We have no special information that could be of assistance in the consideration of S. 1195 and therefore have no comments to offer regarding its enactment. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of March 11, 1963, for a report on S. 1033, a bill to establish a uniform system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to require the observance of such time standards for all purposes, and your request of April 1, 1963, for a report on S. 1195, a bill to establish a system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to promote the uniform observance of such time standards for all purposes. This Department concurs in the objective of standardizing the time zones as much as appropriate. However, since the bills do not affect the Department's responsibilities, we have no specific recommendation to make. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 26, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Department of State on S. 1033 and S. 1195 to establish a uniform system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to require the observance of such time standards for all purposes. The Department perceives no objection from a foreign policy standpoint to the proposed legislation. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the administration's standpoint there is no objection to the submission of this report. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for reports on S. 1033 and S. 1195, 88th Congress, similar bills, to establish a system of time standards and measurement for the United States for all purposes. The Office of Emergency Planning endorses the purposes of the proposed legislation, but with respect to the details of the legislation it defers to those departments and agencies having a more direct interest in the subject matter. From the standpoint of the administration's program, the Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, EDWARD A. MCDERMOTT. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your requests of March 11, 1963, March 29, 1963, and April 15, 1963 for the views of this Agency regarding S. 1033, a bill to establish a uniform system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to require the observance of such time standards for all purposes, and S. 1195, (corrected copy) a bill to establish a system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to promote the uniform observance of such time standards for all purposes. These bills provide for the establishment of a uniform system of time standards based upon the general zone system of standard time. The exact limits of the respective time zones are to be determined by the administering agency, in the case of S. 1195, the Department of Commerce. Section 13 of S. 1033 provides that within the zones established by the administering agency, the "standard time of the zone shall be the exclusive time for the transaction of all public business by any agency or department of the United States, or of any State or local government, or by any officer, agent, employee, or representative of such agency or department, and shall be observed by all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in all civil and business relations with the public ***” The section goes on to provide that exceptions may be made by the administering agency upon a finding that safety or public convenience will be served, any such exceptions to be subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the agency in the public interest. Similar provisions appear in section 10 of the corrected copy of S. 1195. Excepting the one item mentioned below, the subject matter of these bills is not within the purview of this Agency and to that extent we defer to the views of other interested agencies. In the conduct of many of this Agency's activities such as air traffic control, weather reporting, flight information services and aerial navigation, we have adopted Greenwich mean time as the standard time for all required communications, both external and internal. This internationally agreed standard has been adopted to standardize as much as possible an increasingly complex activity, to permit more adequate separation of air traffic moving across time zones with increasing speed and volume, and to facilitate the growing use of computers within the system which require the use of one standard time for programing purposes. We believe the continued use of Greenwich mean time for these purposes is imperative. We understand it was not the intent of the drafters of these bills to affect this special use of time. Further, the letter transmitting S. 1033 to the Senate indicates that the bill is not regarded unanimously by the Commission as a final definitive version, particularly as it affects activities other than surface transportation. In view of this, we believe the bill should be amended to reflect the necessity for our continued use of Greenwich mean time in accordance with internationally agreed standards. We suggest the addition of the words "(excepting aerial navigation, air traffic control, and related activities)" after the word "business" where it appears in line 1, page 6 of S. 1033, and where it appears in line 10, page 5, of the corrected copy of S. 1195. Subject to this modification we have no objection to either bill. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely, (Signed) NATHANIEL H. GOODRICH, Administrator. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, DEAR CHAIRMAN MAGNUSON: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 29, 1963, requesting the Commission's comments on S. 1394, a bill to establish daylight saving time uniformly throughout the United States during the months of June, July, and August of each year. Enclosed are comments adopted by the Commission April 23 with respect to other bills pertaining in time uniformity, which we furnished you with our letter of April 29. In these comments the Commission expressed the view that it has no responsibility in regard to time standards set by the Federal Government, that it has no special competence in that field, and accordingly had no views to express on the policy question involved in these bills. It would be appreciated if you would consider these comments acceptable in lieu of formal comments on S. 1394, since they are equally applicable. Sincerely yours, NEWTON N. MINOW, Chairman. COMMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION These bills, among other things, establish a uniform system of time standards and time measurement for the United States and would require the observance of such time standards for all purposes. H.R. 4702, S. 1033, and S. 1195 are nearly identical. The bills are more detailed and enlarge upon H.R. 1354 and H.R. 1355, which were introduced in the 86th Congress, and similar bills introduced in the 85th Congress (see e.g., H.R. 369, H.R. 370, H.R. 5771, and H.R. 7707), concerning which the Commission stated it had not been given any responsibility in regard to time standards set by the Federal Government, that it had no special competence in that field, and accordingly had no views to express on the policy question involved in these bills. Although our position on this matter remains unchanged, a further explanation may be appropriate. In order to avoid an otherwise chaotic skywave interference problem, the majority of standard broadcast stations in the United States are required to leave the air, reduce power, and/or operate with directional antenna systems during nighttime hours. Since skywave interference is governed by the degree of light or darkness along the transmission path, we are basically concerned with determining local astronomical or "sun" time. However, it is necessary that "sun" time be related to meaningful standards (as, for example, eastern standard time), and that average monthly sunrise and sunset times be expressed in terms of those standards on license documents. Some stations in other services are similarly regulated to avoid nighttime interference. Thus, although the methods used in establishing time zones are of little concern to the Commission, the end product is of vital importance in connection with standard broadcast licensing, as well as in some other services. It may be noted that certain coast and ship radiotelegraph and radiotelephone stations use Greenwich mean time (GMT) for log entries, for indicating the time a message is filed, and for determining the times when certain radio watches must be maintained. The use of GMT arises from the mobile and international character of the communications involved. It is assumed that the provision for flexibility contained in the various bills will suffice to meet any problem in this regard. With the possibility of some exceptions noted above, we have concluded that our rules and administrative processes could be alined with the proposed legislation without undue difficulty and that a uniform system of time standards should in fact reduce some of the confusion stemming from the existing patchwork of local daylight saving legislation. 98118-63- -2 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, Washington, D.C., May 2, 1963. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of April 29, 1963, for the views of the Federal Maritime Commission with respect to S. 1394, a bill to establish daylight saving time uniformly throughout the United States during the months of June, July, and August of each year. Inasmuch as the bill does not affect the responsibilities or jurisdiction of the Commission, we express no views as to its enactment. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, THOS. E. STAKEM, Chairman. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letters of March 13 and April 15, 1963, requested the views of the General Services Administration on S. 1033, a bill to establish a uniform system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to require the observance of such time standards for all purposes, and S. 1195, a similar bill to establish a system of time standards and measurement for the United States and to promote the uniform observance of such time standards for all purposes, respectively. The purpose of these bills is stated in their titles. While we have no objection to either of the bills we would prefer the enactment of S. 1033. The enactment of the proposed legislation would not affect the budgetary requirements of the General Services Administration. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, BERNARD L. BOUTIN, Administrator. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN MAGNUSON: This is in response to your letter of April 29, 1963, requesting comments on a bill, S. 1394, introduced by Senator Robertson of Virginia, to establish daylight saving time uniformly throughout the United States during the months of June, July, and August of each year. This matter has been considered by the Commission and I am authorized to submit the following comments in its behalf: S. 1394 consists of two sections. The first would require nationwide observance of daylight saving time during a 3-month period extending from June 1 to September 1 during each year. This would be accomplished by advancing by 1 hour the standard time of each zone prescribed under the Standard Time Act (15 U.S.C. 261-264). The second section would prohibit States and political subdivisions thereof from prescribing any time in conflict with the provisions of the Standard Time Act. To the extent that these sections are intended to alleviate present chaotic conditions in the observance of time standards, such purpose clearly merits our approval and support. At the same time, however, we doubt that enactment of S. 1394 in its present form would result in any material improvement in the present confusing situation, since the bill does not attempt to correct basic infirmities in the present Standard Time Act. These were commented upon at length in our testimony before your committee on April 30, 1963, in support of S. 1033 and S. 1195 and in our justification of the draft bill which became S. 1033. As pertinent here, such infirmities include the complete absence from the Standard Time Act (1) of adequate criteria to be employed by the Commission in determining zone boundaries, and (2) of administrative and enforcement provisions. In this circumstance, and in view of the many frustrations we have encountered over the years in administering the present Standard Time Act, we believe that the early attainment of a stable, orderly, and uniform system of time standards will best be achieved by enactment of the more comprehensive legislation represented by S.1033 or S. 1195. Accordingly, we are unable to favor or support S. 1394. Sincerely yours, LAURENCE K. WALRATH, Chairman. Senator MCGEE. It is commonly said that we live by the clock. Actually, we live under a bewildering series of clocks, all telling different times. In the summer, some 28 of our States, and the District of Columbia, observe daylight saving time, but only about half of these States put it into effect statewide; the others observe it on a spotty, hit-and-miss basis. To make matters worse, the States on daylight time change their clocks on different days. Some 11 States keep daylight time from the last Sunday of April to the last Sunday of October. Elsewhere it expires sporadically in the fall, like the lights of a city going out at night. The resulting clock chaos is enough to confound Father Time himself as he trudges on his relentless course across the country. What can we achieve by these hearings, or by the enactment of new legislation? I do not believe that in one single proposal we will eliminate all confusion. But I certainly hope that we will be able to generate more enthusiasm for a correction of the time maze that we now must negotiate in our daily pursuits. Last September, for example, I proposed, in an article in Parade magazine, that we eliminate all time zones. To do this those on the east coast would set their clocks back 90 minutes and those on the west coast ahead by the same period. This is a radical idea in some respects, but I was pleased to find considerable support from many people who found that in our modern day of electronic communication and jet transportation even the four continental time zones were creating considerable confusion. It would be less than candid of me to expect this proposal to make progress as legislation this year. In the wake of this hearing and the discussions, we hope it will engender and maybe point to an ultimate solution to the confusion that prevails in our time problem. In the meantime, I do believe it has considerable merit and I hope that these hearings will generate a consideration of the problems of time that eventually will lead to a complete overhaul of our system. In the meantime, I believe we can secure a vast improvement in the present Federal statute which, frankly, just has not kept up with the times, and we can achieve a greater uniformity and consistency in time practices across the country. Let me emphasize at this point that the committee has no intention of getting into the longstanding and highly charged arguments over daylight saving time as such. Both of the bills before us are, in effect, neutral on the subject. They |