[Federal Register: September 9, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 174)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53082-53083]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09se03-30]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 71
[OST Docket No. OST-2000-8013]
Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of North Dakota: Denial
of Petition to Change Time Zone Boundary
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Mercer
County, North Dakota, petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation
to move Mercer County from the mountain to the central standard time
zone. DOT held a hearing in the area and received extensive written
public comments. Based on the information in the docket and the strong
objections to a change voiced by the vast preponderance of commenters,
we are denying the petition.
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, SW., Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366-4702.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.''
In a petition dated August 16, 2000, the Chairman of the Mercer
County Board of County Commissioners asked the Department to move the
county from the mountain time zone to the central time zone. The
Commissioners submitted a memorandum outlining why the change would
suit ``the convenience of commerce.'' The petition noted that the issue
had been placed on the June 13, 2000, primary election ballot. The
results of that election indicated that 1,180 voters favored the change
while 1,038 voters opposed the change.
Because of the strong local interest in the proposal, DOT convened
a public hearing very early in the process. The hearing took place on
September 28, 2000, at the Civic Center in Beulah, ND, and was attended
by approximately 100 people. Based on a show of hands conducted several
times throughout the evening, approximately one-third of those in
attendance supported the change and two-thirds opposed the change. The
DOT representative also urged individuals, businesses, and
organizations to send written comments to the Department's docket so
that all the relevant facts could be collected and considered
systematically.
The rulemaking has been extremely controversial in the community.
Over 500 written comments were filed in the docket. Some of these
comments were petitions signed by hundreds of people. Some people filed
more than one comment and signed more than one petition. Even without
doing a crosscheck of names, it is clear that the vast majority of
people commenting on the issue in this proceeding opposed the proposed
change.
Under the Uniform Time Act, as amended, the Secretary of
Transportation can only change a time zone boundary if it would suit
``the convenience of commerce.'' Traditionally, we give great deference
to community views on the assumption that the people who would be most
affected by a proposed change are in the best position to advise us on
the impact.
The proponents of central time made many strong arguments, which
generally echoed the points made in the petition. Almost all noted the
reliance on goods and services coming from the Bismarck-Mandan area,
which is on central time. The closest airport is in Bismarck, most
television and newspapers come from Bismarck, and many residents go to
the central time zone for work, medical services, and recreation. The
coal and energy industry, which is a major employer in the area, is
closely tied to central time.
Those favoring the current time observance also made many strong
arguments. One of the central themes was that observance of mountain
time provides important advantages that make life more convenient,
productive, and pleasant.
Many opponents of the change argued that the current time
observance affirmatively helps business and is more conducive for
farmers. Farmers opposed to the change were concerned about getting
replacement parts later in the day and that grain elevators would close
an hour earlier. Others anticipated a disruption in the farming day by
having to attend to errands or engagements in town that would occur an
hour earlier under central time. A number of commenters were concerned
that a change would put small, local shops out of business, and
negatively impact the overall economic growth of the area. Others
noted, and appreciated the fact, that the current observance allows
mail delivery one hour earlier.
Some commenters noted that they rely on the local radio station and
the two weekly newspapers, rather than on media outlets originating in
the central time zone. Others liked the time zone difference because
they enjoyed viewing network television broadcasts an hour earlier than
they would if the change were made.
Many of the strongest comments argued that the current observance
benefits children, education, and family life. Many were concerned
about children waiting for buses in the dark on icy, rural roads.
Others believed that the current observance was more conducive to
learning, after-school
[[Page 53083]]
supervision of children, and participation in school and community
activities.
Many of the proponents of the status quo argued that the current
system works well and causes little confusion. Similarly, most appear
to believe that a change would inconvenience them personally and make
their lives difficult in some way.
Under the law, we are required to balance all the information in
the record. Based on the information presented and the overwhelming
community sentiment voiced in the record that a change would not ``suit
the convenience of commerce,'' I am hereby denying the petition. The
Commission is welcome to file another petition if circumstances change
in the future.
Issued in Washington, DC on August 29, 2003.
Rosalind Knapp,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 03-22921 Filed 9-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P