77064 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Announcement of I–69 Status

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of I–69 Status.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this

announcement is to provide information

on the status of Interstate 69, a

transcontinental highway corridor

designated by the U.S. Congress to

extend from the U.S./Canadian border to

the U.S./Mexican border. The public is

invited to participate in FHWA NEPA

process, and to contact the States

through which the corridor runs for

specific project information.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: K.

Lynn Berry, Community Impact

Specialist, Federal Highway

Administration, Southern Resource

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 17T26,

Atlanta, GA, 30303, Telephone: (404)

562–3618, E-mail:

klynn.berry@fhwa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) has initiated the project

planning, development, and

decisionmaking process for numerous

transportation projects related to a

transcontinental highway corridor,

designated as I–69. The corridor has

been defined by the United States

Congress to extend from Port Huron,

Michigan (bordering Sarnia, Ontario,

Canada) to the Lower Rio Grande Valley

in Texas at the Mexican border, a

distance of more than 1600 miles.

The I–69 corridor (originally known

as Corridor 18) was designated by the

U.S. Congress as a High-Priority

Corridor of National Significance in the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). It was

further defined in the National Highway

System Designation Act of 1995 and the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA–21) in 1998. The I–69

Corridor has been identified to address

the transportation needs associated with

the increase in goods movements

between the three partners (U.S.A.,

Mexico, and Canada) to the North

American Free Trade Agreement of

1992. It is also a key transportation

recommendation of the Clinton

Administration’s Delta Initiative, which

is aimed at the revitalization and

economic development of the Lower

Mississippi Delta Region. The overall

purpose of I–69 corridor is to improve

international and interstate trade in

accordance with national and state

goals; and to facilitate economic

development in accordance with state,

regional, and local policies, plans and

surface transportation consistent with

national, state, regional, local needs and

with congressional designation of the

corridor.

Several studies were conducted that

informed the authorizing legislation.

They include the 1995 Corridor 18

Feasibility Study, a 1996 Corridor 20

Feasibility Study, and the Corridor 18

Special Issues Study, completed in

1997.

Per the legislative authorities, the

current definition of I–69 stipulates the

following:

• Includes the existing I–69 facility

from Indianapolis to Port Huron,

Michigan/Sarnia, Ontario, Canada;

• Includes the I–94 facility from Port

Huron, through Detroit (including the

Ambassador Bridge interchange) to

Chicago, Illinois;

• A new Interstate route (I–69) from

Indianapolis to the Lower Rio Grande

Valley serving the following:

—Evansville, Indiana,

—Memphis, Tennessee,

—Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana,

—Houston, Texas.

The route would pass through

Mississippi and Arkansas between

Memphis and Shreveport/Bossier City.

• Requires that in Tennessee,

Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana,

the corridor follow the alignment

generally identified in the ‘‘Special

Issues Study’’ (1997); and

• Includes, in the Lower Rio Grande

Valley:

—US 77 from the Mexican border to US

59 in Victoria, Texas;

—US 281 from the Mexican border to

US 59, then to Victoria, Texas;

—The Corpus Christi Northside

Highway and Rail Corridor from the

intersection of US 77 and I–37 to US

181; and

—FM 511 from US 77 to the Port of

Brownsville.

Additional studies have been

conducted to refine planning efforts

subsequent to ISTEA and TEA–21. The

Special Environmental Studies included

a report on Sections of Independent

Utility (1999) and a Statement of

Purpose and Need (February 2000).

Related studies examined the Southwest

Indiana Highway Corridor; Mississippi

State Highway 304 Corridor; The Great

River Bridge Crossing of the Mississippi

River; The US 59 Corridor Master Plan

from Diboll, Texas to Garrison, Texas;

and I–69 Route Feasibility in the

Houston, Texas metropolitan area.

The Statement of Purpose and Need

identified benefits to the Nation that

have been shown to outweigh the costs

of providing the transportation facility.

These benefits are related to system

linkage, capacity, transportation

demand, economic development,

modal/freight interrelationships, safety,

and roadway deficiencies. Studies

considering alternative transportation

modal choices have identified that an

interstate highway facility would best

meet the needs as identified.

The I–69 corridor and related projects

fall within nine States (Michigan,

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee,

Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and

Texas). The length of the corridor

precludes the planning, development,

and decisionmaking of the full corridor

as a single construction project. For the

purposes of planning, the overall length

of more than 1,600 miles was divided

into 32 Sections of Independent Utility

(SIU). 26 of these sections form a

continuous route from the Michigan/

Canada border to the Texas/Mexico

border, and six sections are identified as

connecting routes to I–69. The SIUs

were developed in a manner consistent

with the FHWA memorandum dated

November 3, 1993 on establishing

logical termini, and have been approved

for advancement to the FHWA National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

decisionmaking process. In some cases,

the FHWA NEPA process,

documentation, and approvals have

already been applied to projects and

work activities within the corridor.

This notice also announces that the

advancement of I–69 is moving from the

corridor planning and feasibility study

stages to the state project planning,

development, and FHWA NEPA process

and decisionmaking stages. Each state

will study viable sections identified

above, addressing state and local needs,

schedules, and funding constraints in

accordance with the FHWA NEPA

process. State and local needs for any

particular project will be considered, as

well as the national legislative and

administrative objectives for the

movement of goods across the country.

The FHWA will partner with the state

departments of transportation to

facilitate the examination of alternatives

and impacts within the proposed

corridor, and to ensure consistency in

addressing the national transportation

objectives relative to transcontinental

trade put forth by Congress.

Interagency workshops and briefings

have been conducted. The primary

mechanism for working with resource

agencies has been through the Southeast

Natural Resource Leaders Group

(SENRLG) and its counterparts in

Dallas, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois.

SENRLG, which will continue to serve

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices 77065

as an advisory group to I–69

decisionmakers, is a collaboration of

regional and Federal executives who

lead agencies with natural resource

conservation as part of their mission. In

addition to the conservation,

restoration, and management of

resources, SENRLG is committed to

promoting ecologically sustainable

development. To this end, it will assist

transportation officials in determining

the impact of I–69 as well as

opportunities for enhancing the

environment. In working with the

resource agencies, emphasis will be

given to procedures which will facilitate

the acceleration of project management,

development, and decisionmaking, and

which ensure public outreach,

involvement and coordination with

Federal, state, and local agencies.

There have been many public

involvement activities and

opportunities throughout the I–69

process. During the planning and

feasibility study stages, a series of

public meetings was held in Memphis,

Tennessee, a city central to the corridor.

They were held on the following dates:

November 7, 1994 to receive

suggestions and comments.

September 25, 1995 to discuss results

of the Feasibility Study.

August 29, 1996 to receive

suggestions and comments.

May 28, 1997 to discuss the results of

the Special Issues Study.

A number of advocacy groups were

involved during corridor studies.

Additionally, ten Metropolitan Planning

Organizations have been involved in

planning for I–69, and more

opportunities for public involvement

will continue throughout the process.

Currently, state-specific studies are

being conducted in accordance with

each state’s public involvement process.

Future public involvement activities

will be conducted in each state, as I–69

projects are advanced through the

FHWA NEPA process. Each state will

issue a notice of intent to proceed with

the FHWA NEPA process for I–69

projects in the Federal Register, clearly

identifying the projects as part of the

corridor. For information regarding

opportunities to participate in the

transportation decision-making process,

please contact one of the representatives

from the state departments of

transportation or the FHWA Division

offices.

State contact FHWA division contact

Michigan ............. Dave Wresinski, Manager, Project Planning Section, Michigan Department of Transportation, State Transportation

Building, 425 West Ottawa, P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI

48913, Phone: 517–373–8258, Fax: 517–373–9255, Email:

wresinskid@mdot.state.mi.us.

James J. Steele, Division Administrator, Federal Building,

Room 207, 315 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan

48933, Phone: 517–377–1844, Fax: 517–377–1804, Email:

Michigan. FHWA@fhwa.dot.gov

Illinois ................. Mr. William Sunley, Deputy Director of Program Development, Division of Highways, Illinois Department of Transportation, 2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, IL 62764,

Phone: 217–782–2972, Email: sunleyb@nt.dot.state.il.us.

Ron Marshall, Division Administrator, 3250 Executive Park

Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703, Phone (217) 492–4600, Fax

(217) 492–4621, Email: illinois.fhwa@fhwa.dot.gov

Indiana ............... Steve Cecil, Deputy Commissioner of Planning and Intermodal Transportation, Indiana Department of Transportation,

100 North Senate Avenue, Room N755, Indianapolis, IN

46204–2249, Phone: 317–232–5535, Fax: 317–232–0238,

Email:scecil@indot.state.in.us.

John Baxter, Division Administrator, 575 North Pennsylvania

Street, Room 254, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Phone: 317–

226–7475, Fax: 317–226–7341, Email:

John.Baxter@fhwa.dot.gov

Kentucky ............ Michael Hancock, Deputy State Highway Engineer, Kentucky

Transportation Cabinet, State Office Building, Rm 1005, 501

High Street, Frankfort, KY 40622, Phone: 502–564–3730,

Fax: 502–564–2277, Email: mhancock@mail.kytc.state.ky.us.

Jose Sepulveda, Division Administrator, 330 West Broadway,

Frankfort, KY 40601, Phone: 502–223–6720, Fax: 502–223–

6735 Email: jose.sepulveda@fhwa.dot.gov

Tennessee ......... Dennis Cook, Assistant Chief Engineer, Tennessee Department of Transportation, 700 James K. Polk Building, 505

Deaderick Street, Nashville, TN 37243–0349, Phone: 615–

741–3339, Fax: 615–741–0865, Email:

dcook@mail.state.tn.us.

Charles S. Boyd, Division Administrator, 640 Grassmere

Park Road, Suite 112, Nashville, Tennessee 37211, Phone:

615–781–5770, Fax: 615–781–5773, Email:

Charles.Boyd@tn.fhwa.dot.gov

Mississippi .......... Marlin Collier, Director, Office of Intermodal Planning, Mississippi Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 1850, Jackson, Mississippi 39215, Phone: 601–359–7025, Fax: 601–

359–7050, Email: mcollier@mdot.state.ms.us.

Andrew H. Hughes, Division Administrator, 666 North Street,

Suite 105, Jackson, Mississippi 39202, Phone: 601–965–

4217, Fax: 601–965–4231, E-mail: hughes@ms.fhwa.dot.gov

Arkansas ............ Steve Teague, Assistant Chief Engineer for Planning, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box

2261, Little Rock, AR 72203–2261, Phone: 501–569–2241,

Fax: 501–569–2400, E-mail: steve.teague@ahtd.state.ar.us.

Sandra L. Otto, Division Administrator, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3130, Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: (501) 324–

5625, Fax: (501) 324–6423, Email: sandra.otto@ar.fhwa.dot.gov

Louisiana ............ Mr. Kenneth A. Perret, Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning and Programming, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, P.O. Box 94245, Baton Rouge, LA

70804–9245, Phone: 225–379–1248, Fax: 225–379–1227,

Email: kperret@dotdmail.dotd.state.la.us.

William A. Sussmann, Division Administrator, 5304 Flanders

Drive, Suite A, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225–757–

7600, Fax: 225–757–7601, Email: Louisiana.FHWA@fhwa.dot.gov

Texas ................. Alvin R. Luedecke, Director, Transportation Planning and

Programming Division, Texas Department of Transportation,

200 East Riverside, Bldg. 118, 2nd Floor, Austin, TX 78704,

Phone: 512–486–5000, Fax: 512–486–5007, Email:

aluedeck@dot.state.tx.us.

C.D. (Dan) Reagan, Division Administrator, 300 E. 8th Street,

Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512–536–5900, Fax: 512–536–

5990, Email: Texas.FHWA@fhwa.dot.gov

On behalf of the U.S. Department of

Transportation and Federal Highway

Administration, Mr. Eugene Cleckley,

Director, Field Services—South,

Atlanta, Georgia, has been appointed the

U.S. DOT Executive Official to facilitate

77066 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

coordination among the states and

FHWA, and to facilitate project

management, acceleration, and

decisionmaking. He will provide

leadership in working with a Steering

Committee of transportation officials

who will coordinate the I–69 initiative.

The Steering Committee, chaired by Mr.

Dan Flowers of the Arkansas State

Highway and Transportation

Department (AHTD), is comprised of

eight member states. The AHTD serves

as the administrative agency acting on

behalf of the Steering Committee and as

a central repository for documentation

related to the corridor as a whole.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research

and Construction. The regulation

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation of

Federal programs and activities apply to the

program)

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: December 1, 2000.

Eugene W. Cleckley,

Director, Field Services—South.

[FR Doc. 00–31145 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7363]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its

decision to exempt 70 individuals from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10).

DATES: December 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about the vision

exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra

Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck

Standards and Operations, (202) 366–

2987; for information about legal issues

related to this notice, Mr. Joseph

Solomey, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202) 366–1374, FMCSA, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

You may see all the comments online

through the Document Management

System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.

Background

Seventy-two individuals petitioned

the FMCSA for an exemption of the

vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers

of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in

interstate commerce. They are, Henry

Wayne Adams, Willie F. Adams,

Fernando Aquilera, Louis Edward

Aldrige, Larry Neal Arrington, David

Ball, Delbert Ronnie Bays, Rosa C.

Beaumont, Jerry A. Bechtold, Robert F.

Berry, James A. Bright, Robert R. Buis,

David Dominick Bungori, Ronzie L.

Carroll, Richard S. Carter, Lynn A.

Childress, Kevin L. Cole, David R. Cox,

Gerald Wade Cox, Dempsey Leroy

Crawhorn Jr., Thomas P. Cummings,

Cedric E. Foster, Rosalie A. Gifford,

Eugene Anthony Gitzen, Donald Grogan,

Elmer Harper, Peter L. Haubruck, Joe

Marvin Hill, Brian L. Houle, Christopher

L. Humphries, Craig C. Irish, Donald R.

Jackson, Nelson V. Jaramillo, Daryl A.

Jester, Joseph Vernon Johns, Jimmie W.

Judkins, Kurth A. Kapke, Johnny M.

Kruprzak, Charles R Kuderer, Thomas

D. Laws, Demetrio Lozano, Wayne

Mantela, Kenneth D. May, Jimmy R.

Millage, Harold J. Mitchell, Gordon L.

Nathan, Jerry L. New, Bernice Ray

Parnell, Aaron Pennington, Clifford C.

Priesmeyer, George S Rayson, Kevin D.

Reece, Franklin Reed, Arthur A.

Sappington, James L. Schneider, Patrick

W. Shea, Carl B. Simonye, Ernie Sims,

William H Smith, Paul D. Spalding,

Richard Allen Strange, Steven Carter

Thomas, George Walter Thornhill, Rick

N. Ulrich, Roy F. Varnado, Henry Lee

Walker, Larry D. Wedekind, Daniel

Wilson, Emmett E. Windhorst, Wonda

Lue Wooten, Thomas Long and Gary

Bryan.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),

the FMCSA may grant an exemption for

a renewable 2-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.’’

Accordingly, the FMCSA evaluated the

petitions on their merits and made a

preliminary determination that the

exemptions should be granted. On July

25, 2000, the agency published a notice

of its preliminary determination and

requested comments from the public (65

FR 45817). The comment period closed

on August 24, 2000. Two comments

were received, and their contents were

carefully considered by the FMCSA in

reaching the final decision to grant the

petitions.

In the case of applicant Kevin Cole,

the FMCSA has denied Mr. Cole’s

request for an exemption from the

vision requirements of 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). Mr. Cole was notified

previous to this announcement by letter

of his denial. The purpose of publishing

his denial here is simply to comply with

49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4)(c), by periodically

publishing in the Federal Register the

names of persons denied exemptions

and the reasons for such denials.

After the agency published its

preliminary determination to grant Mr.

Cole an exemption, he indicated in a

conversation with a member of our staff

on August 2, 2000, that he had not

driven a CMV during the required 3-

year period. Therefore, the FMCSA is

unable to conclude that granting him an

exemption is likely to achieve a level of

safety equal to that existing without the

exemption as required by 49 U.S.C.

31315 and 31136(e). In the case of

applicant Joe Marvin Hill, Mr. Hill

passed away.

Vision and Driving Experience of the

Applicants

The vision requirement provides:

A person is physically qualified to drive a

commercial motor vehicle if that person has

distant visual acuity of at least 20/40

(Snellen) in each eye without corrective

lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to

20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective

lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/

40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without

corrective lenses, field of vision of at least

70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye,

and the ability to recognize the colors of

traffic signals and devices showing standard

red, green, and amber. 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

Since 1992, the FHWA has

undertaken studies to determine if this

vision standard should be amended.

The final report from our medical panel

recommends changing the field of

vision standard from 70° to 120°, while

leaving the visual acuity standard

unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D.,

Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul

Aiello, M.D., and James W. Rosenberg,

M.D., ‘‘Visual Requirements and

Commercial Drivers,’’ October 16, 1998,

filed in the docket, FHWA–98–4334.)

The panel’s conclusion supports the

FMCSA’s (and previously the FHWA’s)

view that the present standard is

reasonable and necessary as a general

standard to ensure highway safety. The

FMCSA also recognizes that some

drivers do not meet the vision standard,

but have adapted their driving to

accommodate their vision limitation

and demonstrated their ability to drive

safely.