![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of Indiana
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: October 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 209)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62288-62292]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31oc05-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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
http://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