[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40666-40669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19466]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 71

[OST Docket No. OST-2001-10287]
RIN 2105-AD03


Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of North Dakota: 
Proposed Relocation of Morton County

AGENCY: The Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the 
Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: At the request of the Chairman of the Board of County 
Commissioners for Morton County, ND, DOT proposes to relocate the 
boundary between mountain time and central time in the State of North 
Dakota. DOT proposes to relocate the boundary in order to place all of 
Morton County in the central time zone.

DATES: Comments should be received by September 17, 2001, to be assured 
of consideration. Comments received after

[[Page 40667]]

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 2:00 a.m. MDT Sunday, October 28, 2001, 
which is the changeover from daylight saving to standard time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments and related material by only 
one of the following methods:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (OST-2001-10287), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (2) By hand delivery 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. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the 
same address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call 
Dorothy Walker, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 
202-366-9329. Public Hearing: A public hearing will be chaired by a 
representative of DOT at the City Hall Auditorium, 400 Main Avenue, New 
Salem, ND on Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. mountain daylight 
time (8:30 p.m. central daylight time). The hearing will be informal 
and will be tape-recorded for inclusion in the docket. Persons who 
desire to express opinions or ask questions at the hearings do not have 
to sign up in advance or give any prior notification. To the greatest 
extent practicable, the DOT representative will provide an opportunity 
to speak for all those wishing to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant 
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room 10424, 400 Seventh Street, Washington, DC 20590, 
(202) 366-9315.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    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.''

Petition for Rulemaking

    In a petition dated April 9, 2001, the Chairman of the Board of 
County Commissioners for Morton County asked the Department of 
Transportation to move the western portion of Morton County, North 
Dakota, from the mountain time zone to the central time zone. In 
support of the petition, the Chairman noted the following factors:

    ``The City of Mandan is the largest city in Morton County (with 
over 66% of the county's population according to the 2000 Census) 
and operates on Central Time. Virtually all the supplies for the 
balance of the county come out of Mandan or Bismarck, North Dakota, 
which is in the central time zone.
    Virtually all county residents travel to Mandan or Bismarck for 
medical services, shopping, entertainment, or to do business with 
county or state government.
    Commercial airline services are based in Bismarck, North Dakota 
and require county residents to travel there to catch flights to 
other parts of the United States.
    Most all television and radio stations broadcast from Mandan or 
Bismarck and the only daily newspaper in the area is published in 
Bismarck, North Dakota which is just across the Missouri River from 
Mandan.
    The County Commissioners put the time issue to a straw vote in 
the June 13, 2000 Primary Election. Only the five (5) precincts that 
operated on mountain time voted on the time issue, Yes 625, No 572. 
There are twelve precincts in the county on central time. The 
commission held a meeting on the time issue in July 2000 and only 
one (1) person showed up to request the balance of the county in 
Mountain Time Zone. March 6, 2001 the commission held another 
meeting on the time issue based on the people wanting the commission 
to request the time change for the balance of the county. 46 persons 
attended the meeting with 28 expressing their opinion favoring to 
change the entire county to the Central Time Zone and 18 expressing 
their opinion that they wished to keep the balance of the county in 
the Mountain Time Zone. Most all the people that attended the 
meeting were from the precincts voting in the June 13, 2000 Primary 
Election.
    Geographically, Morton County is well suited to be in the 
Central Time Zone. Oliver County directly north of us operates in 
Central Time Zone and Mercer County north and west of us is 
considering changing to Central Time zone.''

    Under DOT procedures to change a time zone boundary, the Department 
will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected 
officials in the area make a prima facie case for the proposed change. 
DOT has determined that the Resolution of the Chairman of the County 
Commissioners of Morton County, ND makes a prima facie case that 
warrants opening a proceeding to determine whether the change should be 
made. Consequently, in this notice of proposed rulemaking, DOT is 
proposing to make the requested change and is inviting public comment.
    Although the Chairman of the County Commissioners of Morton County, 
ND has submitted sufficient information to begin the rulemaking 
process, the decision whether actually to make the change will be based 
upon information received at the hearing 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. 
We are not bound either to accept or reject the proposal of Morton 
County at the present time in the proceeding. The Department here 
issues no opinion on the merits of the County's request. Our decision 
will be made on the basis of information developed during the 
rulemaking proceeding.

Impact on Observance of Daylight Saving Time

    This time zone proposal does not directly 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 2:00 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2:00 a.m. on 
the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law, 
exempted itself from this observance.

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

[[Page 40668]]

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, several small governmental 
jurisdictions, it would not be a substantial number. In addition, the 
change should have little, if any, economic impact.
    Therefore, the Office of the Secretary certifies 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 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 
require 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 effect 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.

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--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 would continue to read:

    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 (a) of Sec. 71.7, Boundary line between central and 
mountain zones, would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 71.7  Boundary line between central and mountain zones.

    (a) Montana-North Dakota. Beginning at the junction of the Montana-
North Dakota boundary with the boundary of the United States and Canada 
southerly along the Montana-North Dakota boundary to the Missouri 
River; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of that river to 
the midpoint of the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers; 
thence southerly and easterly along the middle of the Yellowstone River 
to the north boundary of T. 150 N., R. 104 W.; thence east to the 
northwest corner of T. 150 N., R. 102 W.; thence south to the southwest 
corner of T. 149 N., R. 102 W.; thence east to the northwest corner of 
T. 148 N., R. 102 W.; thence south to the northwest corner of 147 N., 
R. 102 W.; thence east to the southwest corner of T. 148 N., R. 101 W., 
thence south to the middle of the Little Missouri; thence easterly and 
northerly along the middle of that river to the midpoint of its 
confluence with the Missouri River; thence southerly and easterly along 
the middle of the Missouri River to the midpoint of its confluence with 
the northern land boundary of Oliver County; thence, west along the 
northern county line to the northwest boundary; thence south along the 
western county line to the southwest boundary; thence west along the 
northern county boundary of Morton County; thence south along the 
western county line and then east along the southern county boundary to 
the northwest corner of T. 140 N., R. 83 W.; thence south to the 
southwest corner of T. 140 N., R. 82 W.; thence east to the southeast 
corner of T. 140 N., R. 83 W.; thence south to the middle of the Heart 
River; thence easterly and northerly along the middle of that river to 
the southern boundary of T. 139 N., R. 82 W.; thence east to the middle 
of the Heart River; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of 
that river to the midpoint of the confluence of the Heart and Missouri 
Rivers; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of the Missouri 
River to the northern boundary of T. 130 N., R. 80 W.; thence west to 
the northwest corner of T. 130 N., R. 80 W.; thence

[[Page 40669]]

south to the North Dakota-South Dakota boundary; thence easterly along 
that boundary to the middle of the Missouri River.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on July 30, 2001.
Rosalind Knapp,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-19466 Filed 8-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-63-P