilities are expected to become affected sources during the three

- ye ar implementation period of this I CR. Because all the proposed amendments to this rule become effective up on promulgation of the final rule , the burden estimates provided are for annual costs for each year following promulgation. (b) Estimating Respondent Costs. (i) Estimating Labor Costs

. Table 3 presents estimated costs for the required data collection activities. Labor rates and associate d costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. Technical, management and clerical average hourly rates for private industry workers and were taken from the United States Department of L abor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 20 11 , “Table 2

. Civilian Workers, by

occupational and industry group,” available at www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm. Wages for occupational groups are used as the basis for the labor rates with a total compensation of $ 47.21 per hour for technical, $ 57.82 per hour for managerial and $23. 72 per hour for clerical. These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the cost of overhead. An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs. The fully

- burdened hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor costs are: technical at $ 99.14 , management at $1 2 1 .42 and clerical at $4 9.81

. (ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O& M) Costs

. C apital costs are estimated at $ 226,000 per facility at an estimated 27 facilities that would need to install temporary hoods and conduct testing on uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. These facilities would also incur O&M costs of7

$ 24,000 /y r per facility

as a result of the proposed requirement to test uncontrolled group 1 furnaces every 5 years. As a result of the proposed requirement to measure HF emissions, 20 affected facilities would incur annual cost of $14,000. The proposed amendments would also allow owners/operators to switch furnace designations , which would result in annual O&M co sts for testing of $500,000/y r or, for an estimated 50 furnaces, a cost of $10,000 per furnace, or $14,706/y r per facility at 34 facilities. (i ii ) Annualizing Capital Costs

. Annualized capital costs are approximately $575,700 or $21,300/facility

. (iv) Af firmative Defense/Root Cause Anal ysis/Malfunction Costs

. The EPA’s estimate for a root cause analysis is based on general experience to calculate the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and reconstruct th e events prior to a malfunction in order to determine primary and contributing causes. The level of effort also includes time to produce and retain the report in document form so that the source will have it available should the EPA or state enforcement ag encies ever request to review it. (c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

. Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collec tion requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under the operating permits rules in 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 and the part 63 NESHAP General Provisions, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Compliance Data System, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly

attributed to the I CR. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally

as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA’ s overall compliance and enforcement program, and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government w ill incur are user costs asso ciated with the analysis of the reported information, as presented in Table 4

. The Agency

labor rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 20 1 1 General Schedule , which excludes locality rates of pay

. These rates can be obtained from Salary Ta ble 20 1 1

- GS available on the OPM website, http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf

. The government employee labor rates are $ 15.63 /hour for clerical (GS

- 6, Step 3), $ 28.88 for technical (GS

- 1 2, Step 1) and $ 38.92 /hr for management (GS

- 13, Step 5). These rates were increased by 60 percent to include fringe benefits and overhead. The fully

- burdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor costs are: clerical at $ 25.01 /hour , technical at $ 46.21 /hour and management at $ 62.27 /hour

.8

(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

. There are an estimated 161 existing facilities that are currently subject to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP. No new major sources are expected the year following promulgation of these amendments

. Consequently, the number of secondary aluminum respondents in the year following promulgation is 161 respondents per year. For the proposed amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP , the components of the total annual burden attributable to this I CR include reading the amendments to the NESHAP ; monthly

verification of lime injection rates ; analysis of performance test samples for HF; construction of temporary hooding and performing emissions test s on uncontrolled group 1 furnaces; and when a furnace designation is being changed, the requisite reporting and emissions testing to demonstrate compliance. A ll other recordkeeping and reporting activities are already accounted for in the I CR for the NESHAP. (e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables. (i) Respondent tally. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs presented in Table 3 are calculated by

adding person

- hours per year down each column for technical, managerial and clerical staff, and by

adding down the cost column. The average annual burden for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed amendments t o subpart RRR for the 161 existing facilities that are subject to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP is 1, 725 p erson - hours , with an annual average cost of $ 165,521

. The estimated annual operations and maintenance costs (O&M) as a result of these amendments is $643,600. Estimate d annualized c apital costs to the industry for the proposed amendments are $ 575,500 , for a total estimated annualized costs ( annualized capital and O&M) of $1,219, 3 00

. (ii) The Agency tally. The average annual Federal Go vernment cost is $ 12,231 for 271 hours for the proposed amendments to subpart RRR
. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs presented in Table 4 are calculated by

adding person

- hours per year down each column for technical, managerial and clerical staff and by

adding down the cost column. (iii) Variations in the annual bottom line. This section does not apply since no si gnificant variation is anticipated. (f) Reasons for Change in Burden. The EPA provides an adjustment to this I CR that estimates the costs of the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense

. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records, including the root cause analysis,9

associated with a single incident totals approximately $3, 14 2 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the records and reports for submission to the EPA. (g) Burden Statement The average annual respondent burden for the proposed amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP is estimated at 11 p erson - hours

. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclo se or provide information to or for a Federal agency

. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA ’ s regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency ’s need for this information , the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any

suggestions for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this I CR under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 10

- 0544 which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B

- 102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

- 1927

. An e lectronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket and to access those documents in the public docket that are availabl e electronically

. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention Desk10

Officer for EPA. Please include the relevant Docket ID Number ( EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0797 ) in any c orrespondence.11

**PART B** This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with the propos ed rule

.12

**TABLE 3**  **. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST**  **- AMENDMENTS TO**  **PRIMARY ALUMINUM NESHAP**  **a**

**Burden item (A)**  **Person -**  **hours per**  **occurrence (B)** 

**No. of occurrences**  **per respondent**  **(C)**

**Person -**  **hours per**  **respondent** **(C=A*B)** **(D)**

**Respondents per year**  **(E)**

**Technical person**  **- hours**  **per year** **(E=C*D)** **(F)**

**Managem ent**  **person -**  **hours per year**  **(E*0.05)** **(G)**

**Clerical person**  **- hours**  **per year** **(E*0.1)** **(H)**

**Cost a**  **, $**

1. Applications N/A 2. Surveys and Studies N/A 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems N/A 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions b 4 1 4 161 644 32.2 64.4 $70, 964 B. Required activities C. Create information N/A D. Gather existing information N/A E. Write report (changing furnace designation) c 2 1 2 50 100 5 10 $1 1,019 F. Affirmative defense reporting/root cause analysis d 6 1 1 18 12 $3,142 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions See 4A B. Plan activities N/A C. Implement activities Verify lime injection rate 0.1 36 3.6 161 579.6 28.98 57.96 $63, 867 Changing furnace designation 2 1 2 50 100 5 10 $1 1,019 D. Develop record system N/A E. Time to enter information See 4C F. Time to train personnel N/A G. Ti me to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements N/A H. Time to transmit or disclose information 1 1 1 50 50 2.5 5 $5, 510 I. Time for audits N/A **TOTAL ANNUAL**  **LABOR BURDEN AND COST (SALARY)**  1 503 .6 73.68 147.3 6 $ 165,521 ANNUAL COSTS (O&M) Performance t esting uncontrolled furnaces e $129,600 HF testing f $14,000 Changing furnace designation, testing c $500,000 ANNUAL IZED CAPITAL COSTS g $575,700 **TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS (annualized capital**  **co st and annual O&M costs)**  $ 1,219,300 N/A = not applicable.13

a This ICR uses the following labor rates : $ 1 21.42 for managerial labor, $ 9 9.14 for technical labor, and $ 49.81 for clerical labor. These rates are based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, September, 2011

. b There are an estimated 1 61 existing facilities; no new facilities are expected

. c An estimated 50 facilities would change furnace designations once per year. Testing for furnace ch anging is estimated at a cost of $10,000 per facility. d See Section 4(b)(iii) above for breakdown of affirmative defense burden.
e 107 uncontrolled furnaces at 27 facilities would construct temporary hoods and conduct performance test every 5 years. f An estimated 20 facilities would be required to test HF with a total cost of $14,000. g 27 facilities would be required to construct temporary hoods for testing at $ 226,000 / facility, annualized at 7% for 20 years.14

**TABLE 4 .**  **ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO TH E**  **AGENCY -**  **AMENDMENTS TO PRIMARY ALUMINUM**  **NESHAP**

**Burden item (A)**  **Person -**  **hours per occurrence**  **(B)**

**Occurrences per respondent**  **(C)**

**EPA person**   ** hours/year** **(C=A*B)** **(D)**

**Facilities per year**  **(E)**

**Technical person**   ** hours/year** **( E**  **= C**  ***** **D )**  **(F)**

**Managem ent**  **person -**  **hours/year (**  **F =0.05** * **E )**  **(G)**

**Clerical person**   ** hours/year** **( G** **=0.1*** **E )**  **(H)**

**Cost a**  **, $**
Report Review: Review performance test reports and reports from facilities changing furnace designationb 4 1 4 59 236 11.8 23.6 $ 12,231
**TOTAL BURDEN AND COST $**  **12,231**

a This I CR uses the followin g average hourly labor rates: $ 62.27 for managerial (GS

- 13, Step 5), $4 6.21 (GS

- 12, Step 1 ) for technical , and $2 5.01 (G S

- 6, Step 3) for c lerical. These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 20 1 1 General Schedule , whic h excludes locality rates of pay

. b Assumes Agency will review all of the annual reports

- including the 4 H F tests/yr, 5 tests/yr for uncontrolled furnaces and 50 reports/yr for changing furnace designations

.15

**ATTACHMENT 1. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS**  **- AMEN**  **DMENTS TO PRIMARY ALUMINUM**  **NESHAP**

**Requirem ent**  **Citation for existing sources Citation for new sources**  **General Provisions citation** Lime injection rate v erificatio n § 63.1510(i)(4) § 63.1510(i)(4) Measurements of HF in a ddition to HCl § 63.1503, 63.1505, 63. 1511(c)(9), 63.1513 § 63.1503, 63.1505, 63.1511(c)(9), 63.1513 Uncontrolled furnaces that do not comply with ACGIH hooding guidelines § 63.1512(e)(4) § 63.1512(e)(4) Changing furnace d esignations § 63.1514 § 63.1514