Earlier in the week, I had an entry about Governor Daniels’ petition to the United States Department of Transportation to hold hearings on the desirability of relocating the line between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone as required by SEA 127.
Specifically, SEA 127 requires:
(a) The governor and the general assembly hereby petition the United States Department of Transportation to initiate proceedings under the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to hold hearings in the appropriate locations in Indiana on the issue of the location of the boundary between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone in Indiana.
(b) The governor and the general assembly advise the United States Department of Transportation that any administrative action to change the time zone boundary in response to the petition contained in this SECTION should not change the time zone for any of the following Indiana counties:
(1) Any Indiana county currently located in the Central Time Zone, which should remain in the Central Time Zone.
(2) Clark County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(3) Dearborn County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(4) Floyd County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(5) Harrison County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(6) Ohio County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(c) To implement this SECTION, the governor shall, not later than ten (10) days after the governor files this act with the secretary of state, send a copy of this act along with any other necessary documentation prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation to the appropriate official of the United States Department of Transportation.
(emphasis mine.)
Today, I received the procedure prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation for petitions for time zone changes. The procedure demands, among other things, that the request be accompanied by “detailed information supporting the requesting party’s contention that the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce.” It is not at all clear to me from the Governor’s letter to the Department of Transportation that such detailed information was included with his request. In fact reading the letter, it appears that the only information he supplied was a copy of the bill passed by the legislature.
The principal standard for the USDOT’s determination is “convenience of commerce” which is defined broadly to include all of the impacts on a community caused by a change of time zone. Some examples are:
1. Where do communities get their supplies and ship their goods.
2. Where communities receive their news and television.
3. Where does the community get its bus and rail services.
4. The nearest airport.
5. What percentage of the community works outside the community and where do those people work.
6. If residents leave the community for school, recreation, healthcare, or religious worship, what standard of time is used in the places where these people go.
If the USDOT General Counsel receives sufficient information and determines that a change might serve the convenience of commerce, the General Counsel will issue a proposal and invite public comment.
Now here is a question: if, in fact, the Governor did not provide the USDOT with the information prescribed by the USDOT, and the Daylight Saving Time law required the Governor to provide the USDOT with all necessary documentation prescribed by the USDOT, would the Governor’s failure to comply with SEA 127 invalidate SEA 127’s implementation of Daylight Saving Time? I suppose the drive-in theater people who were prominently opposed to DST could ask a federal court for an injunction to determine the answer to that question.
Leave a Reply