[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62288-62292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 71

[OST Docket No. 2005-22114]
RIN 2105-AD53


Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of Indiana

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: DOT tentatively proposes to relocate the time zone boundary in 
Indiana to move St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry Counties from 
the eastern time zone to the central time zone at the request of the 
County Commissioners. We are tentatively not proposing to change the 
time zone boundary to move Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White, 
Carroll, Cass, Vermillion, Sullivan, Daviess, Dubois, Martin, and 
Lawrence Counties from the eastern time zone to the central time zone 
based on the petitions from the commissioners in these counties. If 
additional information is provided that indicates that the time zone 
boundary should be drawn differently, either to include counties 
currently excluded or to exclude counties that are currently included 
in this proposal, we will make the change at the final rule stage of 
this proceeding.

DATES: Any County Commissioners from the counties that have submitted 
petitions who wish to provide additional data to justify a change from 
the eastern time zone to the central time zone should do so by November 
10, 2005. Other comments should be received by November 30, 2005 to be 
assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent practicable. If the time zone boundary is 
changed as a result of this rulemaking, the effective date would be no 
earlier than 2 a.m. EST Sunday, April 2, 2006, which is the changeover 
from standard time to daylight saving time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number (OST Docket Number 2005-22114) or Regulatory 
Identification Number (RIN) (2105-AD53) for this rulemaking. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the 
Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.
    Public Hearings: In addition to the submission of written comments, 
an opportunity for oral comments will be provided at four public 
hearings in Jasper, Logansport, South Bend, and Terre Haute. These 
hearings will be chaired by a representative of DOT in November. We 
will publish the date and time in a separate document that will be 
posted in the docket and published in the Federal Register.
    The hearings will be informal and will be tape-recorded for 
inclusion in the docket. The DOT representative will provide an 
opportunity to speak for all those wishing to do so, to the greatest 
extent possible. The hearing locations will be accessible for persons 
with disabilities. If you need a sign language interpreter, please let 
us know no later than one week before the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant 
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room 10424, 400

[[Page 62289]]

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, [email protected]; (202) 
366-9306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Current Indiana Time Observance

    Under Federal law, 82 Indiana counties are in the eastern time zone 
and 10 are in the central time zone. The central time zone counties 
include five in the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte, Newton, and 
Jasper) and five in the southwest (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer 
and Gibson). The remaining 82 counties are in the eastern time zone. 
Neighboring States observe both eastern and central time. Illinois and 
western Kentucky observe central time, while eastern Kentucky, Ohio, 
and the portion of Michigan adjoining Indiana observe eastern time.
    Federal law provides that it is up to an individual State to decide 
whether or not to observe daylight saving time. Generally, a State must 
choose to observe, or not observe, across the entire State. The one 
exception is that, if a State is in more than one time zone, a 
``split'' observance is permitted. Under this scenario, all of a State 
that is in one time zone may observe daylight saving time, while the 
remainder of the State in the different time zone does not. Under 
Indiana law, for many years, the central time zone portion of the State 
has observed daylight saving time, while the eastern time zone portion 
of the State has not observed daylight saving time.
    The effect of daylight saving time is the equivalent of moving one 
time zone to the east. This means that, by remaining on eastern 
standard time year-round, the eastern time zone portion of Indiana has 
been on the same time as New York in the winter and on the same clock 
time as Chicago in the summer. The impact of the State legislation 
(discussed in more detail below) to observe daylight saving time 
beginning in 2006 is that, in the summer, the time of sunrise and 
sunset on eastern daylight saving time will be an hour later than it 
currently is under year-round eastern standard time. There will be no 
change in the sunrise and sunset times during the winter when eastern 
standard time will continue to be observed.

Statutory Requirements

    Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time 
Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64), the Secretary of Transportation has 
authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time 
zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone 
to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is ``regard 
for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and 
division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign 
commerce.''

DOT Procedures To Change a Time Zone Boundary

    The Department has typically used a set of procedures to address 
time zone issues. Under these DOT procedures, the Department will 
generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected 
officials in the area provide adequate supporting data for the proposed 
change. We ask that the petition include, or be accompanied by, 
detailed information supporting the requesting party's contention that 
the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce. The 
principal standard for deciding whether to change a time zone is 
defined very broadly to include consideration of all the impacts upon a 
community of a change in its standard of time. We also ask that the 
supporting documentation address, at a minimum, each of the following 
questions in as much detail as possible.
    1. From where do businesses in the community get their supplies, 
and to where do they ship their goods or products?
    2. From where does the community receive television and radio 
broadcasts?
    3. Where are the newspapers published that serve the community?
    4. From where does the community get its bus and passenger rail 
services; if there is no scheduled bus or passenger rail service in the 
community to where must residents go to obtain these services?
    5. Where is the nearest airport; if it is a local service airport, 
to what major airport does it carry passengers?
    6. What percentage of residents of the community work outside the 
community; where do these residents work?
    7. What are the major elements of the community's economy; is the 
community's economy improving or declining; what Federal, State, or 
local plans, if any, are there for economic development in the 
community?
    8. If residents leave the community for schooling, recreation, 
health care, or religious worship, what standard of time is observed in 
the places where they go for these purposes?
    In addition, we consider any other information that the county or 
local officials believe to be relevant to the proceeding.

Indiana's Decision To Observe Daylight Saving Time

    In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly adopted legislation (Indiana 
Senate Enrolled Act 127 or ``the Indiana Act'') providing that the 
entire State of Indiana will begin to observe daylight saving time 
beginning in 2006. In addition, the Indiana Act addressed the issue of 
changing the location of the boundary between the eastern and central 
time zones. The Indiana Act stated that, ``[T]he [S]tate supports the 
county executive of any county that seeks to change the time zone in 
which the county is located under the procedures established by Federal 
Law.'' The Indiana Act also provided that, ``The governor and the 
general assembly hereby petition the United States Department of 
Transportation to initiate proceedings under the Uniform Time Act of 
1966 to hold hearings in the appropriate locations in Indiana on the 
issue of the location of the boundary between the Central Time Zone and 
the Eastern Time Zone in Indiana.'' Finally, the Indiana Act requested 
that DOT refrain from changing the time zone of any county currently 
located within the central time zone and five counties near Cincinnati 
and Louisville.
    On July 15, 2005, Secretary Mineta sent a letter to Governor 
Daniels responding to this legislation and letters from the Governor. 
The letter noted that it is our normal practice, in implementing our 
responsibilities under the Uniform Time Act with respect to the 
location of time zone boundaries, to take action on specific requests 
for change in the time zone boundaries for a particular jurisdiction 
from the elected officials of that jurisdiction. After receiving a 
request, we review it and the supporting data to then determine whether 
the issuance of an NPRM is justified. Once justified, we issue the NPRM 
to propose a change.

DOT Notice Inviting Petitions

    On August 17, 2005, DOT published a notice in the Federal Register 
inviting county and local officials in Indiana that wish to change 
their current time zone in response to Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 127 
to notify DOT of their request for a change by September 16, 2005 and 
to provide data in response to the questions above. In addition, it 
announced the opening of an internet-accessible, public docket to 
receive any petitions and other relevant documents concerning the 
appropriate placement of the time zone boundary in the State of 
Indiana.

[[Page 62290]]

Petitions Received

    We received nineteen petitions from counties asking to be changed 
from the eastern time zone to the central time zone. One of the 
counties (Fountain County) subsequently withdrew its request.
    In general, the petitions are clustered in the northwest (St. 
Joseph, Starke, Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White, Carroll and 
Cass Counties) and the southwest (Sullivan, Knox, Daviess, Martin, 
Lawrence, Pike, Dubois and Perry Counties). In the central portion of 
western Indiana, only Vermillion County asked to be changed to central 
time.
    The amount of data provided in the petitions varied substantially 
among counties. Under our normal procedures, we do not take action 
unless the county makes a clear showing that the proposed change would 
meet the statutory standard. We recognize, however, that this is an 
unusual case because of the number of counties involved, their 
relationship to each other and to other neighboring counties, and the 
circumstances leading up to these petitions. Although the proposed 
counties have provided adequate supporting data to justify the issuance 
of an NPRM, we will critically review contrary and supporting 
information that may be provided by others, and any other related 
comments and data prior to issuing a final rule.

Other Communications From Local Officials

    We also received a number of letters from counties and cities 
advising us that they had considered whether to petition for a change 
and, at this time at least, were satisfied with their current time zone 
boundary or wished to stay in the same time zone as Indianapolis, which 
is located in Marion County and is in the eastern time zone. Those 
counties included Warren, Monroe, Orange, Steuben, Noble, Hendricks, 
Jefferson, Crawford and Jay. The cities of Whiting, Hebron, and Munster 
also filed letters expressing satisfaction with their current time 
zone.

Comments to the Docket

    There are currently nearly 600 entries to the docket. In addition, 
we have received hundreds of calls, questions, and e-mails on the 
Indiana time zone issue. Many comments were filed by Chambers of 
Commerce, businesses, various community associations and interest 
groups, and individuals. The commenters suggested a wide variety of 
approaches including placing all of the State in the eastern time zone, 
placing all of the State in the central time zone, and maintaining the 
current time zone boundaries. Some of the commenters included data on 
sunrise/sunset, economic development and trends, commuting patterns, 
school districts and institutions of higher learning, transportation 
services, the location of cultural and recreational activities, and a 
wide variety of other factors. Other commenters shared their personal 
preferences and their sense of which time zone that they most closely 
associate with.
    The focus of this stage of the proceeding to date has been on the 
petitions by the counties. At the next stage, however, we will 
carefully review the petitions submitted in light of the comments 
received and data gathered during the next stage of this rulemaking 
process. None of the counties where we have tentatively proposed to 
relocate the time zone boundaries and none of the counties where we 
have tentatively decided not to propose a change should regard their 
petitions as resolved, nor should they rely on the current proposal, 
which very well may change when all the information is available and a 
final rule is issued.

DOT Determination

    Based on the petitions and the supporting data filed by the County 
Commissioners, we find that St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry 
Counties have provided enough information to justify proposing to 
change those counties from the eastern to central time zone. As noted 
above, we have received and will review the comments to the docket 
already received. We are now providing a further opportunity to others 
to provide information that might refute or support the basis provided 
to date, to enable a final decision. We are requesting comments on 
whether to make the change in any, or all, of the remaining 13 counties 
that petitioned for change and on whether we should not adopt any or 
all of the proposed changes. If supplementary information is filed by 
the County Commissioners supporting the inclusion of additional 
counties and it is not otherwise refuted, an appropriate change will be 
made in the final rule. We invite representatives from any of the 
counties that filed petitions to submit additional justification to the 
public docket. In order to allow the public time to comment on any 
additional information that may be submitted by the counties, we 
request any further submissions to be sent to the public docket by 
November 10, 2005. In addition, we ask that any county that submits 
additional information to the public docket present this information at 
a public hearing chaired by a DOT representative.
    St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry County addressed all, or 
virtually all, of the factors that we consider in these proceedings and 
made a reasonable case that changing to the central time zone would 
serve ``the convenience of commerce.'' In addition, we considered each 
county's geographic location compared to the current time zone boundary 
and how closely interrelated neighboring counties appeared to be. The 
specific reasons for granting the petitions for each of these counties 
differ based on the facts specific to each case. For example, St. 
Joseph County filed detailed information addressing each factor, 
showing how changing to the central time zone would be beneficial for 
the community. Starke County had been in the central time zone and it 
presented evidence of close ties to areas in the central time zone. 
Based on the evidence presented, Pike County appears to be closely tied 
to Evansville for many goods, services, and activities. Knox and Perry 
County provided information on their commuting patterns to the central 
zone, and reliance on Evansville for a majority of their communications 
and transportation services.
    We have not included all the counties that petitioned, for a number 
of reasons. Some presented almost no arguments or supporting data on 
why it would be appropriate to change the time zone boundary. Others 
addressed all, or most, factors but acknowledged that a significant 
connection with the eastern time zone. A number of counties focused on 
the potential change to their neighbors' time zone, and seemed to be 
more concerned with staying in the same time zone as their neighbors 
than in changing their time zone. In other cases, the counties seemed 
to be equally connected to the eastern and central time zones. 
Traditionally, we have been reluctant to create ``islands of time'' by 
placing one county in a different time zone from all its neighboring 
counties in the State; we consider the affect on economic, cultural, 
social, and civic activities between neighboring counties in making 
decisions. Finally, we looked at the distance each county is from the 
current time zone boundary, the proximity of each county to important 
metropolitan areas, and where the major roads and bridges are located. 
We wish to strongly emphasize that our proposal is a tentative decision 
and is subject to change based on additional data reviewed in the next 
stage of this proceeding.

[[Page 62291]]

    In our experience, time zone boundary changes can be extremely 
disruptive to a community and, therefore, should not be made without 
careful consideration. Our proposal is intended to minimize disruption 
and to allow communities to fully assess the impact of potential 
changes to the time zone boundaries of their neighbors and daylight 
saving time observance beginning in April 2006. If comments to the 
docket or at the hearings provide additional information or stronger 
arguments for a change, we will make the appropriate changes in the 
final rule. We are happy to work with county representatives to provide 
guidance on the kinds of additional supporting data that would be most 
useful in making a case for a change of time zone boundary. If a county 
is not included in any final rule that may be issued in this 
proceeding, governmental representatives are free to petition DOT in 
the future to make further changes to the time zone boundary.

Request for Comments

    To aid us in our consideration of whether a time zone change would 
be ``for the convenience of commerce,'' we ask for comments on the 
impact on commerce of a change in time zone and whether a new time zone 
would improve the convenience of commerce. The comments should address 
the impact on such things as economic, cultural, social, and civic 
activities and how time zone changes affect businesses, communication, 
transportation, and education. The comments should be as detailed as 
possible, providing the basis of the information including factual data 
or surveys. For example, with regard to major bus, rail, and air 
transportation, information such as the average time it takes for an 
average county resident to travel to a transportation terminal or the 
average distance to the terminal for a county resident would be useful. 
With regard to the impact of the time zone on education, if a school 
district crosses county lines, the number of students in each county in 
that district would be helpful. Information on school activities such 
as sporting events or academic competitions that take place in other 
counties or locations that are not on the same time zone as the school 
district would also be useful. Similar information on community 
colleges could also be beneficial. Finally, we would appreciate 
information on how the different time zones affect the students and the 
schools.
    We specifically invite comment from neighboring Indiana counties, 
and counties in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois that may also be 
impacted by any change. For example, we are aware of the importance of 
South Bend to its neighboring communities in Indiana and Michigan and 
specifically request comment on potential effects to those communities 
to the north, east, and south if St. Joseph County is changed at the 
final rule stage and placed in a different time zone from the greater 
Michiana area as additional information could change our tentative 
decision.
    Although the five counties have submitted sufficient information to 
begin the rulemaking process, the decision whether actually to make the 
change will also consider information received at the hearings or 
submitted in writing to the docket. Persons supporting or opposing the 
change should not assume that the change will be made merely because 
DOT is making the proposal. The Department here issues no opinion on 
the ultimate merits of the counties' requests. Our decision in the 
final rule will be made on the basis of information developed during 
the entire rulemaking proceeding, including the petitions.

Impact on Observance of Daylight Saving Time

    As noted above, this time zone proposal does not affect the 
observance of daylight saving time. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, 
as amended, the standard time of each time zone in the United States is 
advanced one hour from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2 a.m. 
on the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law, 
exempted itself from this observance. Under recently enacted federal 
legislation, beginning in 2007, daylight saving time will begin the 
second Sunday in March and end the first Sunday in November.

Comment Period

    We are providing 30 days for public comments in this proceeding. 
Although we normally provide 60 days for public comments on proposed 
rules, we believe that 30 days is an adequate public comment period in 
this instance. It is important to resolve this rulemaking expeditiously 
so that we can provide ample notice if changes to the time zone 
boundaries are adopted. Since the introduction and passage of the State 
legislation, the time zone boundary issue has been actively discussed 
and analyzed. In this regard, we expect that 30 days is adequate time 
to gather the necessary data, which is based on currently available 
information, or share personal preferences. Because of the number of 
counties under consideration, please identify which county or counties 
you are commenting on.

Regulatory Analysis & Notices

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 
11040; February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this 
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is 
unnecessary. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals 
in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its 
impact is localized in nature.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000. This proposal, if adopted, would primarily affect individuals 
and their scheduling of activities. Although it would affect some small 
businesses, not-for-profits and, perhaps, a number of small 
governmental jurisdictions, it would not be a substantial number. In 
addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact.
    Therefore, I certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 
would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, 
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it 
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically 
affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that

[[Page 62292]]

they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the 
rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, 
or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please call Joanne Petrie at 
(202) 366-9315.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 12612 and have 
determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for 
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and 
E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093; 
October 28, 1993) govern the issuance of Federal regulations that 
impose unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that 
requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to 
incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first 
provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not 
impose an unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not result in a taking of private property 
or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is 
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact 
statement is not required.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71

    Time zones.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Office of the Secretary 
proposes to amend Title 49 part 71 to read as follows:

PART 71--STANDARD TIME ZONE BOUNDARIES

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1-4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 
1446, as amended; secs. 2-7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat. 
764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 
1966 and Pub. L. 97-449, 15 U.S.C. 260-267; Pub. L. 99-359; 49 CFR 
159(a), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Paragraph (b) of Sec.  71.5, Boundary line between eastern and 
central zones, is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  71.5  Boundary line between eastern and central zones.

* * * * *
    (b) Indiana-Illinois. From the junction of the western boundary of 
the State of Michigan with the northern boundary of the State of 
Indiana easterly along the northern boundary of the State of Indiana to 
the east line of St. Joseph County; thence south along the east line of 
St. Joseph County to the border with Marshall County; thence west along 
the north line of Marshall County; thence south along the west line of 
Marshall County; thence west along the south line of Starke County; 
thence south along the east line of Jasper County; thence south and 
west along the south line of Jasper County; thence west along the south 
line of Newton County to the intersection of Indiana-Illinois border; 
thence south along the Indiana-Illinois border to the intersection with 
the northwest corner of Knox County; thence east along the north line 
of Knox County; thence south and west along the east line of Knox 
County to the intersection with Pike County; thence easterly along the 
northeast line of Pike County; thence south along the east line of Pike 
County; thence east along the south line of Dubois County; thence north 
and east along the line between Dubois and Perry County; thence east 
and south along the northeast line of Perry County to the border of 
Indiana and Kentucky.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 25, 2005.
Jeffrey A. Rosen,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-21606 Filed 10-26-05; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-02-P