6170 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We considered the environmental 

impact of this rule and concluded that 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement is not necessary. An 

Environmental Assessment and a 

Finding of No Significant Impact are 

available at http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

docimages/pdf33/50180_web.pdf. We 

have also reexamined that information 

and determined it is still accurate. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation 

by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 155 as follows: 

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 155 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 

U.S.C. 3715, 3719; sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 

54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

Sections 155.110–155.130, 155.350–

155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 

155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also 

issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); and 

§§ 155.1110–155.1150 also issued 33 U.S.C. 

2735. 

Note: Additional requirements for vessels 

carrying oil or hazardous materials appear in 

46 CFR parts 30 through 36, 150, 151, and 

153. 

§ 155.1050 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 155.1050, paragraph (k)(3) is 

suspended until February 12, 2009. 

§ 155.1052 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 155.1052, the last sentence in 

paragraph (f) is suspended until 

February 12, 2009. 

Dated: February 5, 2007. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention, 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 07–572 Filed 2–6–07; 10:42 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 71 

[OST Docket No. 2006–26442] 

RIN 2105–AD65 

Standard Time Zone Boundary in 

Pulaski County, IN 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

the Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DOT is relocating the time 

zone boundary in Indiana to move 

Pulaski County, Indiana, from the 

Central Time Zone to the Eastern Time 

Zone. This action serves the 

convenience of commerce, the statutory 

standard for a time zone change, and is 

taken in response to a petition filed by 

the Pulaski County Commissioners and 

County Council. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

2 a.m. CST, Sunday, March 11, 2007, 

which is the changeover date from 

standard time to daylight saving time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith S. Kaleta, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room 10428, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. 

20590, indianatime@dot.gov; (202) 366–

9283. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Current Indiana Time Observance 

Indiana is divided into 92 counties. 

Under Federal law, 74 Indiana counties 

are in the Eastern Time Zone and 18 are 

in the Central Time Zone. The Central 

Time Zone counties include seven in 

the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte, 

Starke, Newton, Jasper, and Pulaski) and 

eleven in the southwest (Knox, Daviess, 

Martin, Gibson, Pike, Dubois, Posey, 

Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, and 

Perry). The remaining 74 counties are in 

the Eastern Time Zone. The entire State 

began to observe daylight saving time in 

2006. 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. 

In January 2006, DOT completed a 

rulemaking proceeding establishing new 

time zone boundaries that resulted in 

the current time zone observance. In 

that rulemaking in response to a petition 

from Pulaski County as well as other 

Indiana counties, the County was 

moved to the Central Time Zone. 

Pulaski County is bordered to the north 

and west by counties in the Central 

Time Zone and to the south and east by 

counties in the Eastern Time Zone. In 

February 2006, Pulaski County filed a 

Petition requesting a time zone change 

back to the Eastern Time Zone, and 

subsequently filed an Amended 

Petition. 

In August 2006, Knox, Daviess, 

Martin, Pike, and Dubois Counties in 

Southwestern Indiana (the 

Southwestern Counties) filed a Joint 

Petition for a Time Zone Change (Joint 

Petition). This Final Rule addresses only 

Pulaski County. DOT is evaluating the 

Joint Petition and supplemental 

information from the Southwestern 

Counties before making a determination 

whether to propose a time zone change 

or deny the Joint Petition. 

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 

DOT has typically used a set of 

procedures to address time zone issues. 

Under these procedures, DOT will 

generally begin a rulemaking proceeding 

to change a time zone boundary 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. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6171 

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. We consider the effect on 

economic, cultural, social, and civic 

activities, and how a change in time 

zone would affect businesses, 

communication, transportation, and 

education. 

2005–2006 Time Zone Rulemaking 

Proceedings 

On August 17, 2005, DOT published 

a notice in the Federal Register inviting 

county and local officials in Indiana that 

wished to change their current time 

zone in response to legislation adopted 

by the Indiana legislature (Pub. L. 243–

005), 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, DOT 

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. 

Pulaski County was one of nineteen 

counties that petitioned for a change. 

Pulaski County is located in 

Northwestern Indiana, 95 miles from 

both Chicago and Indianapolis and 60 

miles from both South Bend and 

Lafayette. It has a population of 13,783. 

According to ‘‘Key Economic 

Development Statistics,’’ prepared for 

the Pulaski County Community 

Development Commission, dated 

January 6, 2004, ‘‘Although the 

agricultural heritage of Pulaski County 

is very strong, the fact remains that 83% 

of all employment is created in nonagricultural opportunities.’’

The Pulaski County Commissioners 

submitted a petition (original petition) 

for a time zone change in which they 

enumerated reasons for a move to the 

Central Time Zone based on comments 

made during an open public meeting. 

The County Commissioners commented 

that, at that open public meeting, 

‘‘There were no citizens who were in 

favor of Eastern. All were in favor of 

leaving the time alone, by not having to 

change time during the year. But, if we 

have to choose one of the two, the 

choice would be Central Time.’’ The 

Pulaski County Commissioners also 

noted the consideration of school 

children waiting during a late sunrise, 

the importance of sunlight to its farming 

community, television programming 

from South Bend and Chicago, 

newspapers from Indianapolis, South 

Bend, Logansport, and Chicago, and 

airports in Indianapolis and Chicago. In 

addition, the County Commissioners 

submitted annual commuting data in 

support of their position. 

On October 31, 2005, DOT published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70 FR 

6228), tentatively proposing to relocate 

the time zone boundary in Indiana to 

move the time zone boundaries for 

several counties, but not Pulaski 

County. However, the notice stated that 

if we received additional information 

supporting a time zone change, we 

would make the change at the final rule 

stage of the proceeding. 

On November 15, 2005, at a public 

hearing conducted by DOT in 

Logansport, Indiana, the Director of the 

Pulaski Community Development 

Commission presented information from 

the two major employers in the County 

who favored the Central Time Zone as 

well as from other employers. The 

President of the Pulaski County Council 

also spoke in favor of the Pulaski 

County petition; he noted the difficulty 

of being a border county and suggested 

that the entire state be in the same time 

zone. In written comments to the 

docket, one commenter noted that 

Pulaski County has regional ties to 

counties that are currently in the Central 

Time Zone or would be moved to the 

Central Time Zone by DOT’s decision. 

He referred to workforce planning, 

economic growth, and economic 

development regions and said that 

moving Pulaski to the Central Time 

Zone would ensure that all counties in 

these regions were in the same time 

zone. 

There were 71 comments submitted to 

the docket from Pulaski County. Of 

these comments, 41 favored the Central 

Time Zone, 17 favored the Eastern Time 

Zone, and 13 expressed interest in 

keeping Indiana on the same time zone, 

expressing no preference. 

Based on the petition, comments at 

the hearing, and comments to the 

docket, Pulaski County was one of the 

eight counties that DOT moved from the 

Eastern Time Zone to the Central Time 

Zone under the January 2006 final rule 

(71 FR 3228). The final rule was to be 

effective on April 2, 2006. 

On February 7, 2006, Pulaski County 

petitioned DOT for a time zone 

boundary change back to the Eastern 

Time Zone. The new petition followed 

DOT’s final rule by only a few weeks 

and was submitted before the County 

had any experience with the new time 

zone changes that it had solicited. 

Furthermore, the new petition requested 

a change that was contrary to the 

County’s original petition. The new 

petition stated that the original petition 

‘‘was made with an understanding that 

our neighboring counties were favoring 

the same Zone of Central Time.’’ In 

addition, the new petition was also 

contrary to information submitted to the 

docket in the rulemaking proceeding. In 

fact, the County Commissioners 

represented that they did not provide 

accurate information in their original 

two-page petition. The new six-page 

petition provided various reasons for a 

time zone change, but did not provide 

detailed information in support of its 

new position or the sources for the new 

information submitted. Therefore, 

before making any determination on 

changing the time zone boundary for 

Pulaski County, in a May 22, 2006, 

letter, DOT reminded the County 

officials of the legal requirements for a 

time zone change and asked for an 

explanation of the contradictions 

between the original petition and the 

new petition. DOT also requested 

information, and the sources of the 

information, from Pulaski County to 

assist DOT in making a careful 

assessment on the appropriate time zone 

for the County consistent with Federal 

requirements. 

On June 27, 2006, Pulaski County 

submitted an Amended Petition that 

included answers to the questions DOT 

considers in making time zone 

determinations and exhibits in support 

of the answers. The Amended Petition 

repeatedly stated that the information 

set forth in the original petition in 

response to DOT’s time zone questions 

‘‘is limited, and opinion without 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
6172 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

substantial and verifiable evidence to 

support the claims made.’’ The 

Amended Petition provided detailed 

responses to DOT’s questions related to 

community imports and exports, 

television and radio broadcasts, 

newspapers, bus and passenger rail 

services, airports/airline services, 

worker commuting patterns, the 

community’s economy/economic 

development, and schooling, recreation, 

health care, and religious worship. 

These responses were significantly more 

detailed than the information contained 

in the original petition or the February 

7, 2006, petition, and provided the 

source of the information. 

In August 2006, Indiana Governor 

Daniels, the Indiana Economic 

Development Corporation, and the 

Indiana Department of Workforce 

Development submitted letters to the 

docket. The Governor supported the 

Amended Petition (as well as the Joint 

Petition filed by the Southwestern 

Counties), stating that putting more of 

the State on the same time zone would 

provide clarity on the time questions 

and advance economic growth. The two 

organizations addressed regional 

connections. They noted that they 

established their respective state regions 

based on their ability to deliver services. 

They did not establish regions based on 

time zones or ‘‘stream of commerce.’’

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On November 28, 2006, DOT 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) (71 FR 68777) 

proposing to move the time zone 

boundary for Pulaski County. Based on 

the Amended Petition and the 

supporting data submitted with it, DOT 

found that Pulaski County provided 

enough information to justify proposing 

to change its time zone boundary from 

the Central Time Zone to the Eastern 

Time Zone. 

To aid us in our consideration of 

whether a time zone change would be 

‘‘for the convenience of commerce,’’ we 

asked for comments on the impact on 

commerce of a change in the time zone 

and whether a new time zone would 

improve the convenience of commerce. 

We requested that commenters address 

the impact on such things as economic, 

cultural, social, and civic activities and 

how time zone changes affect 

businesses, communication, 

transportation, and education. We 

specifically invited comment from 

neighboring Indiana counties and 

counties in other States that may also be 

impacted by changing Pulaski County’s 

time zone boundary. 

We provided 30 days for public 

comments in this proceeding and said 

that we would consider late comments 

to the extent practicable. 

Comments to the Docket 

An Overview 

There were over 100 comments 

submitted in response to the NPRM, 

several with multiple signatures. 

Elected officials from Pulaski County 

commented to the DOT docket. Each of 

the three Pulaski County Commissioners 

filed comments as did the Winamac 

Town Council. There were comments 

from various large and small business 

interests, including farming, real estate, 

tax services, the food industry, and 

banks, all voicing support of either the 

Eastern or Central Time Zone based on 

operational issues and/or employee 

preferences. There were also comments 

from individuals, expressing their 

personal interests and preferences, as 

well as their views on how a time zone 

change would be for the convenience of 

commerce. While the majority of the 

commenters were from Pulaski County 

residents, there were commenters from 

White and Starke Counties, counties to 

the south and north of Pulaski County 

respectively, and from Seattle, 

Washington. 

The overwhelming majority of the 

commenters (93%) supported changing 

the time zone boundary for Pulaski 

County back to the Eastern Time Zone. 

The Pulaski County Commissioners, 

filing individual comments, supported a 

change to eliminate confusion for 

residents and unite with neighboring 

counties in the Eastern Time Zone. In 

support of the Eastern Time Zone for the 

Pulaski County, the Winamac Town 

Council said it would benefit the 

surrounding counties, school 

corporations, commuting residents, and 

that it would be helpful for the local 

government to be on the same time as 

the state government in Indianapolis. 

Most businesses commented on how a 

change back to the Eastern Time Zone 

would allow them more time during 

regular business hours to be in contact 

with suppliers and customers who are 

in the Eastern Time Zone. Two 

businesses sent in petitions with the 

names and signatures of over 200 

individuals who ‘‘desire to be on the 

same time as our surrounding counties’’

and ‘‘would also prefer to be on the 

same time as our state capitol.’’

Individuals said ‘‘it would be a hardship 

to have our county on a different time 

than the majority of the surrounding 

counties.’’ Sharing the views of 

business, individuals also noted an 

interest in being in the same time zone 

as Indianapolis. Still other commenters 

expressed preference for the Eastern 

Time Zone so that they could enjoy 

more daylight in the evenings for 

recreational activities. 

The commenters who favored Central 

Time referred to a variety of reasons to 

support their position. Some mentioned 

current work and growing markets in 

the greater Chicago metropolitan area, 

which observes Central Time. Others 

noted the benefits of extra daylight in 

the early morning. Still others suggested 

Pulaski County really should try to 

observe Central Time, saying businesses 

never made a change from Eastern to 

Central Time, but merely adjusted hours 

of operation and called it ‘‘Commerce 

Time.’’ One Pulaski County resident 

noted that Starke County has ‘‘survived’’

the move to the Central Time Zone 

‘‘quite well.’’ A Starke County resident 

stated that Pulaski should remain on 

Central Time with Starke. A few Central 

Time Zone supporters expressed 

concern that support for Central Time 

‘‘has been stifled’’ and that ‘‘supporters 

of Central have been lampooned.’’

There were several commenters who 

expressed a ‘‘One State, One Time’’

position, some favoring the Eastern 

Time Zone and others preferring the 

Central Time Zone. Because Pulaski 

County borders on counties in the both 

the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 

commenters noted the hardship that 

split time zones have on school 

children, during their academic day and 

after school. At least one commenter 

suggested dividing the State ‘‘down the 

middle.’’ DOT does not have a statewide 

proposal before it nor has the Indiana 

legislature endorsed such an approach. 

It is beyond the scope of this 

proceeding, therefore, to consider this 

broader change to the State’s time zone 

boundaries. 

A few commenters requested that 

DOT eliminate Daylight Saving Time. 

Federal law provides that it is up to an 

individual State to decide whether to 

observe Daylight Saving Time. This 

final rule does not change the 2006 

decision of the Indiana legislature that 

the entire State observe Daylight Saving 

Time. 

In summary, as compared to 71 

commenters to the docket in the first 

time zone proceeding, there were 272 

commenters in this proceeding. Of these 

comments, 255 favored the Eastern 

Time Zone and 15 favored the Central 

Time Zone. Of these commenters, a few 

also expressed interest in having 

Indiana in the same time zone. In 

addition, 2 commenters expressed 

interest in having Indiana on the same 

time zone, expressing no preference. 

We now consider comments 

addressing the questions that DOT asks 

to decide whether a time zone change 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6173 

would serve the convenience of 

commerce. 

Community Imports and Exports 

Based upon the information 

submitted with the Amended Petition, 

the NPRM noted that it appears that the 

vast majority of the County’s businesses 

and industries have their suppliers, 

customers and marketing connections 

with areas that are in the Eastern Time 

Zone and therefore, that moving the 

time zone boundary for Pulaski County 

to the Eastern Time Zone would serve 

the convenience of commerce. In 

proposing a change back to the Eastern 

Time Zone, the NRPM referred to the 

Amended Petition’s extensive 

information regarding the sources of 

supplies and raw materials for major 

businesses and industries as well as the 

distribution points for their products 

and services. For example, the Joint 

Petition referred to the high production 

ranking in the state for corn and 

soybeans and that the inputs for these 

crops come from the Eastern Time Zone 

and that 85% of the marketing for these 

products occurs in the Eastern Time 

Zone. It also noted that agricultural 

fertilizer and chemical dealers 

marketing to the County are in the 

Eastern Time Zone. The markets for 

livestock, poultry and dairy products 

are in the Eastern Time Zone. The 

Amended Petition also noted the 

County’s two financial institutions, both 

of which have branches in the Eastern 

and Central Time Zones. Exhibits to the 

Joint Petition provided data to support 

these claims. DOT solicited further 

information that would aid in 

determining whether a change in the 

time zone for Pulaski County would 

serve the convenience of commerce. 

Several businesses, large and small, 

commented that the impact of being in 

the Central Time Zone was the loss of 

time to contact customers and suppliers 

in the Eastern Time Zone. They noted 

that they are losing an hour of ‘‘prime 

time’’ in the morning in reaching the 

Eastern Time Zone, and that they also 

lost contact availability around lunch 

time and the end of the day. 

One small business with customers in 

White, Pulaski, Cass, and Fulton 

Counties noted that only Pulaski County 

was currently located in the Central 

Time Zone and it would ease problems 

with billing times if all its customers 

were in the same time zone. Another 

small company commented that moving 

to the Eastern Time Zone would benefit 

the company’s drivers who must arrive 

at job sites around the state in Eastern 

Time Zone locations by 7:00 a.m. 

Representatives of several banks, from 

Presidents to branch managers, 

submitted comments in support of the 

Eastern Time Zone. One noted that the 

majority of the bank’s business came 

from the Eastern Time Zone and that 

most of its branch offices were also in 

the Eastern Time Zone. Placement in the 

Central Time Zone resulted in being 

‘‘out of sync’’ with the rest of their 

organizations. It had a direct effect on 

inter-office computer programming, 

dispatching, appointments, and 

personnel scheduling. Another bank 

representative mentioned operational 

difficulties and problems for employees 

in supporting a move to the Eastern 

Time Zone. That bank representative 

also took a broader perspective and said 

the bank supports the Eastern Time 

Zone ‘‘to be with the majority of the 

state.’’

Television and Radio Broadcasts 

In the NPRM, DOT noted that it was 

unable to determine whether the 

television and radio broadcasting aspect 

of the convenience of commerce 

standard supported a change in Pulaski 

County’s time zone based on the 

Amended Petition. The Amended 

Petition provided information regarding 

television and radio broadcasting to 

cities in Pulaski County. It referred to 

Pulaski County’s place in the South 

Bend/Elkhart Designated Market Area 

(DMA), noting that 8 of the 10 counties 

in the DMA were in the Eastern Time 

Zone. The Amended Petition 

maintained that having a part of the 

DMA in a different time zone makes it 

more difficult to timely report local 

news and that most of the news 

broadcasters covering local news are 

centered in the Eastern Time Zone. The 

Amended Petition also discussed cable 

TV service, Direct TV service, DISH 

Network, and the use of TV antennas. 

With regard to radio broadcasting, the 

Amended Petition provided a list of all 

Indiana radio stations, but did not 

indicate the strength of the radio signals 

in Pulaski County. DOT sought 

comment on the information submitted 

and requested any additional 

information on television and radio 

broadcasting in Pulaski County that 

would aid in determining whether a 

time zone change for Pulaski County 

would serve the convenience of 

commerce. 

Few comments submitted to the 

docket in response to the NPRM 

addressed this aspect of the 

convenience of commerce standard. The 

owner of a Winamac business 

mentioned, ‘‘The bulk of our local 

media is in the eastern time zone’’ and 

spending ‘‘several thousand dollars a 

year on TV advertising.’’ A Pulaski 

County resident commented that the 

County is ‘‘more oriented’’ to the 

Eastern Time Zone media markets than 

to the Central Time Zone. A visitor to 

the County noted ‘‘the TV stations are 

mixed, the weather channel local 

weather is from Valpariso (central) the 

local radio station is in Knox (central).’’

A student favored the Central Time 

Zone because, on Eastern Time, TV 

shows would be on an hour later. 

Newspapers 

In the NPRM, DOT noted that it 

appears that moving the time zone 

boundary for Pulaski County to the 

Eastern Time Zone would serve the 

convenience of commerce based on the 

information submitted in the Amended 

Petition with regard to newspapers that 

serve the community. The Amended 

Petition provided data on newspaper 

circulation numbers in Pulaski County 

and discussed the circulation of Pulaski 

County’s two family-owned 

newspapers. The Amended Petition also 

showed Pulaski County subscribers of 

Eastern and Central Time Zone 

newspapers. DOT sought comment on 

the information submitted and 

requested any additional information on 

newspaper circulation in Pulaski 

County that would aid in determining 

whether changing the time zone for 

Pulaski County would serve the 

convenience of commerce. 

The editor of the Francesville 

Tribune, one of two Pulaski Countybased newspapers, submitted a 

comment in support of the change to the 

Eastern Time Zone. In addition to 

expressing her opinion on the benefits 

of a time zone change for students, 

parents, hospitals, and patients, she 

stated, ‘‘A large majority of our 

customers and advertisers are already in 

the eastern time zone and therefore 

communication must be done on eastern 

hours.’’ The editor of the ExPress, 

‘‘Pulaski County’s most read and 

respected paper,’’ also submitted a 

comment in support of a change to the 

Eastern Time Zone, but did not 

comment upon the impact of time zone 

on the newspaper industry. 

Bus and Passenger Rail Services 

As noted in the NPRM, DOT was 

unable to determine whether the bus 

and passenger rail services aspect of the 

convenience of commerce standard 

supports a change in Pulaski County’s 

time zone based on the information 

submitted in the Amended Petition. The 

Amended Petition referred to the 

nearest bus and rail stations for north/ 

south and east/west in support of the 

Eastern Time Zone, although the 

Amended Petition admitted, ‘‘The use of 

rail or bus services by Pulaski County 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
6174 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

residents is unknown.’’ DOT sought 

comment on the information submitted 

and requested any additional 

information on bus and rail services in 

Pulaski County that would aid in 

determining whether a time zone 

change for Pulaski County would serve 

the convenience of commerce. 

Although a few commenters generally 

referred to transportation, no comments 

were submitted that referred to bus and 

passenger rail service. 

Airports/Airline Services 

In the NPRM, DOT stated that it was 

unable to determine whether the 

airports/airline aspect of the 

convenience of commerce standard 

supports a change in Pulaski County’s 

time zone based on the information 

submitted in the Amended Petition. The 

Amended Petition identified three 

airports that could potentially serve 

Pulaski County residents: Indianapolis 

International Airport, 99 miles from the 

County; Chicago O’Hare, 124 miles from 

the County; and South Bend Regional 

Airport, 68 miles from the County. The 

Amended Petition admitted that ‘‘no 

reliable information is available to 

demonstrate the number of Pulaski 

County residents who are airline 

passengers to and from Chicago and 

Indianapolis,’’ but referred to the 

County’s largest employer, noting that 

both staff and customers use the 

Indianapolis Airport. The Amended 

Petition also referred to the operations 

of package delivery services by FedEx 

and UPS, with hubs in the Eastern Time 

Zone. DOT sought comment on the 

information submitted and requested 

any additional information on airport 

and airline services in Pulaski County 

that would aid in determining whether 

changing the time zone for Pulaski 

County would serve the convenience of 

commerce. 

As noted above, a few commenters 

generally referred to transportation. 

There were no comments, however, 

concerning airports/airline services. 

Worker Commuting Patterns 

Based upon the information 

submitted with the Amended Petition 

with regard to worker commuting 

patterns, the NPRM noted that it 

appears that moving the time zone 

boundary for Pulaski County to the 

Eastern Time Zone would serve the 

convenience of commerce. The 

Amended Petition stated that, according 

to STATS Indiana Annual Commuting 

Trends Profile, 2004, 77% of Pulaski 

County residents who work do so in the 

County and 13% of the workforce comes 

from other counties. Of those coming 

into the County to work, more come 

from the Eastern Time Zone than the 

Central Time Zone. The Amended 

Petition summed up worker commuting 

by stating, ‘‘Of those migrating in to 

work, the majority come from the 

Eastern Time Zone. Of those going out 

of the County to work, a lesser number 

go to the Central Time Zone than the 

Eastern Time Zone.’’ DOT solicited 

further information and data supporting 

or rebutting the information supplied by 

the Amended Petition and how it 

supports a change in the time zone for 

the convenience of commerce. 

A few commenters referenced worker 

commuting patterns generally to favor a 

move to the Eastern Time Zone. Some 

were businesses discussing employee 

home and work locations. Others were 

individuals commenting on their 

personal experience. No commenters 

claimed that worker commuting 

patterns supported remaining in the 

Central Time Zone. 

The Community’s Economy/Economic 

Development 

Based upon the information 

submitted with the Amended Petition 

with regard to economic development, 

the NPRM noted that it appears that 

moving the time zone boundary for 

Pulaski County to the Eastern Time 

Zone would serve the convenience of 

commerce. The Amended Petition 

stated, ‘‘Outside of its borders Pulaski 

County is not a ‘hub’ for the regional 

economy. It is a peripheral player.’’ In 

support of this assertion, the Amended 

Petition referred to a study undertaken 

by the Pulaski County Community 

Development Commission that states 

that the employment in the County ‘‘is 

highly concentrated in agriculture, 

manufacturing, and government.’’ DOT 

solicited further information and data 

supporting or rebutting the information 

supplied by the Amended Petition and 

how it supports a change in the time 

zone for the convenience of commerce. 

In response to the NPRM, the 

Executive Director of the Pulaski County 

Community Development Commission 

expressed his support for the Eastern 

Time Zone, based on ‘‘a year of 

experience in working with this issue.’’

He noted that ‘‘the majority’’ of the 

Commission’s ‘‘contacts and clients 

favor the Eastern Time Zone.’’ A 

member of the Pulaski County 

Community Development Commission 

expressed a different view, favoring the 

Central Time Zone. He noted that his 

company sees ‘‘growth in the markets to 

the greater Chicago land areas, all of 

which observe Central Time’’ and that 

‘‘growth will come as a result of the 

continued growth of Chicago, 

Valparaiso, and Rensselaer.’’

Several agri-businesses submitted 

comments favoring the Eastern Time 

Zone, noting the agri-business 

community ‘‘relies on several 

businesses to open early to provide 

goods and services to * * * local and 

surrounding communities. It is best for 

all of these related businesses to be on 

the same time zone to communicate 

with one another as needed.’’

Schooling, Recreation, Health Care, or 

Religious Worship 

Based on the information submitted 

in the Amended Petition with regard to 

higher education and recreation and 

possibly health care, the NPRM noted 

that it appears that moving the time 

zone boundary for Pulaski County to the 

Eastern Time Zone would serve the 

convenience of commerce. The NPRM 

also noted that it is unclear whether a 

time zone boundary change would serve 

primary and secondary education. DOT 

sought comment on the information 

submitted and requested additional 

information on schooling as it relates to 

the school districts that cover Pulaski 

County. DOT also requested comments 

on any other recreational activities that 

would be relevant to this proceeding, on 

whether the home health care visits by 

county of residence noted on page 24 of 

the Amended Petition were based on a 

per person or per visit basis, and on a 

time zone change and its effect on 

religious worship, if any. 

The Amended Petition noted that 

there are four school districts that cover 

Pulaski County, serving Pulaski County 

and counties in the Eastern and Central 

Time Zones. The Amended Petition 

provided detailed information on the 

number of students in each school 

district and the county of residence for 

the faculty. In addition, it included 

detailed information on the athletic 

programs and events scheduled in 

Eastern and Central Time Zone 

counties. With regard to higher 

education, the Amended Petition 

asserted that the employees of 

businesses encouraging additional 

schooling and high school graduates 

unable to afford campus life will have 

limited opportunities if Pulaski County 

were to remain in the Central Time 

Zone. The Amended Petition noted six 

of the eight colleges and universities 

within 50 miles are located in the 

Eastern Time Zone. 

In response to the NPRM request for 

comments on the impact of a time zone 

change with regard to schooling, the 

Superintendent of Schools for the 

Eastern Pulaski Community School 

Corporation wrote favoring the Eastern 

Time Zone, ‘‘in the best interest of 

* * * students, parents, staff, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6175 

community.’’ He noted the schools 

‘‘interact with those counties in the 

Eastern Time Zone far more than 

counties in the Central Time Zone.’’ He 

referred specifically to special education 

students commuting to Logansport and 

students from Fulton County in the 

Eastern Time Zone. Several businesses 

submitted comments in favor of the 

Eastern Time Zone due to the negative 

impact of the Central Time Zone on 

their workers who had school children. 

Parents, too, wrote in support of the 

Eastern Time Zone based on their 

children commuting to schools in the 

Eastern Time Zone. On the other hand, 

one commenter who favored the Central 

Time Zone noted that ‘‘West Central has 

several students who live in Jasper 

County (central time zone) they also 

have students that they transport to 

Rensselaer (central).’’ However, as one 

commenter who favored Central Time 

stated, ‘‘no matter what is decided, 

someone is going to have to deal with 

students being in different time zones.’’

A student favored the Central Time 

Zone so that his father could attend his 

sporting events. DOT specifically 

requested comments from the Fulton, 

Marshall, Starke, and Jasper Counties 

that are in the same school districts as 

Pulaski County, but did not receive any 

comments from these counties. 

With regard to recreation, the 

Amended Petition stated, ‘‘Indiana is 

unique in its observance of college and 

high school basketball as a main source 

of family entertainment.’’ The Amended 

Petition noted that five out of the six 

colleges noted for collegiate sports 

within 100 miles of Pulaski County are 

in the Eastern Time Zone. The 

Amended Petition also noted that with 

regard to professional football and 

basketball, there is an equal split 

between the Eastern and Central Time 

Zones. 

With regard to health care, the 

Amended Petition provided substantial 

information on the activities of Pulaski 

Memorial Hospital, which the Amended 

Petition identifies as ‘‘the primary 

health care provider in Pulaski County’’

and its second largest employer. 

Commenting on in-patient and outpatient referrals, practitioners and 

specialty group physicians, and in-home 

health care, the Amended Petition 

asserted, ‘‘Pulaski Memorial Hospital 

activities, with one (1) exception point 

to the Eastern Time Zone.’’ It supported 

this assertion with detailed statistics. 

In response to the NPRM’s request for 

comments with regard to health care, 

the Chief Executive Officer submitted 

comments to the docket on behalf of the 

Pulaski Memorial Hospital Board of 

Trustees and the hospital’s medical 

staff, supporting a change back to the 

Eastern Time Zone. He noted a 

‘‘significant number of physicians who 

have a part time clinical practice in 

Winamac but whose main practice 

locations are in other towns in the 

Eastern Time Zone would be adversely 

affected’’ if Pulaski County were in the 

Central Time Zone. He further noted, 

‘‘Reasonable access by the citizens of 

Pulaski County to high quality 

specialized medical and surgical care is 

dependent upon these physicians 

***’’ A family physician commented 

that ‘‘90% of the people and 

organizations both business and 

nonprofit that I deal with are on eastern 

time.’’ Another family physician noted 

his medical referrals are ‘‘almost 

exclusively oriented’’ to the Eastern 

Time Zone. A nurse practitioner noted 

that ‘‘patients are confused as to what 

time it is,’’ resulting in missed 

appointments. A doctor of optometry 

supported the Eastern Time Zone for 

patient scheduling purposes, patient 

referrals, and for buying materials and 

supplies. Individuals commented on 

their primary physicians, specialists, 

and dentists in the Eastern Time Zone. 

The Amended Petition did not 

address religious worship. In response 

to DOT’s request for comments on this 

aspect of the convenience of commerce 

standard, a few commenters mentioned 

time zone differences with regard to 

going to church services. Two religious 

organizations submitted comments on 

the impact of time zone on religious 

worship, supporting the Eastern Time 

Zone. The church leader of Grace 

International Ministries doing business 

as Church of the Heartland noted that 

the Church has over 400 members 

‘‘involved in 5 counties with 5 campus 

locations.’’ He stated, ‘‘For the sake of 

scheduling services, travel and for 

convenience of parishioners and staff, it 

would greatly enhance our ministries if 

Pulaski were moved to the Eastern Time 

Zone.’’ The Pastor of the Fellowship 

Baptist Church noted its members lived 

in the Eastern Time Zone, with only one 

family living in Starke County in the 

Central Time Zone and the rest living in 

either Pulaski County or Fulton, Cass, or 

White Counties in the Eastern Time 

Zone. 

Regional Connections 

Based on the information submitted 

in the Amended Petition with regard to 

regional connections, the NPRM noted 

that it appears that moving the time 

zone boundary for Pulaski County to the 

Eastern Time Zone would serve the 

convenience of commerce. The 

Amended Petition referred to regions 

established by the State of Indiana and 

said, ‘‘These regions are properly 

regarded as regions for the 

administrative ease of delivering 

governmental services and should not 

be relied upon as decisive evidence of 

what time zone best serves the 

commercial convenience of Pulaski 

County. Regardless of where Pulaski 

County is placed in state government 

regions, Pulaski County is 

fundamentally different as a rural 

county and on the periphery from the 

major cities that comprise the hub of 

these regions.’’ It further stated, ‘‘A 

rational basis can be asserted for 

including Pulaski County in a time zone 

that serves commercial convenience 

focusing on small rural populations 

with an agricultural/small 

manufacturing economy. This informal 

region would include the counties of 

Fulton, Pulaski, White, Jasper, and 

Newton.’’

Regional connections are also 

addressed in letters from the Indiana 

Economic Development Corporation 

and the Indiana Department of 

Workforce Development. They noted 

that they established their respective 

regions based on their ability to deliver 

services. They did not establish regions 

based on time zones or ‘‘stream of 

commerce.’’ The data from STATS 

Indiana concerning employment and 

earnings by industry identified the 

source of the information as the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA), which 

produces economic statistics to help 

government and business decisionmakers, researchers, and the American 

public to follow and understand the 

performance of the Nation’s economy. 

Pulaski County is in BEA area 156 with 

other counties that are in the Eastern 

Time Zone (Elkhart, Fulton, Kosciusko, 

Lagrange, Marshall, St. Joseph Counties 

in Indiana and Berrien, Cass, and St. 

Joseph Counties in Michigan), with the 

exception of Starke County. Starke 

County, like Pulaski County, petitioned 

to have its time zone boundary changed 

to the Central Time Zone and DOT 

granted that petition and changed the 

time zone in January 2006. Starke 

County did not seek to change its time 

zone boundary back to the Eastern Time 

Zone. DOT sought comment on the 

information submitted and requested 

any additional information concerning 

regional connections that would aid in 

determining whether changing the time 

zone for Pulaski County would serve the 

convenience of commerce. 

As noted above, the Indiana Economic 

Development Corporation and the 

Indiana Department of Workforce 

Development submitted letters to the 

docket prior to the NPRM, addressing 

regional connections. They noted that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
6176 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

they established their respective state 

regions based on their ability to deliver 

services. They did not establish regions 

based on time zones or ‘‘stream of 

commerce.’’ A few commenters to the 

NPRM referred to connections with the 

surrounding counties in the Eastern 

Time Zone. These commenters did not 

provide any detailed information. 

DOT Determination 

Based upon the Amended Petition, 

information submitted with the 

Amended Petition, and comments 

submitted in response to the NPRM, 

DOT is relocating the time zone 

boundary for Pulaski County from the 

Central Time Zone to the Eastern Time 

Zone. 

Pulaski County addressed all the 

factors we consider in these proceedings 

and made a convincing case that 

changing back to the Eastern Time Zone 

would serve the convenience of 

commerce by providing more detailed 

and substantiated information than the 

original petition and comments 

submitted. Written comments supported 

moving Pulaski County to the Eastern 

Time Zone. We did not receive any 

additional information that would 

persuade us to change our initial 

determination as proposed in the 

November 2006 NPRM. 

DOT is unable to determine whether 

the transportation-related aspects (rail/ 

bus/airports/airline services) of the 

convenience of commerce standard as 

well as the television/radio broadcast 

aspects of the standard support a change 

in Pulaski County’s time zone. However, 

that the vast majority of the County’s 

businesses and industries have their 

suppliers, customers, and marketing 

connections with areas that are in the 

Eastern Time Zone. Commenters 

addressing this issue make a strong case 

for the Eastern Time Zone. Newspapers 

that serve the community, worker 

commuting patterns, higher education, 

recreation, health care concerns as well 

as regional connections appear to favor 

the Eastern Time Zone. 

Conclusion 

In our experience, time zone 

boundary changes can be extremely 

disruptive to a community and, 

therefore, should not be made without 

careful consideration. Both for legal and 

policy reasons, the truthfulness of 

information submitted to the United 

States government is of critical 

importance. Indeed, it is legally 

required under 18 U.S.C. 1001, as we 

reminded the County officials in our 

May 22, 2006, that preceded the 

Amended Petition. DOT takes seriously 

the review of any petition seeking a 

change in time zone boundaries and 

relies upon the accuracy of data and 

information supporting the petition. 

Therefore, we have relied upon the new 

information and data provided by the 

County and other commenters and 

expect it to be both accurate and 

truthful. DOT devoted an extensive 

amount of time in analyzing the original 

petition and issuing a final rule to 

change the time zone boundary for 

Pulaski County to the Central Time 

Zone and to this proceeding changing 

the time zone boundary back to the 

Eastern Time Zone. We have 

determined that a change in the time 

zone boundary to the Eastern Time Zone 

serves the convenience of commerce, 

and we expect the County and its 

citizens to comply with this final rule. 

Regulatory Analysis & Notices 

This final 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 final 

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 final 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 

rule primarily affects individuals and 

their scheduling of activities. Although 

it would affect some small businesses, 

not-for-profits and, perhaps, a number 

of small governmental jurisdictions, we 

have not received comments asserting 

that our proposal, if adopted, would 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities. 

Therefore, I certify under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this final rule does not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 rule so that they can 

better implement it. 

Collection of Information 

This final rule does not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule 

does not have a substantial direct effect 

on, or sufficient federalism implications 

for, the States, nor would it limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States. 

Therefore, the consultation 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 

do not apply. 

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 final rule 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

Taking of Private Property 

This final rule does 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 final 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 final 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 as defined by 

the Executive Order that may 

disproportionately affect children. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6177 

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 amends Title 49 

part 71 to read as follows: 

PART 71—[AMENDED] 

■ 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; Pub. 

L. 106–564, 15 U.S.C. 263, 114 Stat. 2811; 49 

CFR 1.59(a). 

■ 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 LaPorte 

County; thence southerly along the east 

line of LaPorte County to the north line 

of Starke County; thence east along the 

north line of Starke County to the west 

line of Mashall County; thence south 

along the west line of Marshall County; 

thence west along the north line of 

Pulaski County to the east line of Jasper 

County; thence south along the east line 

of Jasper County to the south line of 

Jasper County; thence west along the 

south lines of Jasper and Newton 

Counties to the western boundary of the 

State of Indiana; thence south along the 

western boundary of the State of Indiana 

to the north line of Knox County; thence 

easterly along the north line of Knox, 

Daviess, and Martin Counties to the 

west line of Lawrence County; thence 

south along the west line of Lawrence, 

Orange, and Crawford Counties to the 

north line of Perry County; thence 

easterly and southerly along the north 

and east line of Perry County to the 

Indiana-Kentucky boundary. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC on: February 5, 

2007. 

Mary E. Peters, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–601 Filed 2–6–07; 4:10 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 060216044–6044–01; I.D. 

020207C] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical 

Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; modification of 

a closure; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is opening directed 

fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 

610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 48 

hours. This action is necessary to fully 

use the A season allowance of the 2007 

total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock 

specified for Statistical Area 610 of the 

GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), February 5, 2007, through 

1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 7, 2007. 

Comments must be received at the 

following address no later than 4:30 

p.m., A.l.t., February 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• Mail to: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802; 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, Alaska; 

• FAX to 907–586–7557; 

• E-mail to 610pollock@noaa.gov and 

include in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the document identifier: 

‘‘g61plkro1’’ (E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes); or 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

NMFS closed the directed fishery for 

pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the 

GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on 

January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2462, January 

19, 2007). 

NMFS has determined that 

approximately 2,950 mt of pollock 

remain in the directed fishing 

allowance. Therefore, in accordance 

with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and 

(a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the A 

season allowance of the 2007 TAC of 

pollock in Statistical Area 610, NMFS is 

terminating the previous closure and is 

reopening directed fishing for pollock in 

Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. In 

accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the 

Regional Administrator finds that this 

directed fishing allowance will be 

reached after 48 hours. Consequently, 

NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for 

pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the 

GOA effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 

7, 2007. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the opening of pollock in 

Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS 

was unable to publish a notice 

providing time for public comment 

because the most recent, relevant data 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES