[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 160 (Thursday, August 17, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50154-50158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20854]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 71
[OST Docket No. OST-99-5843]
RIN 2105-AC80
Relocation of Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of
Kentucky
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) is moving Wayne County,
Kentucky from the Central Time Zone to the Eastern Time Zone. This
action is taken in response to a petition filed by the Wayne County,
Kentucky, Fiscal Court and based on extensive comments filed in
response.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is 2 a.m. CDT Sunday, October
29, 2000.
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) 366-9315.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Legal Requirements
Under the Uniform Time Act of 1918, as amended (15 USC Secs. 260-
264), either the Secretary of Transportation or Congress may move a
time zone boundary in the United States. The current boundaries are set
forth in regulations that are found in 49 CFR part 71.
Generally, in order to begin a rulemaking proceeding to change a
time zone boundary, the highest governmental body representing the area
petitions DOT to make the change. Depending on the area in question,
the highest governmental body is usually elected county
representatives, or the Governor or State legislature. We presume that
this group represents the views of the community. We do not require
that the community conduct a vote or referendum on the issue. We
solicit the views of all interested parties, not just individuals who
live or businesses that are located in the affected area.
15 USC 261 states that the standard for making a time zone boundary
change 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 order to determine what decision
would support ``the convenience of commerce,'' the Department looks at
a wide variety of factors about how the potential change would affect
the community and surrounding areas. These factors include, but are not
limited to the following:
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?
History of This Proceeding
On April 22, 1999, the Wayne County, Kentucky Fiscal Court, by
Resolution, formally petitioned the Department of Transportation to
change the County's time zone from central to eastern. The Resolution
addressed each of the factors discussed above and made a prima facie
case that changing the time zone would suit ``the convenience of
commerce.''
On June 21, 1999, the DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register (64 FR 33035) that proposed to move the county
to eastern time.
A DOT representative conducted a hearing in Monticello, Kentucky,
on June 24, 1999. The hearing was attended by approximately 80 people
and lasted several hours. The DOT representative tried to gauge the
position of the attendees by an informal show of hands at two times
during the hearing (a number of people arrived late and others needed
to leave early.) By show of hands, 44 were in favor and 26 opposed the
first time, and 44 were in favor and 32 opposed the second time.
The NPRM also invited the public to submit written comments to the
docket. There were over three hundred different submissions to the
docket. The submissions included a number of petitions, detailed
letters, and postcards or other short messages expressing a preference
for either the Central or Eastern Time Zone. One petition favoring
eastern time was signed by 1779 individuals. Another petition favoring
central time was signed by 225 individuals. There were a number of
other petitions with fewer signatures both favoring and opposing the
proposed change. Overall, nearly 2,500 named individuals expressed an
opinion either for or against the proposal in the written comments.
About 1800 comments favored changing Wayne County's time zone to
eastern.
In addition, twelve people called in to express their views. Most
did not provide their names. Seven of the callers favored retaining
central time observance and five supported the proposed change.
[[Page 50155]]
Originally, DOT hoped to issue a decision at the beginning of
October 1999. Under that scenario, if a change were adopted, it would
have been effective on October 31, 1999, which was the ending date for
daylight saving time. Because this was a very controversial proceeding,
on October 8, 1999, we issued a notice to alert the community that we
would not meet our planned timetable, and that the earliest date that
the proposed change might take effect would be October 29, 2000.
The Facts in the Case
The Resolution of the Fiscal Court provided detailed information to
support its request. The Resolution stated:
I. Supplies for businesses are shipped into Wayne County mostly
from the Eastern Time Zone. (Somerset, Lexington, Knoxville) United
Parcel Service, FedEx and other carrier deliveries come from
terminals in the Eastern Time Zone.
II. The major television stations that consider Wayne County as
part of their coverage area are all located in the Eastern Time
Zone. (Lexington, Knoxville) The local cable that serves Wayne
County has no major local affiliates which are located in the
Central Time Zone.
III. All daily newspapers that serve Wayne County are located in
the Eastern Time Zone. Those being the Louisville Courier-Journal,
Lexington Herald-Leader and the Commonwealth Journal which comes
from Somerset, Ky.
IV. The citizens of Wayne County obtain bus transportation in
Corbin, Ky., which is located in the Eastern Time Zone. The closest
rail service for public transportation is also located in the
Eastern Time Zone.
V. The closest commercial airport is Lexington, Ky., located in
the Eastern Time Zone.
VI. Approximately 950 of the local workforce works outside Wayne
County. It is estimated that 700 of those work in the Eastern Time
Zone. This represents manufacturing jobs and is based on the 1996
manufacturing statistics.
VII. Approximately 90% +/-of Wayne County residents that attend
educational institutions outside Wayne County attend schools that
are located in the Eastern Time Zone. If you look at only the
students that commute for education purposes, the figure would be
higher. Wayne County needs desperately to improve our educational
obtainment level of our residents. Moving to the Eastern Time Zone
would align us with the resources to make this improvement more
feasible.
VIII. Most interscholastic activities (90% or more) are with
schools from the Eastern Time Zone. Most all district and regional
competitions are held in areas that are in the Eastern Time Zone.
IX. Tourism plays an important role in our economy and the major
portion of that comes from people located in the Eastern Time Zone.
Lake Cumberland is a major tourism drawing card for our county. A
very large portion (80%) of the tourists that come to this area come
from the Eastern Time Zone.
X. Major hospitals that serve Wayne County are located in the
Eastern Time Zone. It is estimated that 99% of all Wayne County
citizens that are referred to obtain other medical services, that
are not available locally, are referred to the Eastern Time Zone.
(Somerset, Lexington, Louisville)
XI. The State Police Headquarters that serves our area is
located in the Eastern Time Zone.
XII. Wayne County is the only county in the Fifth Congressional
District that is in the Central Time Zone.
XIII. Looking at two long term factors that could significantly
impact Wayne County in the future (the development of the Big South
Fork National River and Recreation Area and the construction of I-
66) would require Wayne County to be in the Eastern Time Zone to
fully align with these two developments.
XIV. Most all of our industry, if not all, that is not
headquartered locally has their main company headquarters in the
Eastern Time Zone.
XV. Wayne County residents that go outside the county for
``shopping'' purposes, go to the Eastern Time Zone. (Somerset/
Lexington)
XVI. The closest major gateway to our area is I-75. This
attaches Wayne County, Kentucky, significantly to the Eastern Time
Zone.
Virtually none of the comments opposing the change challenged the
factual validity of any of the points included in the Fiscal Court
Resolution. Some commenters did, however, question whether these
particular factors were the appropriate ones to consider in making a
final decision.
One of the main concerns in any time zone proceeding is the impact
on young children and schools. At the public hearing, Mr. John Dalton,
the Superintendent of Schools in Wayne County stated that if the
proposal were adopted, school opening times would be delayed between 45
minutes to one hour to ensure the safety of the students. Other
accommodations would be made, as appropriate, to other school
activities.
Comments Opposing the Proposal
Opponents of the proposed change made strong, and often passionate,
arguments in favor of retaining central time. Most of the commenters
were very concerned about the safety and well-being of the children in
the community. Most focused on the danger of waiting for early morning
buses in the dark. Others noted logistical concerns with the
availability (and cost) of childcare, and the fear that young children
would be left unsupervised in the morning before school. Some were
worried about the difficulty of getting children to bed before dark
during the summertime. Others anticipated higher school absenteeism
because the children would be tired. Several comments talked about the
difficulty of coordinating parents' work schedules with the school
schedule. A number of comments discussed the intangible, but very
important, impacts of time observance on family life. For example, one
commenter enjoyed the additional afternoon family time provided by
central time observance and another commenter was concerned about the
impact a change would have on Wednesday evening church services.
There were a number of comments making the argument that, ``if it
ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some of these commenters questioned
whether the benefits from a change could possibly outweigh the effort
and expense in making the adjustment.
Others were surprised, and skeptical, about proponents' claims of
inconvenience and confusion from working with two time zones.
Generally, they stated that they were clear about time zone differences
and personally had never missed an appointment or been confused. In
addition, a number of commenters denied that there would be any impact
on economic growth or development from a change and, instead, focused
on the economic growth in the county during the last decade.
There were a number of comments stating that the proposed change
would have a negative impact on farmers and farming. These comments
noted that Wayne County was, and still is to a large degree, a farming
community. Changing to eastern time would result in later sunrises and
sunsets compared to central time. This would adversely impact the
scheduling of farm operations, such as the cutting of hay and tending
of livestock. In addition, a number of commenters were concerned that
farmers would be unable to obtain parts and supplies later in the day
when they were working but the stores were closed. A few commenters
were concerned that a change would disrupt Wednesday evening church
services because, unless the services started later in the evening,
farmers would be unable to attend.
A common thread in many of the comments was that the pace of life
is slower, and more enjoyable, on central time. For example, one
commenter stated, ``I do not want to live in a fast paced, heavily
populated area. I * * * like the slower, laid back, low crime, small
town, peaceful, friendly, and scenic Wayne County we have now.''
Another noted that central time suits the ``early to bed, early to
rise'' character of the county. Others noted that the county
[[Page 50156]]
had always been on central time and that, geographically, it should
remain on central time.
Many of the commenters focused on the advantages of central time.
One of the most commonly noted advantages was being able to minimize
time off work or out of school when traveling to the Eastern Time Zone
for appointments. Others who work in the Eastern Time Zone enjoy
getting home an hour earlier. A number of people enjoyed watching prime
time television shows and the evening news an hour earlier than those
on eastern time. Some enjoyed receiving mail and other deliveries
earlier than they would if on eastern time. Others explained how, in
their particular circumstances, most of their business, religious,
medical, and social contacts were with people and organizations located
in central time. A few commenters stated that the current observance
benefits businesses that have very early work hours, especially to the
extent that their employees come from other counties in the Central
Time Zone.
Many of those opposing the proposal were offended by the process.
Uniformly, they stated that there should be a vote on the issue before
any action is taken.
Comments Supporting the Proposal
The comments supporting the proposal were equally passionate and
deeply felt. These commenters vigorously supported the factual
assertions made in the Fiscal Court Resolution. In general, it seemed
obvious to virtually all of these commenters, that based on the facts
presented by the Fiscal Court, the change should be made. Nevertheless,
the proponents made a number of additional arguments in support of the
change.
The most often repeated argument was practicality and convenience.
These commenters defined their community broadly. They viewed
themselves as aligned with cities and counties in the Eastern Time
Zone, primarily to the north and east. In particular, they focused on
the close ties Wayne County residents have with Somerset, Lexington,
and, to a lesser degree, Richmond, London, Corbin, Frankfort,
Louisville, and Knoxville, all of which are on eastern time. In their
view, to the extent some thing or service was not available in the
county, they must travel to the Eastern Time Zone to obtain it. They
reiterated the points made by the Fiscal Court that virtually all
government services; courts and administrative tribunals; hospitals and
specialized medical treatment; entertainment and dining options; air,
rail and bus service; television and radio transmissions; major
newspapers; and community colleges, universities and technical schools
were located in the Eastern Time Zone.
A number of businesses and professional offices expressed
frustration at losing between two and four hours a day communication
with those in the Eastern Time Zone because of different starting,
lunch, and quitting hours. Others found it difficult and inconvenient
to schedule appointments, court appearances, and interact with State
and federal officials because of the time difference. A number of
commenters stated that they had lost customers and business as a result
of the time difference. In consequence, a number of sizable Wayne
County businesses operate on eastern time because it is more efficient
and makes better operational sense.
A number of letters focused on obtaining medical care outside the
county. Several of the letters were from senior citizens who found the
current system to be confusing and inconvenient for making doctor
appointments and scheduling medical tests, which often must be done
early in the morning. A family physician stated that being in the
Central Time Zone was a hardship for his staff in making patient
referrals.
Several comments from lawyers and legal professionals noted that
all Social Security hearings, workers' compensation hearings,
bankruptcy hearings, Federal court trials, and virtually all State
administrative hearings and court appellate proceedings are held in the
Eastern Time Zone. Others noted that the State and Congressional
offices they must deal with are all located in the Eastern Time Zone.
The owner and general manager of a local radio station noted that
weather bulletin and emergency and security action information systems
are located in the Eastern Time Zone and the warnings are written based
on eastern time observance. The commenter was concerned that, in case
of an emergency, an inexperienced operator might confuse the time zones
and rely on inaccurate, and presumably life-threatening, information.
Another commenter, noted that the Boy Scout camp was located in the
Eastern Time Zone and discussed the adverse impact the time difference
had on his scouts. A cable television technician noted that using
eastern time would simplify using a VCR during recording of programs.
In addition, he noted that the television guide is on eastern time.
One commenter argued, ``Wayne County, Kentucky is a part of the
Eastern Time Zone community in all ways except for what our clocks say.
Please set our clocks to the same time as the rest of the community.''
Another commenter stated, ``[t]he majority of the people who have
business, social, or educational contacts out of the county will
benefit . . . People who confine all of these activities to the county
will be impacted minimally, if at all. This change is clearly desirable
as it will benefit more people and businesses than it will harm, with a
great many not being affected at all.''
Another major argument was that changing the time zone would
support the economic growth and development of the county. A number of
commenters focused on the competitive nature of attracting new
businesses to the county and argued that the confusion and
inconvenience of juggling time zones is a deterrent to new entrants.
Others focused on the positive impact a change would have on tourism.
According to these commenters, a large majority of tourists come from
the Eastern Time Zone and want their visit to be as hassle-free as
possible. A number of other commenters argued that efficient business
operation is hampered by the time difference and removing that
impediment will allow for growth.
Another common, and strongly held, argument was that the change was
vital for progress. One commenter stated, ``I have children and
grandchildren here in this poverty stricken area and I do believe that
there is a possibility that this change might help them and their
children to earn a better wage and have a better life.'' Another
commenter said, ``give us a real chance to improve and grow our
economy, give us a chance at a better future.''
A number of parents stated that the change would have a positive
impact on their children and families. One stated his belief that his
children would be better rested and, therefore, would be better able to
perform in school, if the time change were adopted. Several commenters
wanted to minimize the time children were unsupervised in the afternoon
when they believe children, particularly teenagers, are most likely to
get into trouble. Others focused on the difficulties of scheduling
athletic and after-school activities with neighboring counties. In some
cases, children must leave school early in order to arrive on time for
scheduled activities in the Eastern Time Zone. As a result, according
to one commenter, many parents are unable to attend their children's
after school activities because
[[Page 50157]]
they cannot leave work early in order to allow for the time change.
Many of the commenters expressed personal preferences and concerns.
A number of commenters noted the burden of losing an hour when
traveling to the Eastern Time Zone, particularly when beginning work or
school early in the morning. Several commenters said they were
prevented, or at least dissuaded, from taking early morning courses at
institutions of higher learning because of the need to leave home an
hour earlier in the morning. Others who work in Wayne County feel that
that current time zone boundary limits the time they can shop or obtain
other services in Somerset. Some commenters focused on the positive
impacts a change would have on working conditions and family
relationships. A few noted that currently, it is hard to get
replacement parts from the Eastern Time Zone later in the day.
A number of those favoring the change were surprised by the
controversy. These commenters alleged that most residents supported
their position or, at least, did not care. Others commented that people
would adjust and that the opposition was simply a fear of change. One
commenter stated, ``[m]oving Wayne County to the Eastern Time Zone will
bring about advances, we understand these advances will be over time
and will not be readily recognized by the general public. But move us
and 5 years later we will all have benefited and looking back we will
all be able to see the results.''
In response to the concern about farmers, one commenter noted that
the change would benefit part-time farmers. The commenter stated that
many people who work in manufacturing jobs farm part-time after their
workdays are over. If companies do not adjust their work hours, the
time change would provide an extra hour of daylight after work. Other
commenters argued that farmers work by the sun, not the clock, and that
time observance should have no impact on most of their activities.
In terms of geography, several commenters stated that Wayne County
is ``out of line'' with neighboring counties, all of which are on
eastern time. For example, one noted that Jefferson County, Kentucky,
is on eastern time and about five counties west of Wayne County.
A number of commenters made observations about the decision-making
process in this case. Several noted the extensive opportunity for
public input both to the Fiscal Court and the Department of
Transportation. Others noted that both the current and previous Fiscal
Courts had voted in favor of a change, which presumably shows
longstanding political support. A different commenter noted his great
skepticism about holding a vote on the time change. As an elected
official himself, the commenter noted that the county is known for very
low voter turnout, and doubted that any vote would provide a more
representative sampling of community opinion.
The Decision
We appreciate the community's overwhelming response in this
proceeding. Many people invested a substantial amount of their time to
write lengthy and well-reasoned letters to help us make this decision.
Every comment was read, and reread, several times.
We find that it would suit the ``convenience of commerce'' to move
Wayne County from the Central to the Eastern Time Zone. Based on the
facts presented, the county is very reliant on areas in the Eastern
Time Zone to provide a majority of goods and services. In addition,
most business and political leaders who commented believe that this
change would provide a positive economic benefit to the area. As the
people closest to the situation, we defer to their opinion on this
matter.
This was a difficult case to decide because of the deep split in
the community. The proponents of the change made their case under the
statutory criterion. Nevertheless, we were concerned about the
substantial number of individuals who fervently oppose any change. We
carefully considered, and reconsidered, the degree of public support
necessary to make a time zone change viable. Although we considered
``tabling'' the issue until there was greater unanimity in the
community, we ultimately decided that this would be a dereliction of
our duty to make the decision based on the statutory criterion.
Although we regret that some will be unhappy with this decision, we are
hopeful that ultimately the change will not be as uncomfortable as some
anticipate.
Other Issues
A few commenters asked us to abolish daylight saving time. That
issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Under the Uniform Time
Act, a State is free to observe, or not observe, daylight saving time.
If it chooses to observe, it must begin and end its observance on the
federally mandated dates. Commenters that wish to be exempted from
daylight saving time should explore this option with their State
representatives.
A few commenters did not like time zone boundaries that divided
States, or at least did not go in a more-or-less straight line. Time
zone boundaries were originally set up in the late 1800s. Although they
were based on geographic considerations (i.e., the sun should be more
or less overhead at noon), the exact boundary was set largely based on
the convenience of commerce and the needs of the railroads. In
addition, geographic boundaries, such as mountains and rivers, also
play a role. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect variation in the
time zone boundary alignment.
Impact on Observance of Daylight Saving Time
This time zone change 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 2:00 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 and Notices
This 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)(2) 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 (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979.) We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full regulatory analysis 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 rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small business, 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 will affect some small businesses, not-for-
profits, and perhaps, several small governmental jurisdictions, it will
not be a substantial number. In addition, the
[[Page 50158]]
change will not have a significant economic impact within the meaning
of the Act. I, therefore, certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12612 and have
determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for
federalism to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final
rule has no substantial effects on the States, or on the current
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and
Executive Order 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 rule does not impose
an unfunded mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protect Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 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 rule 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 Subject in 49 CFR Part 71
Time.
PART 71--[AMENDED]
For the reasons discussed above, the Office of the Secretary amends
Title 49 Part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues 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 (c) 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
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(c) Kentucky. From the junction of the east line of Spencer County,
Ind., with the Indiana-Kentucky boundary easterly along that boundary
to the west line of Meade County, Ky.; thence southeasterly and
southwesterly along the west lines of Meade and Hardin Counties to the
southwest corner of Hardin County; thence along the south lines of
Hardin and Larue Counties to the northwest corner of Taylor County;
thence southeasterly along the west (southwest) lines of Taylor County
and northeasterly along the east (southeast) line of Taylor County to
the west line of Casey County; and thence southerly along the west and
south lines of Casey and Pulaski Counties to the intersection with the
western boundary of Wayne County; and then south along the western
boundary of Wayne County to the Kentucky-Tennessee boundary.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 10., 2000.
Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-20854 Filed 8-14-00; 10:29 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-U