[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70184-70186]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27487]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OW-2019-0404; FRL-10003-46-Region 8]

Approval of Variance Decision Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water
Act; Alternative Treatment Technique for National Primary Drinking
Water Lead and Copper Regulations for Denver Water

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
variance under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for Denver Water.
This variance will allow Denver Water to implement a Lead Reduction
Program Plan (LRPP) as an alternative to using orthophosphate as a
corrosion control treatment to reduce lead concentrations in drinking
water. Denver Water's LRPP is expected to be as protective in lowering
lead levels as the requirements under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).
This variance is effective for an initial period of three years and may
be extended if Denver Water demonstrates the effectiveness of this
alternative approach. Concurrent with this action, the EPA is asking
for comments on the potential criteria for how the Agency will
determine whether to extend this variance for up to an additional
twelve years. The EPA is accepting public comments on these criteria
and on the EPA's interpretation of the statutory standard for future
variance requests, as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

DATES: All public comments on the criteria must be received on or
before January 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: All comments can be submitted directly through docket number
EPA-R08-OW-2019-0404 available at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The variance documents are available
through docket number EPA-R08-OW-2019-0404 available at
www.regulations.gov. Questions can be directed to Natalie Cannon,
Drinking Water B Section, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO
80202-1129, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) required that
all large public water systems (PWSs) complete corrosion control
treatment steps and install optimal corrosion control treatment for
lead and copper by January 1, 1997, complete follow up

sampling, and operate in compliance with optimal water quality
parameters (OWQPs) specified by the applicable regulatory authority by
July 1, 1998. Denver Water conducted a corrosion control treatment
study in the mid-1990's. Based on that study, CDPHE designated pH and
alkalinity treatment as optimal corrosion control treatment for Denver
Water and set a minimum pH of 7.5 and alkalinity of 15 mg/L,
respectively, as OWQPs on October 18, 1995. Denver Water installed pH
and alkalinity adjustment treatment prior to January 1, 1997. Denver
Water has consistently monitored, met these OWQPs and has not had any
excursions or violations related to OWQPs.
    In 2012, Denver Water exceeded the lead action level of 15 [mu]g/L,
but Denver Water was not required to conduct any lead service line
replacements under the LCR because Denver Water does not own any lead
service lines. CDPHE, however, required Denver Water to conduct a new
corrosion control treatment study, which was completed in September
2017. On March 20, 2018, CDPHE modified its designation of the optimal
corrosion control treatment (OCCT) for Denver Water, requiring Denver
Water to install and operate orthophosphate as OCCT by March 20, 2020.
    Section 1415(a)(3) of the SDWA and 40 CFR 142.46 authorize the
Administrator to grant a variance from a treatment technique ``upon a
showing by any person that an alternative treatment technique not
included in such requirement is at least as efficient in lowering the
level of the contaminant with respect to which such requirement was
prescribed. A variance under this paragraph shall be conditioned on the
use of the alternative treatment technique which is the basis for the
variance.''
    On September 6, 2019, Denver Water requested a variance under
Section 1415(a)(3) of the SDWA from the optimal corrosion control
treatment requirements of the LCR. In its request, Denver Water
proposed that instead of following the requirement to install the
State's designation of orthophosphate as optimal corrosion control
treatment as required by 40 CFR 141.82(e), it would implement its LRPP.
The LRPP includes a suite of actions that will work together to reduce
lead in Denver's drinking water including: (1) Developing a LSL
inventory to identify and track lead service line replacements (LSLRs);
(2) initiating a lead removal filter program for homes with LSLs and
certain homes with copper pipe with lead solder; (3) conducting an
accelerated LSLR program to replace all LSLs in 15 years; (4) operating
increased pH/alkalinity adjustment as corrosion control treatment for
all customers; and (5) implementing a communications, outreach, and
education plan. Denver Water provided an analysis demonstrating that
the LRPP is expected to provide public health protection and at least
equivalent lead reductions as compared to compliance with the LCR
provisions regarding corrosion control.
    Under the LRPP, Denver Water will conduct full LSLRs of privately-
owned LSLs at an accelerated rate compared to current conditions.
Denver Water estimates it has approximately 64,000 LSLs. Under the
LRPP, Denver Water commits to taking proactive steps to replace all
LSLs in 15 years. Because some homes with LSLs will have to wait
multiple years for their LSL to be replaced, Denver Water will also
initiate a program that will provide a filter and replacement
cartridges to every household with a LSL and select households with
copper pipe with lead solder. In conjunction with these efforts, Denver
Water will operate increased pH/alkalinity adjustment as corrosion
control treatment to reduce lead corrosion from all sources. Denver
Water will also conduct a full investigation of its LSL inventory and
publish a map showing the locations of all LSLs. Finally, Denver Water
will conduct extensive outreach to educate customers about the health
risks of lead and ways that they can reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water.
    Denver Water provided an analysis demonstrating that these steps
are expected to provide at least equivalent lead reductions as
orthophosphate treatment and will therefore be protective of public
health. The EPA finds that Denver Water has made a showing that its
alternative treatment technique appears to meet the requirements of
SDWA Section 1415(a)(3). In the variance order, the EPA explains how it
evaluated and compared the LRRP to the requirement to install the
State's designation of optimal corrosion control treatment as defined
in 40 CFR 141.2 in concluding that LRRP is ``at least as efficient'' in
lowering the levels of lead in tap water as orthophosphate.
    The EPA is therefore approving Denver Water's request for a SDWA
Section 1415(a)(3) variance for an initial period of three years to
enable Denver Water to further support its demonstration with
additional data and for the EPA to verify the effectiveness of the
LRPP. This variance is supported by the State of Colorado and will
enable the State to modify its determination of optimal corrosion
control treatment to incorporate the terms and conditions of this
variance.
    In evaluating the variance request, the EPA also considered other
factors beyond the statutory standard of ``as efficient.'' Denver
Water's 90th percentile lead levels have consistently been below the
lead action level since 1997 (except in 2012). Denver Water has the
technical, managerial, and financial capacity to implement the lead
reduction program both for Denver water consumers and for the
consecutive systems they serve. Importantly for long-term public health
protection, Denver Water has committed to and has the capacity to fully
replace all lead service lines in 15 years. The EPA also recognizes
that Denver Water wants to more fully engage in a holistic water
management strategy based on concerns about the potential impacts from
increased levels of phosphate in wastewater discharges to the South
Platte River. This river is dominated by the effluent of a waste water
treatment plant so there are limited options to effectively control
nutrient levels.
    In the terms and conditions that make up the variance order, the
EPA includes criteria for how the Agency will assess the effectiveness
of Denver Water's program during the first three years and determine
whether to extend this variance for an additional twelve years, which
would provide the time necessary for Denver Water to complete its lead
service line replacements. These criteria are intended to confirm the
alternative treatment technique can be effectively implemented and
results in ``at least as efficient'' lead reductions, as compared to
installation of orthophosphate.
    The EPA is accepting public comments on these criteria. The EPA is
also requesting comment on how the Agency should evaluate whether any
future treatment technique variance requests are at least as efficient
as the treatment technique requirements of the LCR. The EPA is not
taking comment on the EPA's approval of Denver Water's variance, which
is effective per the variance order, given the EPA's analysis of Denver
Water's variance application and the previous public participation
opportunities that informed the application.
    Specific questions the EPA is seeking comments on include:

    (1) Do the criteria in the variance order capture the data and
factors the EPA should examine during the initial three-year
approval period? Are there other criteria or information relevant to
the meaning of ``at least as efficient'' that the EPA should
consider when deciding whether to extend Denver Water's SDWA
variance?

    (2) Should the EPA consider going through a notice and comment
process for the extension?
    (3) How should the EPA evaluate any future treatment technique
variance requests to the LCR? Specifically, because the term is not
currently defined in statute or regulation, how should the EPA
interpret ``at least as efficient'' to satisfy the statutory
requirements for a variance to be granted under the SDWA Section
1415(a)(3)? Beyond the criteria the EPA has evaluated in issuing the
variance order, are there other criteria relevant to the meaning of
``at least as efficient'' that the EPA should consider for future
requests? How should the Agency evaluate the combined overall
efficiency of a proposed alternative treatment technique, including
whether or how to:
    a. Prepare an LSL inventory to identify and track LSLRs;
    b. distribute filters certified for lead removal to homes at
risk of elevated lead levels;
    c. accelerate LSLRs;
    d. achieve near optimal corrosion control treatment; and
    e. conduct outreach and education with consumers?
    (4) The EPA also requests comment on other actions that water
systems could take to ensure equally efficient reductions in
drinking water lead exposure.

    The variance order and its terms and conditions are available
online as part of docket number EPA-R08-OW-2019-0404 at
www.regulations.gov.
    After consideration of public comments received, the EPA may modify
the terms and conditions of the variance order to change the criteria
by which the EPA will assess the effectiveness of Denver Water's
alternative program in order to determine whether the variance should
be extended.

    Dated: December 16, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-27487 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 44 (Thursday, March 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12963-12964]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0112]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt eight individuals from
the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on February 14, 2020. The
exemptions expire on February 14, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0112 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On January 15, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from eight individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR2483).
The public comment period ended on February 14, 2020, and no comments
were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for

commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving
history. Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that
focused on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be
achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate
commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate
commerce, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have
demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Matthew Armstrong (TX)
Jared Gunn (IL)
Michael Haessly (MN)
Derek Kangas (WI)
Joshua McElroy (IL)
Walt Pindor (AZ)
Abel Talamante (WA)
Jonathan Turner (FL)
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

    Issued on: February 28, 2020.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-04533 Filed 3-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P