Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of Indiana, 62288-62292 [05-21606]
Download as PDF
62288
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(d) The split specimen failed to
reconfirm all of the primary specimen
results, and reported that the split
specimen was invalid. You must follow
the procedures in 40.187(c)(1)
(recollection under direct observation is
required in this case).
(e) The split specimen failed to
reconfirm all of the primary specimen
results because the split specimen was
not available for testing or there was no
split laboratory available to test the
specimen. You must follow applicable
procedures in 40.187(e) (recollection
under direct observation is required in
this case).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 40.207
30. Section 40.207 is proposed to be
amended by removing, in paragraph
(a)(3), the reference to ‘‘40.187(b)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘40.187(b)(3), (c)(1),
and (e)’’.
31. Appendix B to Part 40 is proposed
to be amended by revising it to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 40—DOT Drug
Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory
Report
The summary report shall contain the
following information:
Reporting Period: (inclusive dates)
Laboratory Identification: (name and address)
Employer Identification: (name; may include
Billing Code or ID code)
C/TPA Identification: (where applicable;
name and address)
1. Specimen Results Reported (total number)
By Type of Test
(a) Pre-employment (number)
(b) Post-Accident (number)
(c) Random (number)
(d) Reasonable Suspicion/Cause (number)
(e) Return-to-Duty (number)
(f) Follow-up (number)
(g) Type of Test Not Noted on CCF
(number)
2. Specimens Reported
(a) Negative (number)
(b) Negative and Dilute (number)
3. Specimens Reported as Rejected for
Testing (total number)
By Reason
(a) Fatal flaw (number)
(b) Uncorrected Flaw (number)
4. Specimens Reported as Positive (total
number)
By Drug
(a) Marijuana Metabolite (number)
(b) Cocaine Metabolite (number)
(c) Opiates (number)
(1) Codeine (number)
(2) Morphine (number)
(3) 6–AM (number)
(d) Phencyclidine (number)
(e) Amphetamines (number)
(1) Amphetamine (number)
(2) Methamphetamine (number)
5. Adulterated (number)
6. Substituted (number)
17:43 Oct 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
Appendix F to Part 40—[Amended]
32. Appendix F to Part 40 is proposed
to be amended by removing the
references to § 40.187(a)–(f) and
§ 40.191(d) and adding in their place
§ 40.187(a)–(e) and § 40.191(e),
respectively.
[FR Doc. 05–21488 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–62–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[OST Docket No. 2005–22114]
RIN 2105–AD53
Standard Time Zone Boundary in the
State of Indiana
Office of the Secretary (OST),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DOT tentatively proposes to
relocate the time zone boundary in
Indiana to move St. Joseph, Starke,
Knox, Pike, and Perry Counties from the
eastern time zone to the central time
zone at the request of the County
Commissioners. We are tentatively not
proposing to change the time zone
boundary to move Marshall, Pulaski,
Fulton, Benton, White, Carroll, Cass,
Vermillion, Sullivan, Daviess, Dubois,
Martin, and Lawrence Counties from the
eastern time zone to the central time
zone based on the petitions from the
commissioners in these counties. If
additional information is provided that
indicates that the time zone boundary
should be drawn differently, either to
include counties currently excluded or
to exclude counties that are currently
included in this proposal, we will make
the change at the final rule stage of this
proceeding.
DATES: Any County Commissioners from
the counties that have submitted
petitions who wish to provide
additional data to justify a change from
the eastern time zone to the central time
zone should do so by November 10,
2005. Other comments should be
received by November 30, 2005 to be
assured of consideration. Comments
received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable. If
the time zone boundary is changed as a
result of this rulemaking, the effective
date would be no earlier than 2 a.m.
EST Sunday, April 2, 2006, which is the
changeover from standard time to
daylight saving time.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number (OST Docket Number 2005–
22114) or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) (2105–AD53) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading under
Regulatory Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
Public Hearings: In addition to the
submission of written comments, an
opportunity for oral comments will be
provided at four public hearings in
Jasper, Logansport, South Bend, and
Terre Haute. These hearings will be
chaired by a representative of DOT in
November. We will publish the date and
time in a separate document that will be
posted in the docket and published in
the Federal Register.
The hearings will be informal and
will be tape-recorded for inclusion in
the docket. The DOT representative will
provide an opportunity to speak for all
those wishing to do so, to the greatest
extent possible. The hearing locations
will be accessible for persons with
disabilities. If you need a sign language
interpreter, please let us know no later
than one week before the hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room 10424, 400
ADDRESSES:
49 CFR Part 71
[Amended]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
7. Invalid Result (number)
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, indianatime@dot.gov; (202) 366–
9306.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Current Indiana Time Observance
Under Federal law, 82 Indiana
counties are in the eastern time zone
and 10 are in the central time zone. The
central time zone counties include five
in the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte,
Newton, and Jasper) and five in the
southwest (Posey, Vanderburgh,
Warrick, Spencer and Gibson). The
remaining 82 counties are in the eastern
time zone. Neighboring States observe
both eastern and central time. Illinois
and western Kentucky observe central
time, while eastern Kentucky, Ohio, and
the portion of Michigan adjoining
Indiana observe eastern time.
Federal law provides that it is up to
an individual State to decide whether or
not to observe daylight saving time.
Generally, a State must choose to
observe, or not observe, across the entire
State. The one exception is that, if a
State is in more than one time zone, a
‘‘split’’ observance is permitted. Under
this scenario, all of a State that is in one
time zone may observe daylight saving
time, while the remainder of the State
in the different time zone does not.
Under Indiana law, for many years, the
central time zone portion of the State
has observed daylight saving time,
while the eastern time zone portion of
the State has not observed daylight
saving time.
The effect of daylight saving time is
the equivalent of moving one time zone
to the east. This means that, by
remaining on eastern standard time
year-round, the eastern time zone
portion of Indiana has been on the same
time as New York in the winter and on
the same clock time as Chicago in the
summer. The impact of the State
legislation (discussed in more detail
below) to observe daylight saving time
beginning in 2006 is that, in the
summer, the time of sunrise and sunset
on eastern daylight saving time will be
an hour later than it currently is under
year-round eastern standard time. There
will be no change in the sunrise and
sunset times during the winter when
eastern standard time will continue to
be observed.
Statutory Requirements
Under the Standard Time Act of 1918,
as amended by the Uniform Time Act of
1966 (15 U.S.C. 260–64), the Secretary
of Transportation has authority to issue
regulations modifying the boundaries
between time zones in the United States
in order to move an area from one time
zone to another. The standard in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Oct 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
statute for such decisions is ‘‘regard for
the convenience of commerce and the
existing junction points and division
points of common carriers engaged in
interstate or foreign commerce.’’
DOT Procedures To Change a Time
Zone Boundary
The Department has typically used a
set of procedures to address time zone
issues. Under these DOT procedures,
the Department will generally begin a
rulemaking proceeding if the highest
elected officials in the area provide
adequate supporting data for the
proposed change. We ask that the
petition include, or be accompanied by,
detailed information supporting the
requesting party’s contention that the
requested change would serve the
convenience of commerce. The
principal standard for deciding whether
to change a time zone is defined very
broadly to include consideration of all
the impacts upon a community of a
change in its standard of time. We also
ask that the supporting documentation
address, at a minimum, each of the
following questions in as much detail as
possible.
1. From where do businesses in the
community get their supplies, and to
where do they ship their goods or
products?
2. From where does the community
receive television and radio broadcasts?
3. Where are the newspapers
published that serve the community?
4. From where does the community
get its bus and passenger rail services;
if there is no scheduled bus or passenger
rail service in the community to where
must residents go to obtain these
services?
5. Where is the nearest airport; if it is
a local service airport, to what major
airport does it carry passengers?
6. What percentage of residents of the
community work outside the
community; where do these residents
work?
7. What are the major elements of the
community’s economy; is the
community’s economy improving or
declining; what Federal, State, or local
plans, if any, are there for economic
development in the community?
8. If residents leave the community
for schooling, recreation, health care, or
religious worship, what standard of time
is observed in the places where they go
for these purposes?
In addition, we consider any other
information that the county or local
officials believe to be relevant to the
proceeding.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62289
Indiana’s Decision To Observe Daylight
Saving Time
In 2005, the Indiana General
Assembly adopted legislation (Indiana
Senate Enrolled Act 127 or ‘‘the Indiana
Act’’) providing that the entire State of
Indiana will begin to observe daylight
saving time beginning in 2006. In
addition, the Indiana Act addressed the
issue of changing the location of the
boundary between the eastern and
central time zones. The Indiana Act
stated that, ‘‘[T]he [S]tate supports the
county executive of any county that
seeks to change the time zone in which
the county is located under the
procedures established by Federal
Law.’’ The Indiana Act also provided
that, ‘‘The governor and the general
assembly hereby petition the United
States Department of Transportation to
initiate proceedings under the Uniform
Time Act of 1966 to hold hearings in the
appropriate locations in Indiana on the
issue of the location of the boundary
between the Central Time Zone and the
Eastern Time Zone in Indiana.’’ Finally,
the Indiana Act requested that DOT
refrain from changing the time zone of
any county currently located within the
central time zone and five counties near
Cincinnati and Louisville.
On July 15, 2005, Secretary Mineta
sent a letter to Governor Daniels
responding to this legislation and letters
from the Governor. The letter noted that
it is our normal practice, in
implementing our responsibilities under
the Uniform Time Act with respect to
the location of time zone boundaries, to
take action on specific requests for
change in the time zone boundaries for
a particular jurisdiction from the elected
officials of that jurisdiction. After
receiving a request, we review it and the
supporting data to then determine
whether the issuance of an NPRM is
justified. Once justified, we issue the
NPRM to propose a change.
DOT Notice Inviting Petitions
On August 17, 2005, DOT published
a notice in the Federal Register inviting
county and local officials in Indiana that
wish to change their current time zone
in response to Indiana Senate Enrolled
Act 127 to notify DOT of their request
for a change by September 16, 2005 and
to provide data in response to the
questions above. In addition, it
announced the opening of an internetaccessible, public docket to receive any
petitions and other relevant documents
concerning the appropriate placement of
the time zone boundary in the State of
Indiana.
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
62290
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Petitions Received
We received nineteen petitions from
counties asking to be changed from the
eastern time zone to the central time
zone. One of the counties (Fountain
County) subsequently withdrew its
request.
In general, the petitions are clustered
in the northwest (St. Joseph, Starke,
Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton,
White, Carroll and Cass Counties) and
the southwest (Sullivan, Knox, Daviess,
Martin, Lawrence, Pike, Dubois and
Perry Counties). In the central portion of
western Indiana, only Vermillion
County asked to be changed to central
time.
The amount of data provided in the
petitions varied substantially among
counties. Under our normal procedures,
we do not take action unless the county
makes a clear showing that the proposed
change would meet the statutory
standard. We recognize, however, that
this is an unusual case because of the
number of counties involved, their
relationship to each other and to other
neighboring counties, and the
circumstances leading up to these
petitions. Although the proposed
counties have provided adequate
supporting data to justify the issuance of
an NPRM, we will critically review
contrary and supporting information
that may be provided by others, and any
other related comments and data prior
to issuing a final rule.
Other Communications From Local
Officials
We also received a number of letters
from counties and cities advising us that
they had considered whether to petition
for a change and, at this time at least,
were satisfied with their current time
zone boundary or wished to stay in the
same time zone as Indianapolis, which
is located in Marion County and is in
the eastern time zone. Those counties
included Warren, Monroe, Orange,
Steuben, Noble, Hendricks, Jefferson,
Crawford and Jay. The cities of Whiting,
Hebron, and Munster also filed letters
expressing satisfaction with their
current time zone.
Comments to the Docket
There are currently nearly 600 entries
to the docket. In addition, we have
received hundreds of calls, questions,
and e-mails on the Indiana time zone
issue. Many comments were filed by
Chambers of Commerce, businesses,
various community associations and
interest groups, and individuals. The
commenters suggested a wide variety of
approaches including placing all of the
State in the eastern time zone, placing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Oct 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
all of the State in the central time zone,
and maintaining the current time zone
boundaries. Some of the commenters
included data on sunrise/sunset,
economic development and trends,
commuting patterns, school districts
and institutions of higher learning,
transportation services, the location of
cultural and recreational activities, and
a wide variety of other factors. Other
commenters shared their personal
preferences and their sense of which
time zone that they most closely
associate with.
The focus of this stage of the
proceeding to date has been on the
petitions by the counties. At the next
stage, however, we will carefully review
the petitions submitted in light of the
comments received and data gathered
during the next stage of this rulemaking
process. None of the counties where we
have tentatively proposed to relocate the
time zone boundaries and none of the
counties where we have tentatively
decided not to propose a change should
regard their petitions as resolved, nor
should they rely on the current
proposal, which very well may change
when all the information is available
and a final rule is issued.
DOT Determination
Based on the petitions and the
supporting data filed by the County
Commissioners, we find that St. Joseph,
Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry Counties
have provided enough information to
justify proposing to change those
counties from the eastern to central time
zone. As noted above, we have received
and will review the comments to the
docket already received. We are now
providing a further opportunity to
others to provide information that might
refute or support the basis provided to
date, to enable a final decision. We are
requesting comments on whether to
make the change in any, or all, of the
remaining 13 counties that petitioned
for change and on whether we should
not adopt any or all of the proposed
changes. If supplementary information
is filed by the County Commissioners
supporting the inclusion of additional
counties and it is not otherwise refuted,
an appropriate change will be made in
the final rule. We invite representatives
from any of the counties that filed
petitions to submit additional
justification to the public docket. In
order to allow the public time to
comment on any additional information
that may be submitted by the counties,
we request any further submissions to
be sent to the public docket by
November 10, 2005. In addition, we ask
that any county that submits additional
information to the public docket present
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this information at a public hearing
chaired by a DOT representative.
St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and
Perry County addressed all, or virtually
all, of the factors that we consider in
these proceedings and made a
reasonable case that changing to the
central time zone would serve ‘‘the
convenience of commerce.’’ In addition,
we considered each county’s geographic
location compared to the current time
zone boundary and how closely
interrelated neighboring counties
appeared to be. The specific reasons for
granting the petitions for each of these
counties differ based on the facts
specific to each case. For example, St.
Joseph County filed detailed
information addressing each factor,
showing how changing to the central
time zone would be beneficial for the
community. Starke County had been in
the central time zone and it presented
evidence of close ties to areas in the
central time zone. Based on the
evidence presented, Pike County
appears to be closely tied to Evansville
for many goods, services, and activities.
Knox and Perry County provided
information on their commuting
patterns to the central zone, and
reliance on Evansville for a majority of
their communications and
transportation services.
We have not included all the counties
that petitioned, for a number of reasons.
Some presented almost no arguments or
supporting data on why it would be
appropriate to change the time zone
boundary. Others addressed all, or most,
factors but acknowledged that a
significant connection with the eastern
time zone. A number of counties
focused on the potential change to their
neighbors’ time zone, and seemed to be
more concerned with staying in the
same time zone as their neighbors than
in changing their time zone. In other
cases, the counties seemed to be equally
connected to the eastern and central
time zones. Traditionally, we have been
reluctant to create ‘‘islands of time’’ by
placing one county in a different time
zone from all its neighboring counties in
the State; we consider the affect on
economic, cultural, social, and civic
activities between neighboring counties
in making decisions. Finally, we looked
at the distance each county is from the
current time zone boundary, the
proximity of each county to important
metropolitan areas, and where the major
roads and bridges are located. We wish
to strongly emphasize that our proposal
is a tentative decision and is subject to
change based on additional data
reviewed in the next stage of this
proceeding.
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
In our experience, time zone
boundary changes can be extremely
disruptive to a community and,
therefore, should not be made without
careful consideration. Our proposal is
intended to minimize disruption and to
allow communities to fully assess the
impact of potential changes to the time
zone boundaries of their neighbors and
daylight saving time observance
beginning in April 2006. If comments to
the docket or at the hearings provide
additional information or stronger
arguments for a change, we will make
the appropriate changes in the final
rule. We are happy to work with county
representatives to provide guidance on
the kinds of additional supporting data
that would be most useful in making a
case for a change of time zone boundary.
If a county is not included in any final
rule that may be issued in this
proceeding, governmental
representatives are free to petition DOT
in the future to make further changes to
the time zone boundary.
Request for Comments
To aid us in our consideration of
whether a time zone change would be
‘‘for the convenience of commerce,’’ we
ask for comments on the impact on
commerce of a change in time zone and
whether a new time zone would
improve the convenience of commerce.
The comments should address the
impact on such things as economic,
cultural, social, and civic activities and
how time zone changes affect
businesses, communication,
transportation, and education. The
comments should be as detailed as
possible, providing the basis of the
information including factual data or
surveys. For example, with regard to
major bus, rail, and air transportation,
information such as the average time it
takes for an average county resident to
travel to a transportation terminal or the
average distance to the terminal for a
county resident would be useful. With
regard to the impact of the time zone on
education, if a school district crosses
county lines, the number of students in
each county in that district would be
helpful. Information on school activities
such as sporting events or academic
competitions that take place in other
counties or locations that are not on the
same time zone as the school district
would also be useful. Similar
information on community colleges
could also be beneficial. Finally, we
would appreciate information on how
the different time zones affect the
students and the schools.
We specifically invite comment from
neighboring Indiana counties, and
counties in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Oct 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
and Illinois that may also be impacted
by any change. For example, we are
aware of the importance of South Bend
to its neighboring communities in
Indiana and Michigan and specifically
request comment on potential effects to
those communities to the north, east,
and south if St. Joseph County is
changed at the final rule stage and
placed in a different time zone from the
greater Michiana area as additional
information could change our tentative
decision.
Although the five counties have
submitted sufficient information to
begin the rulemaking process, the
decision whether actually to make the
change will also consider information
received at the hearings or submitted in
writing to the docket. Persons
supporting or opposing the change
should not assume that the change will
be made merely because DOT is making
the proposal. The Department here
issues no opinion on the ultimate merits
of the counties’ requests. Our decision
in the final rule will be made on the
basis of information developed during
the entire rulemaking proceeding,
including the petitions.
Impact on Observance of Daylight
Saving Time
As noted above, this time zone
proposal does not affect the observance
of daylight saving time. Under the
Uniform Time Act of 1966, as amended,
the standard time of each time zone in
the United States is advanced one hour
from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April
until 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in
October, except in any State that has, by
law, exempted itself from this
observance. Under recently enacted
federal legislation, beginning in 2007,
daylight saving time will begin the
second Sunday in March and end the
first Sunday in November.
Comment Period
We are providing 30 days for public
comments in this proceeding. Although
we normally provide 60 days for public
comments on proposed rules, we
believe that 30 days is an adequate
public comment period in this instance.
It is important to resolve this
rulemaking expeditiously so that we can
provide ample notice if changes to the
time zone boundaries are adopted. Since
the introduction and passage of the
State legislation, the time zone
boundary issue has been actively
discussed and analyzed. In this regard,
we expect that 30 days is adequate time
to gather the necessary data, which is
based on currently available
information, or share personal
preferences. Because of the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62291
counties under consideration, please
identify which county or counties you
are commenting on.
Regulatory Analysis & Notices
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under that
Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11040; February 26, 1979). We expect
the economic impact of this proposed
rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph
10e of the regulatory policies and
procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The
rule primarily affects the convenience of
individuals in scheduling activities. By
itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its
impact is localized in nature.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. This
proposal, if adopted, would primarily
affect individuals and their scheduling
of activities. Although it would affect
some small businesses, not-for-profits
and, perhaps, a number of small
governmental jurisdictions, it would not
be a substantial number. In addition, the
change should have little, if any,
economic impact.
Therefore, I certify under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposed rule would
not, if adopted, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a
small entity and that this rule would
have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
62292
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call Joanne Petrie at
(202) 366–9315.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under E.O. 12612 and have determined
that this rule does not have sufficient
implications for federalism to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) and E.O.
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, (58 FR 58093; October 28,
1993) govern the issuance of Federal
regulations that impose unfunded
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a
regulation that requires a State, local, or
tribal government or the private sector
to incur direct costs without the Federal
Government’s having first provided the
funds to pay those costs. This proposed
rule would not impose an unfunded
mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not result
in a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications
under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Oct 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not concern an environmental risk
to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Environment
This rulemaking is not a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment
under the National Environmental
Policy Act and, therefore, an
environmental impact statement is not
required.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71
Time zones.
For the reasons discussed above, the
Office of the Secretary proposes to
amend Title 49 part 71 to read as
follows:
PART 71—STANDARD TIME ZONE
BOUNDARIES
1. The authority citation for Part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1–4, 40 Stat. 450, as
amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended;
secs. 2–7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat.
764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Uniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97–
449, 15 U.S.C. 260–267; Pub. L. 99–359; 49
CFR 159(a), unless otherwise noted.
2. Paragraph (b) of § 71.5, Boundary
line between eastern and central zones,
is revised to read as follows:
§ 71.5 Boundary line between eastern and
central zones.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Indiana-Illinois. From the junction
of the western boundary of the State of
Michigan with the northern boundary of
the State of Indiana easterly along the
northern boundary of the State of
Indiana to the east line of St. Joseph
County; thence south along the east line
of St. Joseph County to the border with
Marshall County; thence west along the
north line of Marshall County; thence
south along the west line of Marshall
County; thence west along the south
line of Starke County; thence south
along the east line of Jasper County;
thence south and west along the south
line of Jasper County; thence west along
the south line of Newton County to the
intersection of Indiana-Illinois border;
thence south along the Indiana-Illinois
border to the intersection with the
northwest corner of Knox County;
thence east along the north line of Knox
County; thence south and west along the
east line of Knox County to the
intersection with Pike County; thence
easterly along the northeast line of Pike
County; thence south along the east line
of Pike County; thence east along the
south line of Dubois County; thence
north and east along the line between
Dubois and Perry County; thence east
and south along the northeast line of
Perry County to the border of Indiana
and Kentucky.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 25,
2005.
Jeffrey A. Rosen,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05–21606 Filed 10–26–05; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–02–P
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62288-62292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 71
[OST Docket No. 2005-22114]
RIN 2105-AD53
Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of Indiana
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT tentatively proposes to relocate the time zone boundary in
Indiana to move St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry Counties from
the eastern time zone to the central time zone at the request of the
County Commissioners. We are tentatively not proposing to change the
time zone boundary to move Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White,
Carroll, Cass, Vermillion, Sullivan, Daviess, Dubois, Martin, and
Lawrence Counties from the eastern time zone to the central time zone
based on the petitions from the commissioners in these counties. If
additional information is provided that indicates that the time zone
boundary should be drawn differently, either to include counties
currently excluded or to exclude counties that are currently included
in this proposal, we will make the change at the final rule stage of
this proceeding.
DATES: Any County Commissioners from the counties that have submitted
petitions who wish to provide additional data to justify a change from
the eastern time zone to the central time zone should do so by November
10, 2005. Other comments should be received by November 30, 2005 to be
assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable. If the time zone boundary is
changed as a result of this rulemaking, the effective date would be no
earlier than 2 a.m. EST Sunday, April 2, 2006, which is the changeover
from standard time to daylight saving time.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number (OST Docket Number 2005-22114) or Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN) (2105-AD53) for this rulemaking. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to https://
dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
Public Hearings: In addition to the submission of written comments,
an opportunity for oral comments will be provided at four public
hearings in Jasper, Logansport, South Bend, and Terre Haute. These
hearings will be chaired by a representative of DOT in November. We
will publish the date and time in a separate document that will be
posted in the docket and published in the Federal Register.
The hearings will be informal and will be tape-recorded for
inclusion in the docket. The DOT representative will provide an
opportunity to speak for all those wishing to do so, to the greatest
extent possible. The hearing locations will be accessible for persons
with disabilities. If you need a sign language interpreter, please let
us know no later than one week before the hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room 10424, 400
[[Page 62289]]
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, indianatime@dot.gov; (202)
366-9306.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Current Indiana Time Observance
Under Federal law, 82 Indiana counties are in the eastern time zone
and 10 are in the central time zone. The central time zone counties
include five in the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte, Newton, and
Jasper) and five in the southwest (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer
and Gibson). The remaining 82 counties are in the eastern time zone.
Neighboring States observe both eastern and central time. Illinois and
western Kentucky observe central time, while eastern Kentucky, Ohio,
and the portion of Michigan adjoining Indiana observe eastern time.
Federal law provides that it is up to an individual State to decide
whether or not to observe daylight saving time. Generally, a State must
choose to observe, or not observe, across the entire State. The one
exception is that, if a State is in more than one time zone, a
``split'' observance is permitted. Under this scenario, all of a State
that is in one time zone may observe daylight saving time, while the
remainder of the State in the different time zone does not. Under
Indiana law, for many years, the central time zone portion of the State
has observed daylight saving time, while the eastern time zone portion
of the State has not observed daylight saving time.
The effect of daylight saving time is the equivalent of moving one
time zone to the east. This means that, by remaining on eastern
standard time year-round, the eastern time zone portion of Indiana has
been on the same time as New York in the winter and on the same clock
time as Chicago in the summer. The impact of the State legislation
(discussed in more detail below) to observe daylight saving time
beginning in 2006 is that, in the summer, the time of sunrise and
sunset on eastern daylight saving time will be an hour later than it
currently is under year-round eastern standard time. There will be no
change in the sunrise and sunset times during the winter when eastern
standard time will continue to be observed.
Statutory Requirements
Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time
Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64), the Secretary of Transportation has
authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time
zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone
to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is ``regard
for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and
division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign
commerce.''
DOT Procedures To Change a Time Zone Boundary
The Department has typically used a set of procedures to address
time zone issues. Under these DOT procedures, the Department will
generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected
officials in the area provide adequate supporting data for the proposed
change. We ask that the petition include, or be accompanied by,
detailed information supporting the requesting party's contention that
the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce. The
principal standard for deciding whether to change a time zone is
defined very broadly to include consideration of all the impacts upon a
community of a change in its standard of time. We also ask that the
supporting documentation address, at a minimum, each of the following
questions in as much detail as possible.
1. From where do businesses in the community get their supplies,
and to where do they ship their goods or products?
2. From where does the community receive television and radio
broadcasts?
3. Where are the newspapers published that serve the community?
4. From where does the community get its bus and passenger rail
services; if there is no scheduled bus or passenger rail service in the
community to where must residents go to obtain these services?
5. Where is the nearest airport; if it is a local service airport,
to what major airport does it carry passengers?
6. What percentage of residents of the community work outside the
community; where do these residents work?
7. What are the major elements of the community's economy; is the
community's economy improving or declining; what Federal, State, or
local plans, if any, are there for economic development in the
community?
8. If residents leave the community for schooling, recreation,
health care, or religious worship, what standard of time is observed in
the places where they go for these purposes?
In addition, we consider any other information that the county or
local officials believe to be relevant to the proceeding.
Indiana's Decision To Observe Daylight Saving Time
In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly adopted legislation (Indiana
Senate Enrolled Act 127 or ``the Indiana Act'') providing that the
entire State of Indiana will begin to observe daylight saving time
beginning in 2006. In addition, the Indiana Act addressed the issue of
changing the location of the boundary between the eastern and central
time zones. The Indiana Act stated that, ``[T]he [S]tate supports the
county executive of any county that seeks to change the time zone in
which the county is located under the procedures established by Federal
Law.'' The Indiana Act also provided that, ``The governor and the
general assembly hereby petition the United States Department of
Transportation to initiate proceedings under the Uniform Time Act of
1966 to hold hearings in the appropriate locations in Indiana on the
issue of the location of the boundary between the Central Time Zone and
the Eastern Time Zone in Indiana.'' Finally, the Indiana Act requested
that DOT refrain from changing the time zone of any county currently
located within the central time zone and five counties near Cincinnati
and Louisville.
On July 15, 2005, Secretary Mineta sent a letter to Governor
Daniels responding to this legislation and letters from the Governor.
The letter noted that it is our normal practice, in implementing our
responsibilities under the Uniform Time Act with respect to the
location of time zone boundaries, to take action on specific requests
for change in the time zone boundaries for a particular jurisdiction
from the elected officials of that jurisdiction. After receiving a
request, we review it and the supporting data to then determine whether
the issuance of an NPRM is justified. Once justified, we issue the NPRM
to propose a change.
DOT Notice Inviting Petitions
On August 17, 2005, DOT published a notice in the Federal Register
inviting county and local officials in Indiana that wish to change
their current time zone in response to Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 127
to notify DOT of their request for a change by September 16, 2005 and
to provide data in response to the questions above. In addition, it
announced the opening of an internet-accessible, public docket to
receive any petitions and other relevant documents concerning the
appropriate placement of the time zone boundary in the State of
Indiana.
[[Page 62290]]
Petitions Received
We received nineteen petitions from counties asking to be changed
from the eastern time zone to the central time zone. One of the
counties (Fountain County) subsequently withdrew its request.
In general, the petitions are clustered in the northwest (St.
Joseph, Starke, Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White, Carroll and
Cass Counties) and the southwest (Sullivan, Knox, Daviess, Martin,
Lawrence, Pike, Dubois and Perry Counties). In the central portion of
western Indiana, only Vermillion County asked to be changed to central
time.
The amount of data provided in the petitions varied substantially
among counties. Under our normal procedures, we do not take action
unless the county makes a clear showing that the proposed change would
meet the statutory standard. We recognize, however, that this is an
unusual case because of the number of counties involved, their
relationship to each other and to other neighboring counties, and the
circumstances leading up to these petitions. Although the proposed
counties have provided adequate supporting data to justify the issuance
of an NPRM, we will critically review contrary and supporting
information that may be provided by others, and any other related
comments and data prior to issuing a final rule.
Other Communications From Local Officials
We also received a number of letters from counties and cities
advising us that they had considered whether to petition for a change
and, at this time at least, were satisfied with their current time zone
boundary or wished to stay in the same time zone as Indianapolis, which
is located in Marion County and is in the eastern time zone. Those
counties included Warren, Monroe, Orange, Steuben, Noble, Hendricks,
Jefferson, Crawford and Jay. The cities of Whiting, Hebron, and Munster
also filed letters expressing satisfaction with their current time
zone.
Comments to the Docket
There are currently nearly 600 entries to the docket. In addition,
we have received hundreds of calls, questions, and e-mails on the
Indiana time zone issue. Many comments were filed by Chambers of
Commerce, businesses, various community associations and interest
groups, and individuals. The commenters suggested a wide variety of
approaches including placing all of the State in the eastern time zone,
placing all of the State in the central time zone, and maintaining the
current time zone boundaries. Some of the commenters included data on
sunrise/sunset, economic development and trends, commuting patterns,
school districts and institutions of higher learning, transportation
services, the location of cultural and recreational activities, and a
wide variety of other factors. Other commenters shared their personal
preferences and their sense of which time zone that they most closely
associate with.
The focus of this stage of the proceeding to date has been on the
petitions by the counties. At the next stage, however, we will
carefully review the petitions submitted in light of the comments
received and data gathered during the next stage of this rulemaking
process. None of the counties where we have tentatively proposed to
relocate the time zone boundaries and none of the counties where we
have tentatively decided not to propose a change should regard their
petitions as resolved, nor should they rely on the current proposal,
which very well may change when all the information is available and a
final rule is issued.
DOT Determination
Based on the petitions and the supporting data filed by the County
Commissioners, we find that St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry
Counties have provided enough information to justify proposing to
change those counties from the eastern to central time zone. As noted
above, we have received and will review the comments to the docket
already received. We are now providing a further opportunity to others
to provide information that might refute or support the basis provided
to date, to enable a final decision. We are requesting comments on
whether to make the change in any, or all, of the remaining 13 counties
that petitioned for change and on whether we should not adopt any or
all of the proposed changes. If supplementary information is filed by
the County Commissioners supporting the inclusion of additional
counties and it is not otherwise refuted, an appropriate change will be
made in the final rule. We invite representatives from any of the
counties that filed petitions to submit additional justification to the
public docket. In order to allow the public time to comment on any
additional information that may be submitted by the counties, we
request any further submissions to be sent to the public docket by
November 10, 2005. In addition, we ask that any county that submits
additional information to the public docket present this information at
a public hearing chaired by a DOT representative.
St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry County addressed all, or
virtually all, of the factors that we consider in these proceedings and
made a reasonable case that changing to the central time zone would
serve ``the convenience of commerce.'' In addition, we considered each
county's geographic location compared to the current time zone boundary
and how closely interrelated neighboring counties appeared to be. The
specific reasons for granting the petitions for each of these counties
differ based on the facts specific to each case. For example, St.
Joseph County filed detailed information addressing each factor,
showing how changing to the central time zone would be beneficial for
the community. Starke County had been in the central time zone and it
presented evidence of close ties to areas in the central time zone.
Based on the evidence presented, Pike County appears to be closely tied
to Evansville for many goods, services, and activities. Knox and Perry
County provided information on their commuting patterns to the central
zone, and reliance on Evansville for a majority of their communications
and transportation services.
We have not included all the counties that petitioned, for a number
of reasons. Some presented almost no arguments or supporting data on
why it would be appropriate to change the time zone boundary. Others
addressed all, or most, factors but acknowledged that a significant
connection with the eastern time zone. A number of counties focused on
the potential change to their neighbors' time zone, and seemed to be
more concerned with staying in the same time zone as their neighbors
than in changing their time zone. In other cases, the counties seemed
to be equally connected to the eastern and central time zones.
Traditionally, we have been reluctant to create ``islands of time'' by
placing one county in a different time zone from all its neighboring
counties in the State; we consider the affect on economic, cultural,
social, and civic activities between neighboring counties in making
decisions. Finally, we looked at the distance each county is from the
current time zone boundary, the proximity of each county to important
metropolitan areas, and where the major roads and bridges are located.
We wish to strongly emphasize that our proposal is a tentative decision
and is subject to change based on additional data reviewed in the next
stage of this proceeding.
[[Page 62291]]
In our experience, time zone boundary changes can be extremely
disruptive to a community and, therefore, should not be made without
careful consideration. Our proposal is intended to minimize disruption
and to allow communities to fully assess the impact of potential
changes to the time zone boundaries of their neighbors and daylight
saving time observance beginning in April 2006. If comments to the
docket or at the hearings provide additional information or stronger
arguments for a change, we will make the appropriate changes in the
final rule. We are happy to work with county representatives to provide
guidance on the kinds of additional supporting data that would be most
useful in making a case for a change of time zone boundary. If a county
is not included in any final rule that may be issued in this
proceeding, governmental representatives are free to petition DOT in
the future to make further changes to the time zone boundary.
Request for Comments
To aid us in our consideration of whether a time zone change would
be ``for the convenience of commerce,'' we ask for comments on the
impact on commerce of a change in time zone and whether a new time zone
would improve the convenience of commerce. The comments should address
the impact on such things as economic, cultural, social, and civic
activities and how time zone changes affect businesses, communication,
transportation, and education. The comments should be as detailed as
possible, providing the basis of the information including factual data
or surveys. For example, with regard to major bus, rail, and air
transportation, information such as the average time it takes for an
average county resident to travel to a transportation terminal or the
average distance to the terminal for a county resident would be useful.
With regard to the impact of the time zone on education, if a school
district crosses county lines, the number of students in each county in
that district would be helpful. Information on school activities such
as sporting events or academic competitions that take place in other
counties or locations that are not on the same time zone as the school
district would also be useful. Similar information on community
colleges could also be beneficial. Finally, we would appreciate
information on how the different time zones affect the students and the
schools.
We specifically invite comment from neighboring Indiana counties,
and counties in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois that may also be
impacted by any change. For example, we are aware of the importance of
South Bend to its neighboring communities in Indiana and Michigan and
specifically request comment on potential effects to those communities
to the north, east, and south if St. Joseph County is changed at the
final rule stage and placed in a different time zone from the greater
Michiana area as additional information could change our tentative
decision.
Although the five counties have submitted sufficient information to
begin the rulemaking process, the decision whether actually to make the
change will also consider information received at the hearings or
submitted in writing to the docket. Persons supporting or opposing the
change should not assume that the change will be made merely because
DOT is making the proposal. The Department here issues no opinion on
the ultimate merits of the counties' requests. Our decision in the
final rule will be made on the basis of information developed during
the entire rulemaking proceeding, including the petitions.
Impact on Observance of Daylight Saving Time
As noted above, this time zone proposal does not affect the
observance of daylight saving time. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966,
as amended, the standard time of each time zone in the United States is
advanced one hour from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2 a.m.
on the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law,
exempted itself from this observance. Under recently enacted federal
legislation, beginning in 2007, daylight saving time will begin the
second Sunday in March and end the first Sunday in November.
Comment Period
We are providing 30 days for public comments in this proceeding.
Although we normally provide 60 days for public comments on proposed
rules, we believe that 30 days is an adequate public comment period in
this instance. It is important to resolve this rulemaking expeditiously
so that we can provide ample notice if changes to the time zone
boundaries are adopted. Since the introduction and passage of the State
legislation, the time zone boundary issue has been actively discussed
and analyzed. In this regard, we expect that 30 days is adequate time
to gather the necessary data, which is based on currently available
information, or share personal preferences. Because of the number of
counties under consideration, please identify which county or counties
you are commenting on.
Regulatory Analysis & Notices
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11040; February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals
in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its
impact is localized in nature.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. This proposal, if adopted, would primarily affect individuals
and their scheduling of activities. Although it would affect some small
businesses, not-for-profits and, perhaps, a number of small
governmental jurisdictions, it would not be a substantial number. In
addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact.
Therefore, I certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that
[[Page 62292]]
they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization,
or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call Joanne Petrie at
(202) 366-9315.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 12612 and have
determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and
E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093;
October 28, 1993) govern the issuance of Federal regulations that
impose unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that
requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to
incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first
provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not
impose an unfunded mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not result in a taking of private property
or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Environment
This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment under the National
Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement is not required.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71
Time zones.
For the reasons discussed above, the Office of the Secretary
proposes to amend Title 49 part 71 to read as follows:
PART 71--STANDARD TIME ZONE BOUNDARIES
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1-4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat.
1446, as amended; secs. 2-7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat.
764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of
1966 and Pub. L. 97-449, 15 U.S.C. 260-267; Pub. L. 99-359; 49 CFR
159(a), unless otherwise noted.
2. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 71.5, Boundary line between eastern and
central zones, is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 71.5 Boundary line between eastern and central zones.
* * * * *
(b) Indiana-Illinois. From the junction of the western boundary of
the State of Michigan with the northern boundary of the State of
Indiana easterly along the northern boundary of the State of Indiana to
the east line of St. Joseph County; thence south along the east line of
St. Joseph County to the border with Marshall County; thence west along
the north line of Marshall County; thence south along the west line of
Marshall County; thence west along the south line of Starke County;
thence south along the east line of Jasper County; thence south and
west along the south line of Jasper County; thence west along the south
line of Newton County to the intersection of Indiana-Illinois border;
thence south along the Indiana-Illinois border to the intersection with
the northwest corner of Knox County; thence east along the north line
of Knox County; thence south and west along the east line of Knox
County to the intersection with Pike County; thence easterly along the
northeast line of Pike County; thence south along the east line of Pike
County; thence east along the south line of Dubois County; thence north
and east along the line between Dubois and Perry County; thence east
and south along the northeast line of Perry County to the border of
Indiana and Kentucky.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 25, 2005.
Jeffrey A. Rosen,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-21606 Filed 10-26-05; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-02-P