Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of South Dakota: Proposed Relocation of Jones, Mellette, and Todd Counties

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.


Notice of proposed rulemaking.


In response to a concurrent resolution of the South Dakota legislature, DOT proposes to relocate the boundary between mountain time and central time in the State of South Dakota. DOT proposes to place all of Jones, Mellette, and Todd Counties in the central time zone.


Comments should be received by September 25, 2003 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. MDT Sunday, October 26, 2003, which is the changeover from daylight saving to standard time.


You may submit comments to DOT DMS Docket OST-2003-15858 by any of the following methods:

  • Web site: 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 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to 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 at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

Start Further Info


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) 366-9315, or by email at

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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.”

Time zone boundaries are set by regulation (49 CFR Part 71). Currently, under regulation, Mellette and Todd Counties, and the western portion of Start Printed Page 47534Jones County, are located in the mountain standard time zone. The eastern portion of Jones County is currently located in the central time zone.

Request for a Change

The South Dakota legislature adopted a concurrent resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3) petitioning the Secretary of Transportation to place all of Jones, Mellette, and Todd counties into the central time zone. The resolution was adopted by the South Dakota Senate on February 3, 2003, and concurred by the South Dakota House of Representatives on February 7, 2003. The resolution noted, among other things, that the vast majority of residents of those counties observe central standard time, instead of mountain standard time, because their commercial and social ties are to communities located in the central time zone. It further stated that there would be much less confusion and that it would be much more convenient for the commerce of these counties if these counties were located in the central time zone. A copy of the resolution has been placed in the docket.

Procedure for Changing a Time Zone Boundary

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 concurrent resolution of the South Dakota legislature 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. In addition, we expect to hold one or more hearings in the area that will be chaired by a DOT representative. The time and place of the hearing(s) will be published in a subsequent Federal Register notice and be publicized through local media.

We are proposing that this change go into effect during the next changeover from daylight saving time to standard time, which is on October 26, 2003.

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 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.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 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, 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).


We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 12612 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications 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.


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. Start Printed Page 47535

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

E.O. 13175 provides that government agencies consult with tribes on issues that impact the Indian community. The Department has consulted with the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council and will continue to do so as this rulemaking progresses.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71

  • Time zones
End List of Subjects

For the reasons discussed above, the Office of the Secretary proposes to amend Title 49 CFR Part 71 to read as follows:

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

Start Authority

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. 281149 CFR 159(a), unless otherwise noted.

End Authority

2. Paragraph (b) of § 71.7, Boundary line between central and mountain zones, would be revised to read as follows:

Boundary line between central and mountain zones.

(a) * * *

(b) South Dakota. From the junction of the North Dakota-South Dakota boundary with the Missouri River southerly along the main channel of that river to the northeast corner of Jones County; thence west along the northern boundary of Jones County; thence south along the western boundaries of Jones, Mellette and Todd Counties to the South Dakota-Nebraska boundary.

* * * * *
Start Signature

Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, 2003.

Rosalind A. Knapp,

Deputy General Counsel.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 03-20418 Filed 8-8-03; 8:45 am]