SB 127 – Daylight Saving Time

Senate Bill 0127 – Daylight Saving Time. Just passed Second Reading with a couple of amendments. One amendment calls for the Dept. of Transportation to put up signs on highways when you enter a new time zone. The second amendment, proposed by Rep. Grubb, does two things.

First, it has a provision that seems to be moral support for counties seeking to be put into a different time zone, but doesn’t really do much: “The state supports the county executive of any county that seeks to change the time zone in which the county is located under the procedures established by federal law.” Absolutely no indications about what form that support might be expected to take.

Second, it has a provision that I don’t think is legal under the federal law concerning Daylight Saving Time. The language in the amendment applies to a county that is either 1) adjacent to the boundary between the Central Time Zone; or 2) adjacent to a county that has exempted itself from observation of DST. Such a county can exempt itself from observation of Daylight Saving Time if the county executive adopts a resolution providing that Daylight Saving Time is not required to be observed in the county.

Back in January I commented on the federal law (also here.) As I read the federal law, it allowed the following:

If a state lies entirely within 1 time zone, it can exempt the whole state from DST.

If a state lies over two time zones, it can exempt the entire state or the part of the state in one time zone.

The Dept. of Transportation has responsibility for determining the bounds of the various time zones.

So, in the past, Indiana has exempted its Eastern Time Zone from DST but has provided that its Central Time Zone will observe Daylight Saving Time. In addition, several of the Eastern Time Zone counties around Cincinnati and Lousville, I believed were grandfathered in under Pub. L. 89-387 and were allowed to observe DST despite the all-or-nothing language of 15 USC 260.

SB 127 which, as currently written, allows for a county-by-county patchwork approach does not comply with what I understand to be the all-or-nothing requirement of federal law.

Update: The Indianapolis Star has an article about Rep. Grubb’s amendment. The article quotes Reps. Torr and Bosma as seemingly disappointed by the prospect that this amendment has to go to conference committee. I get a little hazy about the Conference Committee process, but wouldn’t SB 127 have had to go to conference anyway? Originally the bill was a speed limit bill, but the House yanked the Senate text out and jammed the DST stuff in. So the Senate has never had any deliberation on this topic. (Not that the conference committee process allows for a great deal of reflection, but at least it’s something.)