[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]



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 

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 

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.



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 
    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 
    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 
    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 
    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 
    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/
    XVI. The closest major gateway to our area is I-75. This 
attaches Wayne County, Kentucky, significantly to the Eastern Time 

    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 

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 
    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 
    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 
    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 

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 
    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).


    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.


    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 

List of Subject in 49 CFR Part 71



    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,
[FR Doc. 00-20854 Filed 8-14-00; 10:29 am]