A permanent-DST bill has been approved by the Maryland House of Delegates on a third-and-final 108-24 vote; it now goes to the state senate. Text of the bill is available at... https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/hb/hb0126T.pdf …and status of the bill at... https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0126 There are contigencies: (1) enacting of a similar act by Delaware, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; and (2) 15 U.S.C. § 260a being amended to allow the states or a state, individually, to observe a year–round standard time that is consistent with Eastern Daylight Time Alas, if the contingencies are met there may be short lead time before a change: Section 1 of this Act shall take effect on the earlier of the second Sunday of March or the first Sunday of November after the [contigencies have been met]… Alas further, the senate (unlike the house) has returned to in-person hearings; written communications can be sent. One suggestion I’ve thought of making is to change “the earlier of” to “the later of” for kick-in; that would buy at least a few guaranteed months of lead time. I’d welcome any better suggestions; I’d also welcome any Marylander with more political weight than I have (read: anyone) to weigh in. --ado
On 2/17/22 19:09, Arthur David Olson via tz wrote:
One suggestion I’ve thought of making is to change “the earlier of” to “the later of” for kick-in; that would buy at least a few guaranteed months of lead time.
For UTC offset purposes only the November deadline matters, since the March change would be a no-op. For the less-important timezone abbreviation and tm_isdst flag, both deadlines matter.
I’d also welcome any Marylander with more political weight than I have (read: anyone) to weigh in.
My Maryland contacts are pretty limited, unfortunately. Perhaps you know people at NIH who might be able to help? There are medical implications of fooling with clocks on short notice: this was an issue in 2007, the last time the US changed the rules (see, for example, <https://doi.org/10.1177/2374289518784222>), and I'd expect even more problems if Maryland changes with less notice than there was in 2007. Do you know Freeman Hrabowski, or know anybody who knows him? Although he's retiring from UMBC in July, a word from him might go far. Another possibility would be the NIST Gaithersburg Group; although the NIST Time Realization and Distribution Group is in Boulder I expect there's somebody in Maryland with metrology expertise and/or contacts.
Arthur David Olson via tz said:
Alas, if the contingencies are met there may be short lead time before a change: Section 1 of this Act shall take effect on the earlier of the second Sunday of March or the first Sunday of November after the [contigencies have been met]â¦
I would suggest: Section 1 of this Act shall take effect on the first Sunday of November of the first calendar year after the [contigencies have been met] That's relatively easy to explain and gives at least 10 months warning. Of course, you need *all* the states that are listed in the contingencies to use the same rule, or you'll have a year or two when they're out of sync. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Given that the bills in various states all require Congressional action, I would expect that Congress would set an "effective" date for a bill permitting permanent DST. This would supersede any state-level legislation. So while the concerns are valid, I think it will be easier to convince Congress of the havoc it would cause were it *not* coordinated than to convince up to 50 state legislatures of the same. Jacob Pratt On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:08 AM Clive D.W. Feather via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
Arthur David Olson via tz said:
Alas, if the contingencies are met there may be short lead time before a change: Section 1 of this Act shall take effect on the earlier of the second Sunday of March or the first Sunday of November after the [contigencies have been met]â¦
I would suggest:
Section 1 of this Act shall take effect on the first Sunday of November of the first calendar year after the [contigencies have been met]
That's relatively easy to explain and gives at least 10 months warning.
Of course, you need *all* the states that are listed in the contingencies to use the same rule, or you'll have a year or two when they're out of sync.
-- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646
A friend who is politically active in Virginia is contacting relevant people to try to ensure that this list is asked for input. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646
On 2022-02-20 4:02 PM, Clive D.W. Feather via tz wrote:
A friend who is politically active in Virginia is contacting relevant people to try to ensure that this list is asked for input.
Rubio, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/3/rubio-colleagues-reintr... A BILL To make daylight saving time permanent, and for other purposes. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d34c77c0-acea-4074-bc57-14d... While I personally feel "permanent DST" is a mistake; that the more natural approach is simply stopping DST, I'll give them credit for recognizing the need to modify the underlying law; ie: 7 (a) REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PERIOD FOR DAYLIGHT 8 SAVING TIME.—Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 9 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is hereby repealed. I wonder what the consequences of that are in industrial sectors and finance and how politically feasible it might be to change or repeal an important law that's been in effect since 1966? -Brooks
On Feb 20, 2022, at 19:23:15, Brooks Harris wrote:
... While I personally feel "permanent DST" is a mistake; that the more natural approach is simply stopping DST, I'll give them credit for recognizing the need to modify the underlying law; ie:
That would remove the transients, which offend some, but not achieve the intended offset. That could be achieved by switching to Atlantic Standard, as observed in the U.S. Virgin Islands. But Utah tried a similar approach (archives, 2020-03-23) and was rebuffed by the Department of Transportation. There's no need to modify the underlying Federal law.
I wonder what the consequences of that are in industrial sectors and finance and how politically feasible it might be to change or repeal an important law that's been in effect since 1966?
Re-introducing multiple conventions for start and end of DST, such as Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, strikes me as a bad idea. -- gil
참여자 (6)
-
Arthur David Olson -
Brooks Harris -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Jacob Pratt -
Paul Eggert -
Paul Gilmartin