Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0813-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; 2008 8-hour Ozone Interstate Transport
Posted Date: 2019-07-11T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33027-33030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14729]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0813; FRL-9996-23-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate 
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each 
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air 
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this 
action, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to approve the August 15, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0813 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached 
via telephone at (404) 562-9009 and via electronic mail at 
adams.evan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the 
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 
parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 
2008). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), 
states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of 
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP 
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.075 ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having 
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to 
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or 
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision, 
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant 
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfere with

[[Page 33028]]

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this 
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be 
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state 
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses 
only prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other 
infrastructure SIP elements for Georgia for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 83 FR 19637 (May 4,2018); 80 FR 61109 (October 9, 2015); 
and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. State Submittal

    On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
(GA EPD) provided a SIP submittal to EPA to address the interstate 
transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the Georgia 
SIP.\3\ Georgia made this submission to certify that its SIP contains 
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions activities within the State 
which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state, and 
therefore, adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ Georgia's 
certification is based on EPA's air quality modeling and monitoring 
data, SIP-approved and state provisions regulating emissions of ozone 
precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX)) within the State, and an analysis of recent trends in 
emissions of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX) from Georgia 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 6, 2012, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to 
address the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of the CAA including 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On 
October 3, 2013, the State withdrew its good neighbor SIP 
submission. See August 29, 2016, Memorandum from Gobeail McKinley re 
``Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,'' 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0509.
    \4\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rulemaking that 
finalized findings of failure to submit with regard to the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states, 
including Georgia, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 
39961. The findings of failure to submit established a two-year 
deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the interstate 
transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to 
nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA 
promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that 
meets these requirements. Additional background on the findings of 
failure to submit--including EPA's findings related to Georgia--can 
be found in the preamble to the final rule. See 80 FR 39961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist 
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide 
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states 
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\5\ On October 26, 2016, EPA took 
steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern states 
\6\ by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(2011 CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor 
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\7\ The 
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain 
affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May 
through September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of 
ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind 
states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined that emissions from 14 states 
(including Georgia) will not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind 
states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need not require further 
emission reductions from sources in those states to address the good 
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4, 
2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality 
modeling results that were used for the proposed Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update. See 80 FR 46271.
    \6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer 
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not 
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New 
Mexico).
    \7\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of 
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 
Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), 
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when 
developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA's interstate transport rule 
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework 
established the following four-step process to address the requirements 
of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred 
to as receptors, that are expected to have problems attaining or 
maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind states impact these 
identified problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the 
downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air 
quality problems, identify upwind emissions, if any, that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states 
that are found to have emissions that will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by 
adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the 
CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine whether 
states in the east will significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of downwind air quality. As explained below, 
the CSAPR Update's four-step analysis supports the conclusions provided 
in GA EPD's August 15, 2018, interstate transport SIP submittal for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that the state will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
standard in other states.
    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used 
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the four-
step framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute 
to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors, at step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA 
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were at or above 
a specific threshold. EPA determined that one percent was an 
appropriate threshold to use in this analysis because there were 
important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at 
that threshold.\8\ See 81

[[Page 33029]]

FR 74504. For the CSAPR Update, EPA applied an air quality screening 
threshold of 0.75 ppb (equivalent to one percent of the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and 
the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States with 
impacts below the one-percent threshold were considered not to 
contribute to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors and therefore would not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. If a state's impact was equal to or exceeded the one-
percent threshold, that state was considered linked to the downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were 
further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost 
considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be 
necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold 
generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution 
transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed 
that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively 
modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport 
pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result 
in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone 
pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one 
percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October 
26, 2016) and ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf. This approach is 
consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those 
states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect to the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA 
noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient 
ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); see also 
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'' for 
the 2011 CSAPR, located at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the final rulemaking for the CSAPR Update, the air 
quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified 
locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or 
maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were 
identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively), 
and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from 
upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in 
2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 
model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case emissions 
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites 
with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used 
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx 
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each 
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were 
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United 
States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and 
Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the final CSAPR 
Update inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state linkages to 
downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 
Georgia. See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD.
    EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated 
that Georgia's largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment 
receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and Georgia's largest contribution to any 
projected downwind maintenance-only site in 2017 was 0.62 ppb.\9\ These 
values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and 
therefore there are no identified linkages between Georgia and 2017 
downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2, section 4.4 and 
Appendix D.
    \10\ Georgia continues to have CSAPR NOX ozone season 
requirements (including emission budget) related to the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504, 74524 n 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the Georgia's submittal?

    As mentioned in section I, Georgia's August 15, 2018, submittal 
certifies that emission activities from the State will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the following reasons: 
(1) Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the CSAPR Update indicates 
that Georgia's impact on any downwind receptor is less than 1 percent 
of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC precursor emissions in 
Georgia have decreased since 1990; and (3) Georgia has in place both 
SIP-approved and state provisions that regulate ozone precursors in the 
State. Based on an assessment of this information, EPA proposes to 
approve Georgia's SIP submission because the State will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with 
maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
    Georgia's submittal assessed EPA's CSAPR Update modeling. Georgia 
cites EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD where the modeling 
indicated that Georgia's largest impact on any projected downwind 
nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and the largest impact on 
any projected downwind maintenance-only site was 0.62 ppb, both of 
which are below 0.75 ppb, the one percent threshold for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. EPA concluded that Georgia's emissions will not contribute to 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore, did not 
promulgate a FIP that required additional emission reductions from 
Georgia. Accordingly, in the CSAPR Update, EPA made a final 
determination that Georgia emissions will not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that sources in the State are not required 
to further reduce emissions pursuant to the good neighbor provision 
with respect to this standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 81 FR 74506. EPA is not reopening for comment final 
determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to 
support that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's submittal also notes that total annual NOX 
emissions and total annual VOC emissions in the state have decreased by 
58 percent and 49 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2017. EPA 
notes that ozone precursor emissions nationally continue to decline 
from 1990 levels and are largely driven by federal and state 
implementation of stationary and mobile source regulations.\12\ 
Additionally, nationwide ozone concentrations have also decreased since 
1990. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See EPA's annual report on the nation's air quality status 
and trends through 2017, available at https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/documentation/AirTrends_Flyer.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD identified regulations that have been approved into the 
Georgia SIP to provide for the control of NOX and VOCs, 
which are precursors that contribute to ambient ozone concentrations. 
These regulations include Regulations 391-3-1-.02--Provisions Amended 
and 391-3-1-.03--Permits, which provide for the implementation of a 
permitting program for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration requirements required under Title I, Parts C and D of the 
CAA for sources of NOX and VOCs. The permitting requirements 
help ensure that NOX and VOC emissions from new and modified 
sources are controlled.
    Specifically for the control of NOX, GA EPD identified 
SIP-approved regulations that establish emission standards and 
compliance (testing and monitoring) requirements for stationary sources 
of air pollution: 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from 
Major Sources, 391-3-1-

[[Page 33030]]

.02(2)(jjj)--NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating 
Units, 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX Emissions From Fuel-Burning Equipment, 
and Regulation 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)--NOX from Small Fuel-
Burning Equipment. Georgia also identified Regulation 391-3-20--Vehicle 
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program which regulates 
vehicle emissions in the state.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although not relied upon for purposes of approval, GA EPD 
also identified state-only provisions of the Georgia Rules for Air 
Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)--Multipollutant Control for 
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units as a regulations that the 
State is implementing which provides for the control of 
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia further identified the following SIP-approved regulations 
that provide for the implementation of VOC emissions controls by 
fulfilling RACT requirements for specific source categories: Regulation 
391-3-1-.02(2)(t) through (ff), (hh) through (nn), (pp) through (ss), 
(vv), (ccc) through (eee), (hhh), (kkk), (vvv), and (yyy) through 
(aaaa). GA EPD further identified Regulation 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt)--VOC 
Emissions from Major Sources, which outlines the case-by-case RACT 
regulations in the State.
    EPA proposes to approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission 
on grounds that it addresses the State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good 
neighbor obligation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because EPA has 
found that the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment 
in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission as meeting the CAA 
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA requests comment on this proposed approval 
of Georgia's SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 26, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-14729 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P