Gambar halaman

Mr. REDDING. Since I have been working on the problems of time uniformity, Mr. Van Deerlin, I have heard quite a number of variations of proposals and I have heard that one you described. It was advanced by Senator McGee, of Wyoming, during the time the hearings were held on the Senate side, but to my knowledge there has been no other individual who has suggested that we substitute a single time zone within the continental United States for those which now exist.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you.
Mr. Long. Mr. Glenn?
Mr. GLENN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Long. Mr. Curtin.
Mr. CURTIN. No questions.

Mr. Long. Mr. Redding, the staff of the committee has some technical matters that they would like your views on that I have here somewhere. Mr. Redding, section 5(b) of H.R. 11483, beginning on page 2, line 25, provides as follows:

“Daylight saving" or other advanced time may continue to be observed, as it has been observed in the past until the Commission has authorized advanced time subzones or for two years after the effective date of this Act, whichever comes first.

Similar language, except that it provides for 1 year instead of 2 years, appears in section 6 of the bill sponsored by the ICC and introduced by Mr. Harris in H.R. 4702. The question is, What would be the effect of this language in case the Commission fails to establish advanced time subzones or any decision of the Commission in that respect does not become final within the 2-year period because it may have been appealed to the courts? In that case would not standard time rather than daylight time be established under this provision?

Mr. REDDING. The answer is “Yes,” Mr. Chairman. I have consulted with the professional staff about this and perhaps some other questions you may ask as well with the professional staff members of the Interstate Commerce Commission and we have looked at this particular question, and I think it would be true that, in the event the period of time of 2 years would elapse as contained in H.R. 11483, without there having been action taken by the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish the advanced time subzones, in that event standard time would prevail nationwide.

In the statement I have submitted, however, on behalf of the Transportation Association of America comment has been offered on this point with a recommendation for a slight change in this language which would not have that result. I would be glad to go into that further if you wish, or just simply leave my statement at that.

Mr. Long. Does your statement explain that?
Mr. REDDING. Yes, it does, sir.

Mr. Long. Fine. The second question is that section 7, page 4, beginning at line 12, provides as follows:

In determining the boundary of any such subzone, the Commission shall not in any instance include a point or area for which the standard time of the zone to the east, to which the subzone is temporarily transferred, would be more than 1 hour and 30 minutes ahead of local mean solar time.

Similar language appears in H.R. 4702, section 8. Will you state for the record in what instances at present daylight time established on the basis of State or local laws deviates from local mean solar time by more than 1 hour and 30 minutes. In case you don't have this information, would you please supply it for the record ?

Mr. REDDING. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to answer that question, but I would like to have the answer submitted to the committee by a gentleman in the hearing room who has worked on the time problems of this Nation for more than 30 years. His name is Thomas Pyne, who is now a retired hearing examiner of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. Pyne is well familiar with this specific question and could very, very quickly answer it for you, sir.

Mr. Long. If you would, Mr. Pyne.

Mr. Pynt. The effect of the provision would be to draw a line, to restrict the power of the Commission, so that they could not adopt the time, when in the case of eastern daylight time or the advanced time for eastern daylight time would be placed at 9712°; the one for the central zone would be 1121/2°; and the one for the mountain zone would be 1271/2

I haven't completely checked every point that might have daylight saving time, but on the information I have the only point that I could question would be Butte, Mont. In Butte, Mont., I believe we figured out its time would be about 4 seconds in time beyond that restriction.

Mr. Long. Beyond the 1 hour 30 minutes mean solar time.

Mr. PYNE. That is right. I don't know, but it would seem to me that an administrative agency would have a chance to use the de minimis rule, the difference being so small that it would probably include Butte, Mont.

However, there are other conditions in there which might militate against the use of the daylight saving in Montana and other points east of Montana because the use of the flexible line in the proposal here would have to include any points intermediate between Butte and the present eastern limits of the line, which would be the entire State of Montana east of Butte. That would raise quite a question, of course, whether the other points in Montana wanted daylight saving time, this advanced time.

I refer to it as daylight saving time, but that was one purpose of the act, to get rid of daylight saving time as such.

Mr. Long. If you checked this down to 4 seconds, Mr. Pyne, I am not concerned about the fact that some of the areas you haven't checked, because I assume that any of them that were in any way abusing this would be immediately brought to your mind, would they not?

Mr. Pyne. If I knew that the point had daylight saving time, yes. I think Butte is about the farthest west of any of them.

Mr. Long. I thank you very kindly, Mr. Pyne.
Mr. PYNE. You are very welcome.

Mr. Long. Mr. Redding, the third question was that section 9, page 5, line 17, provides that:

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1000–1011) shall apply to all proceedings under section 8 of this act.

Section 8 in turn grants the authority to the Commission to conduct hearings in certain situations. However, under section 8 such hearings are not mandatory.

My question is that since the hearings provided for in section 8 are not mandatory what is the meaning of section 9 of the bill and what provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act would be applicable to the discretionary hearings pursuant to section 8?

Mr. REDDING. Mr. Chairman, the question does point to a possible conflict in language in the bill to which you refer. A quick statement of background is that in the recommendations advanced by the Interstate Commerce Commission and incorporated in the original bills introduced, both on the Senate and House side, which before this committee are H.R. 4702 and H.R. 7891, there was no language in those bills which would make the Administrative Procedure Act applicable.

The amendment which is in the present S. 1033 and in the present H.R. 11483 was a result of the action taken by the Senate Commerce Committee, and my understanding of that language is that it was inserted in the markup of the bill and I feel confident that this action was taken without full realization of the possible conflict. That is the background of it.

Certainly serious consideration should be given to conforming the language of section 8 to the language of section 9. I cannot recite to you specifically those portions of the Administrative Procedure Act this

morning which would apply.
Mr. Long. It is a conflict, though, that could be resolved?
Mr. REDDING. It is indeed, sir.

Mr. Long. Thank you. Section 10(a) of the bill on page 6, beginning on line 3, provides that the standard time established under the authority of this act shall be observed, and I quoteby all common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or communication by wire or radio.

Do the words "communication by wire or radio” modify the words “all common carriers engaged in” or are the words "communications by wire or radio" independent of the reference to "common carrier"?

Mr. REDDING. Mr. Chairman, the way the language now reads it is not possible to determine that and therefore it would be necessary and desirable to clarify that in any final approval of this proposed bill. Here again this was language that was placed in this proposed legislation by the Senate Commerce Committee and was not included in the recommendations by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Certainly it would be highly desirable to clarify whether or not the language of section 10(a) should be made applicable to other than the common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and the common carriers engaged in communications.

Mr. Long. With the wording of the bill as it is now written corporations like Western Union, which is a common carrier engaged in communication by wire or radio, it would apply to, but it doesn't resolve the question as to whether or not it would apply to all broadcast stations which are not common carriers but which are engaged in communications by wire or radio?

Mr. REDDING. That is the exact point, Mr. Chairman. This should be clarified.

Mr. Loxo. Fine. Thank you kindly. Mr. Glenn, do you have any questions?

Mr. GLENN. No, I have no questions.

Mr. Long. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Redding.
Mr. REDDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Long. We had two additional witnesses scheduled for today. Obviously we are not going to be able to get to them. Also, for the information of the record and also for those planning on testifying, Mr. Staggers, the chairman of the subcommittee, is most interested in this legislation and, as I recited earlier, has two bills that are under consideration of which he is the author. Mr. Staggers is unavoidably detained at the present time because of illness, and, subject to the approval of the committee, I am going to adjourn the committee subject to the call of the Chair so that we could have a better opportunity for Mr. Staggers to familiarize himself with the proceedings and, if at all possible, be present during the conduct of the further hearings.

Before I do that, however, I would like to, again subject to the approval of the committee, insert in the record a statement of the Minnesota Farmers Union relating to uniform time submitted to the subcommittee today and will order that it be made a part of the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MINNESOTA FARMERS UNION RELATING TO UNIFORM TIME The existing situation in which a number of States are on daylight saving time for the summer months and a number of cities within these and neighboring States depart from the time in use in their own respective State, is a source of inconvenience and confusion to the people and the commerce of the Nation.

Similarly, the variation between States in the length of time for which daylight time is in force, ranging from 3 months to as much as 5 months of the year, also is a confusing element in marketing, transportation, and communications.

The 1964 State program and policies of Minnesota Farmers Union, adopted last December, made the following recommendation on this subject :

"The Federal laws pertaining to time should be amended to prevent States or municipalities from departing from the use of uniform time. Any decision on the use of standard or daylight time should be made by the U.S. Congress and should be uniform for the whole Nation."

We would therefore be favorable to the bills before this committee which would provide that the standard time established under Federal law shall be the measure of time for all purposes.

Farm people generally have opposed daylight saving time because of the hardship and inconvenience it entails for our industry. If there is to be any departure from standard time it ought to be only on the basis of a Federal decision so that uniform time prevails in each time zone.

Mr. Long. Also, without objection I will insert in the record a letter addressed to Hon. Oren Harris, chairman of the full committee, by Mr. Frank Bane, Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, relating to the time-uniformity question. (The letter referred to follows:) ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C., February 7, 1964. Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : In light of the bills pending before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on the subject of time uniformity, notably H.R. 4702, H.R. 6284, H.R. 3114, H.R. 2335, and H.R. 2532, we wish to invite your attention to the recent action taken by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

Because of the intergovernmental implications of the time-uniformity question, the matter was added to the agenda for the Advisory Commission's last meeting on January 23–24, 1964, for its consideration. Alternative positions, with pro and con argumentation, were set forth in a staff paper (copy enclosed), which served as the basis of the Commission's consideration of the problem. In brief, the Commission considered three alternatives: (a) the status quo; (6) Federal legislation requiring uniformity of practice within a State; and (c) Federal legislation mandating uniform practice throughout the country. The Commission, without dissent, favored the third course.

Consequently, the Commission strongly recommends that the Congress take action to establish national time uniformity, so that the present costly and often confusing disparities in governmental policies in promulgating daylight saving time may be eliminated.

As you know the Advisory Commission, created by Public Law 86–380, is a permanent, bipartisan body of 26 members representing all levels of American government-Federal, State, and local. A current list of members is enclosed. Sincerely yours,

FRANK BANE, Chairman. Mr. Long. The committee is now adjourned.


RAILROAD ASSOCIATION Mr. MANION. Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Manion. I represent the American Short Line Railroad Association. My statement is short and if it would be to the benefit of the committee I will be very pleased to just submit my statement for the record.

Mr. Long. That would be fine with us, Mr. Manion. Give it to the clerk, if you would, please, and we will be glad to make it part of the record. Do you have any short comment you would like to make with respect to it? You may sit down.

Mr. MANION. I have no other comments, Mr. Chairman, other than to state that we have a legislative policy of the American Short Line Railroad Association which favors uniformity in time within the standard time zones. I am acquainted with the statement of Mr. Roeper and concur in that statement.

The American Short Line Railroad Association is a party to the Committee on Time Uniformity and supports their actions and their statement today. Our position in this matter is not different from theirs.

Mr. Long. Without objection your statement will be inserted in and made a part of the record. Also I apologize to you that we weren't able to give you more time today. We would like to have heard you in detail, but I am sure this will serve the purposes of making all the information available on the matter, and thank you for coming, Mr. Manion.

Mr. MANION. Thank you.
(The information referred to follows:)



My name is D. L. Manion. I am president of the American Short Line Railroad Association with offices at 2000 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036. I have been an officer of this association since May 16, 1960, and president since August 16, 1961. Prior to coming with this association, I served in various operating-maintenance supervisory capacities for 13 years with a common carrier railroad.

On behalf of the member lines of this association, the majority of which are representative of small business interests in the railroad industry, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of uniform time within the standard time zones.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »