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 [Amended] 

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) 

7. Invalid Result (number) 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 

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 

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 § 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