I've read those Report and Summary links. Thanks very much for the
references.
They point to the 'perception' of public opinion that motivated the
reversal, as you point out.
My point was that if H.R. 139 passes and goes into effect it might be
reversed later for similar reasons. Just my speculation.
I'm not expecting H.R. 9638 to advance. I do think ''permanent standard
time' would be the better approach to ending DST for a few reasons; A)
it would put us in sync with the majority of humanity who do not observe
DST, B) it results in the most natural daylight hours, C) it avoids the
"kids in the dark" problem, and D) it's much easier for TzDb and
downstream to implement.
However, any change of USA DST rules is a significant disruption. Its
been working fine for decades and everyone is familiar with it. As a
practical matter I think the status quo is the better choice, even
though I too hate DST. Maybe eventually there could be more common
agreement. I'm not holding my breath.
Current law allows any jurisdiction to end DST, so if there was
agreement where everybody stopped DST simultaneously that would be a
nicer cooperative outcome. But the majority of people feel they want
'permanent daylight saving time' so that seems difficult or impossible
and we're back to the current dilemma.
Either H.R. 139 or H.R. 9638 would be federally imposed law on States.
That seems to remove choice and violate Federalism, doesn't it? Seems to
me either might fail, or be challenged, for that reason. (But I'm not a
Constitutional lawyer.)
Indeed TzDb and downstream should investigate implementing H.R. 139.
I'm in favor of Paul's approach changing FORMAT to the zone's offset.
For America/New_York (using 2027 as start date):
# Zone NAME STDOFF RULES FORMAT [UNTIL]
Zone America/New_York -4:56:02 - LMT 1883 Nov 18 12:03:58
....
-5:00 US E%sT 2027 Mar 14 2:00
-4:00 - -04
I think possibly reinstating FORMAT as "EST" later could be problematic
and better to just stay with the FORMAT as the offset.
I'm not nearly expert enough to evaluate all the ramifications in all
the downstream CLDRs and systems. I'll be interested to see what others
discover.
On 2026-07-29 06:35 PM, James Bellaire wrote:
On 7/29/2026 4:06 PM, Brooks Harris via tz wrote:
I hope the Sunshine Protection bill fails not only because it's
problematic for TzDb but also because it creates the "kids in the
dark morning" problem which is was the reason the 1973/1974 "DST
experiment" was reversed. Seems to me like that could happen again.
The 1974/1975 D.O.T. studies are available online to read (linked in
one of my prior emails). Yes, a few children were killed in the
morning during the early months of the experiment (which as I noted
began on one of the darkest days of the year creating the largest jump
scare effect of a later sunrise). The deaths were offset by less
children killed in the afternoon due to the later sunsets. The final
version of the D.O.T. study relied heavy on public opinion of people
who never were given the chance to experience losing morning sunrise
time gradually over three months (lastSunOct-lastSunFeb).
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/10504 Preliminary D.O.T. Report
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/92250 FInal D.O.T. Report Executive
Summary
If H.R. 139 becomes law and is made effective prior to November 1st or
delayed until next year (no effect seen until November 7th 2027) the
country will have the opportunity to experience a gradual loss of
morning sunrise time (no jump scare). The last change (made effective
2007) included the right to revert. Not currently in this bill (or S.
29).
(You can hold out hope for H.R. 9638, which has no senate version and
would have to make it through a committee that already approved H.R.
139 and a house that overwhelmingly approved H.R. 139. I would not
expect it to progress.)
Now, back to the work of testing systems and getting them ready for
the potential change as written in H.R 139.
