Court Opinion

ID: 9689099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:19:47.185963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:44.719640
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(concurring). I concur in the above Per Curiam opinion except for that portion which deals with the question whether or not the Federal uniform time act (Public Law 89-387) authorizes but one set of changeover dates each year.
The Committee on Commerce Report No 268 to accompany S. 1404 which became Public Law 89-387 of the 89th Congress states:
“The purpose of the hill is to establish uniform dates for the commencing and ending of daylight saving' time in the States and local jurisdictions *401where it is observed. It is designed to' eliminate a major part of the costly, wasteful confusion which results from current conflicts in the Nation’s time standards. * * *
“Variations in the observance of daylight saving-time, time zone boundary shifts, and numerous local options have all combined to create what witnesses described to the committee as a bewildering and costly confusion in the timekeeping practices of the Nation. * * *
“There are two basic causes for the timekeeping-confusion. One involves the situation in which individual communities, often adjacent to one another, observe different time standards — some on daylight saving time and others on standard time. A great number of local government units make separate decisions on whether to adopt daylight saving time or remain on standard time during the summer months. The result in some areas of the country is a patchwork of small areas using different time standards.
“The second cause of confusion is that. States and local political subdivisions select different dates for starting and stopping the use of daylight saving-time, some observing it for 6 months, some for 3 months, and others for periods in between.
“S. 1404 is designed to correct the second■ of these caiises: the variation in the time of adoption and termination of daylight saving time. In those jurisdictions where daylight saving time is adopted, its duration would be fixed, under the bill, from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. * * *
“The bill would also declare the express intent of Congress to supersede all laws of the States and their political subdivisions which specify different dates for the observance of daylight saving time. The committee is, of course, aware that in pre-empting the field, with respect to changeover dates, it is taking a new, though limited, step in respect to time standards and practices, However, it is. com *402vinced that no other course of action can effectively cope with the problems of time confusion.
“It should be emphasized that the bill leaves untouched the local, or State, jurisdiction over the more important power of deciding whether or not to adopt daylight saving time at all. The bill will not impose daylight saving time on anyone. Nor will it deny it to anyone. States and local units of government will be free, as they have been in the past, to decide whether or not to go on daylight saving time. However, if they select daylight saving time, they must observe it for the period set forth in the bill.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Report No 1315 of the 89th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, by the committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred HR. 6785 to establish uniform dates throughout the United States for the commencing and ending of daylight saving time in those States and local jurisdictions where it is observed, reiterates the senate committee report and further comments on the necessity for the legislation as follows:
“There is a consensus approaching unanimity on the desirability of a greater adherence to uniform time standards from place to place throughout the Nation. * * *
“The confusion which is caused by the independent action not only of the several States but also of counties and municipalities within the States is perhaps best exemplified by what has now become a much repeated factual account of a 35-mile trip between Steubenville, Ohio, and Moundsville, W. Va. According to witnesses who have testified before the committee, until 1963, when West Virginia made daylight saving time mandatory on a statewide basis, travelers over this 35-mile stretch at certain times in the past year passed through seven different time changes. Situations such as this make it *403very difficult and very expensive for the transportation industry to publish intelligible timetables.’’
Public Law 89-387 states:
“It is the policy of the- United States to promote the adoption and observance of uniform time within the standard time zones prescribed by the act.”
Section 3(a) of the act provides:
“During the period commencing at 2 o’clock, ante-meridian on the last Sunday of April of each year and ending at 2 o’clock antemeridian on the last Sunday of October of each year, the standard time of each zone established by the Act of March 19, 1918 (15 USC §§ 261-264), as modified by the Act of March 4,1921 (15 USC § 265), shall be advanced one hour and such time as so advanced shall for the purposes of such Act of March 19, 1918, as so modified, be the standard time of such zone during such period; except that any State may by law exempt itself from the provisions of this subsection providing for the advancement of time, but only if such law provides that the entire State (including all political subdivisions thereof) shall observe the standard time otherwise applicable under such Act of March 19, 1918, as so modified, during such period.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 3(b) provides:
“It is hereby declared that it is the express intent of congress by this section to~ supersede any and all laws of the States or political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter provide for advances in time or changeover dates different from those specified in this section.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the light of the history of the act and its declared policy, the Federal law: (1) established a policy of promoting the adoption and observance *404of uniform time" within the standard time zones and (2) pre-empted the field as to daylight saving time within each zone unless a State exempted itself from the provision for the advancement of time. Changeover dates within a State or political subdivision aré specifically spelled out in section 3(b) of the act. While I agree that the referendum petition could properly be filed and, hence, PA 1967, No 6, was no longer effective until vote of the electors on same, this did not affect the legal time which the- State,of Michigan had adopted by the act for the" year 1967 because the last Sunday in April, the date fixed by the Federal act for time changeover, had passed while PA 1967, No 6, was in effect. PA 1967, No 6, is no longer in effect by virtue of the filing of the referendum petition and, consequently, I would hold that upon the next spring changeover date — April 28, 1968 — the State would go on Eastern Daylight Saving Time, the final result to be determined on the referendum vote in the 1968 fall election. To permit the enactment of State legislation at any time within the period of advanced time,for the purpose of, effectuating compliance or effectuating exemption would obviously destroy the stated purpose of the Federal act to establish uniform dates for the commencing and ending of Daylight Saving Time. Exercise of State legislative power in this respect has been blocked by the Federal act’s. supersession provision.
Dethmers, C. J., did not sit.