Office of Transportation EPA420-S-05-009 

and Air Quality September 2005 

Model State Idling Law 

Workshop — Hartford, 

Connecticut 

Meeting Summary 
EPA420-S-05-009 

September 2005 

Model State Idling Law Workshop —

Hartford, Connecticut

Meeting Summary 

Transportation and Regional Programs Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

NOTICE

This Technical Report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.

It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data that are currently available.

The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate an exchange of

technical information and to inform the public of technical developments.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a meeting on July 26, 2005, in 

Hartford, Connecticut, to develop a model state idling law. Participants included representatives 

from states and local governments, trucking industry, and environmental and community groups. 

 This document summarizes the views and opinions of the participants which do not necessarily 

represent official EPA policy, positions, or views. The purpose of this meeting was, among 

other things, to reach consensus on a model state idling law. EPA takes no position on state or 

local idling laws. EPA’s role in these meetings was that of organizer and facilitator only. 

i 
List of Issues 

A: General issues raised at the beginning of the meeting............................................................... 1 

B: Purpose: The purpose of this law is to reduce emissions and conserve fuel while maintaining 

adequate rest and safety of all drivers of diesel vehicles................................................................ 1 

C: Applicability: This law applies to diesel vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of

greater than 8,500 pounds and which are designed to operate on highways.................................. 1 

D: Non-Applicability: This law does not apply to an independent engine operating for the sole 

purpose of controlling cargo temperature....................................................................................... 1 

E: GENERAL REQUIREMENT: To allow for a reasonable amount of time to warm-up or cooldown a diesel engine; to allow for pre-trip inspection; and to condition the bus to allow 

passengers to embark and disembark, diesel vehicles are permitted to idle for no more than 5 

minutes in any 60 minute period, except as noted in section (e).................................................... 2 

F: EXEMPTION: a vehicle is forced to remain motionless because of traffic, an official traffic 

control device or signal, or at the direction of a law enforcement official..................................... 2 

G: EXEMPTION: a vehicle idles during adverse weather conditions to ensure the safe operation 

of the vehicle (e.g., operating defrosters, installing chains) ........................................................... 2 

H: EXEMPTION: a police, fire, ambulance, public safety, military, other emergency or law 

enforcement vehicle, or any vehicle being used in an emergency capacity idles while in an 

emergency or training mode ........................................................................................................... 3 

I: EXEMPTION: the primary propulsion engine is idling for maintenance, servicing, repairing, 

or diagnostic purposes .................................................................................................................... 3 

J: EXEMPTION: a vehicle is required to idle by law to verify that all equipment is in good 

working order, as part of a State or Federal inspection, provided that such engine idling is 

mandatory for such verification...................................................................................................... 3 

K: EXEMPTION: the primary propulsion engine idles to provide a power source necessary for 

mechanical or electrical operations other than propulsion (e.g., loading or unloading, mixing or 

processing cargo, straight truck refrigeration)................................................................................ 3 

ii 
L: EXEMPTION: an armored vehicle idles when a person remains inside the vehicle to guard 

the contents, or while the vehicle is being loaded or unloaded ...................................................... 4 

M: EXEMPTION: a passenger bus idles while passengers are onboard to maintain passenger 

comfort............................................................................................................................................ 4 

N: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: a vehicle idles due to mechanical difficulties over which 

the driver has no control; PROVIDED that: the driver is ticketed but the ticket is dismissed if 

the vehicle owner submits the repair paperwork or product receipt (by mail; within 30 days) to 

the appropriate authority verifying that the mechnical problem has been fixed ............................ 4 

O: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: idling of an occupied vehicle with a sleeper berth 

compartment for purposes of air conditioning, heating, or powering any ancillary equipment 

during sleeping or resting, until 2010 whereupon this exemption is no longer valid. [Depending 

on when enacted, allow 5 years for the industry to evaluate, select, and finance an idle reduction 

technology (or technologies) that addresses cab comfort needs] ................................................... 5 

P: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: idling of an occupied vehicle for purposes of air 

conditioning or heating to prevent a safety or health emergency, until 2010 whereupon this 

exemption is no longer valid. [Depending on when enacted, allow 5 years for the industry to 

evaluate, select, and finance an idle reduction technology (or technologies) that addresses cab 

comfort needs] ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Q: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: operating a diesel-powered auxiliary engine to provide air 

conditioning, heat, or electrical power to the truck or engine as an alternative to idling the 

primary engine for all 2006 or older model year diesel vehicles; except for 2007 and subsequent 

model year diesel vehicles whereupon the diesel auxiliary engine must be verified by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or certified by the California Air Resources Board to meet the 

same or more stringent emission levels for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as model year 2007 

and subsequent heavy-duty diesel engines ..................................................................................... 6 

R: Penalties .................................................................................................................................... 7 

S: Enforcement............................................................................................................................... 7 

T: Education/Outreach................................................................................................................... 8 

iii 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

A 

Issue: General issues raised at the beginning of the meeting. 

Discussion: Discussion took place about why this model law would cover only diesel 

vehicles, and some expressed an interest in including all motor vehicles, including 

gasoline vehicles. The discussion that ensued focused on the need to consider not 

just the amount of pollution generated by vehicles, but also the type of pollution. 

Some participants pointed out that it is because of the high profile of diesel 

vehicles that they are the main focus. Discussion also took place concerning the 

use of the term “idle reduction” in place of “anti-idling”. 

Consensus: N/A 

B 

Issue: Purpose: The purpose of this law is to reduce emissions and conserve fuel 

while maintaining adequate rest and safety of all drivers of diesel vehicles. 

Discussion: Discussion centered around the desire to include “health of the driver” and 

“public health and the environment” as part of the purpose along with reducing 

emissions. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this issue provided that the phrase “protect public 

health and the environment” is added and health of the driver is addressed. 

___________

C 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Issue: Applicability: This law applies to diesel vehicles with gross vehicular weight 

ratings of greater than 8,500 pounds and which are designed to operate on 

highways. 

Discussion: Significant discussion took place concerning whether the law should apply to 

vehicles with GVWR over 8,500 pounds, or those with GVWR over 10,000 

pounds. Those in favor of 10,000 pounds indicated that this would make the most 

sense to the industry, since this is the weight at which Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations become applicable. Those in favor 

of 8,500 pounds expressed a need to use this weight in order to capture tens of 

thousands of delivery trucks (such as those used by overnight delivery services) 

under the law, since these vehicles have a GVWR of between 8,500 and 10,000 

pounds. It was pointed out as well that EPA uses 8,500 pounds as the weight at 

which its on-road diesel regulations kick in. One state in the process of drafting 

an idling law indicated an intention to use 10,000 pounds. 

Consensus: No consensus reached on this issue. 

D 

Issue: Non-Applicability: This law does not apply to an independent engine 

operating for the sole purpose of controlling cargo temperature. 

Discussion: All agreed that this section is needed, and no changes were recommended. 

Consensus: Consensus reached on text as written. 

1
_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

E 

Issue: GENERAL REQUIREMENT: To allow for a reasonable amount of time to 

warm-up or cool-down a diesel engine; to allow for pre-trip inspection; and 

to condition the bus to allow passengers to embark and disembark, diesel 

vehicles are permitted to idle for no more than 5 minutes in any 60 minute 

period, except as noted in section (e). 

Discussion: Discussion focused on the issue of buses, in particular the amount of time needed 

to cool down or heat up a bus prior to passenger boarding. An opinion was 

offered that nobody should be guaranteed 5 minutes of idling just for the purposes 

of cooling down or heating up a bus, but others expressed the opinion that most 

states would not approve regulations that denied people comfort. It was also 

noted that the issue of bus cooling and heating is really while passengers are 

boarding, and not while they are disembarking. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached on this issue, with some disagreement remaining 

about whether or not 5 minutes was an appropriate amount of time to allow for 

cooling or warming a bus, in particular prior to passenger boarding. 

F 

Issue: EXEMPTION: a vehicle is forced to remain motionless because of traffic, an 

official traffic control device or signal, or at the direction of a law 

enforcement official. 

Discussion: There was little discussion on this issue, but it was suggested that traffic should 

be specified as being “on-road”. For example, queuing at a distribution center or 

warehouse would not qualify as traffic. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption provided that traffic is clarified as 

being “on-road.” 

G 

Issue: EXEMPTION: a vehicle idles during adverse weather conditions to ensure 

the safe operation of the vehicle (e.g., operating defrosters, installing chains). 

Discussion: Discussion centered around the question of whether this exemption, as written, 

allowed too much flexibility and would provide a loophole, in particular for 

drivers to idle while using only the fact that the temperature is cold as an excuse. 

It was pointed out that in very cold weather, fuel might gel, and it would be 

necessary to leave the engine running to keep the fuel warm and to ensure the safe 

operation of the vehicle. A suggestion was made to add “no longer than 

necessary” to the exemption. Another suggestion was to change “operating 

defrosters,” which many felt would allow virtually unlimited idling as long as the 

defroster was on, to “in order to defrost windows.” 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption though it was asked that suggested 

changes to wording listed above be considered as measures to tighten a potential 

loophole. 

2
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

I 

H 

Issue: EXEMPTION: a police, fire, ambulance, public safety, military, other 

emergency or law enforcement vehicle, or any vehicle being used in an 

emergency capacity idles while in an emergency or training mode. 

Discussion: There was no significant discussion on this issue. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption with no changes. 

Issue: EXEMPTION: the primary propulsion engine is idling for maintenance, 

servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes. 

Discussion: Discussion focused around the possibility that some might use this as a loophole, 

and claim that idling was necessary for one of these purposes, with an 

enforcement official being unable to truly verify the claim. Nevertheless, all 

agreed that this type of exemption is needed. It was suggested that the phrase “if 

idling is necessary for such activity” be added as an additional clarification. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption provided that the phrase “if idling is 

necessary for such activity” is added to the end of the exemption. 

J 

Issue: EXEMPTION: a vehicle is required to idle by law to verify that all 

equipment is in good working order, as part of a State or Federal inspection, 

provided that such engine idling is mandatory for such verification. 

Discussion: There was minimal discussion on this issue, though it was suggested that the word 

“mandatory” be changed to “necessary” because inspection rules typically don’t 

say that you must idle, rather idling is necessary to accomplish some other 

activity required by the inspection rules. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption provided that the word 

“mandatory” is changed to “necessary.” 

K 

Issue: EXEMPTION: the primary propulsion engine idles to provide a power 

source necessary for mechanical or electrical operations other than 

propulsion (e.g., loading or unloading, mixing or processing cargo, straight 

truck refrigeration). 

Discussion: Discussion focused on what qualified as a necessary power source. There was 

some discussion of whether this exemption could be used by truck drivers who 

are resting and want to power their auxiliary equipment, such as microwaves and 

televisions. Overall though, participants took this exemption only to cover Power 

Take-Off applications. A number of participants suggested a minor change to the 

wording to clarify the intent of the exemption. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption, with the suggestion that it be 

reworded to say “it is necessary to idle the primary propulsion engine in order to 

provide a power source for mechanical or electrical . . .” 

3
____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

L 

Issue: EXEMPTION: an armored vehicle idles when a person remains inside the 

vehicle to guard the contents, or while the vehicle is being loaded or 

unloaded. 

Discussion: There was no significant discussion on this issue. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption with no changes. 

M 

Issue: EXEMPTION: a passenger bus idles while passengers are onboard to 

maintain passenger comfort. 

Discussion: Discussion centered around the vague nature of the term “passenger comfort,” as 

well as the lack of any time limit in this exemption. Some participants believed 

that there should be no time limit as long as a single passenger is on-board, while 

others believed there should be no idling allowed at all. Many believed that the 

exemption for “passenger comfort” was okay if no alternative shelter was 

available. An example was cited where in Atlantic City, NJ, passengers finish 

gambling and return to buses at widely varied times, which sometimes results in 

buses idling for several hours to keep these passengers comfortable. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached on this exemption, with a few suggested changes. 

 First is to add “where no alternatives are available” to the end of the exemption. 

Second is to consider a time limit, such as 15 minutes or 30 minutes in each 60 

minute period. 

N 

Issue: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: a vehicle idles due to mechanical 

difficulties over which the driver has no control; PROVIDED that: the 

driver is ticketed but the ticket is dismissed if the vehicle owner submits the 

repair paperwork or product receipt (by mail; within 30 days) to the 

appropriate authority verifying that the mechnical problem has been fixed. 

Discussion: Discussion on this conditional exemption focused on the difficulties of putting 

into place the system where a driver receives a ticket, but is able to submit proof 

of repair and have the ticket dismissed. A number of State representatives 

indicated that they didn’t believe this type of system could be implemented in 

their state. They also indicated that they believed this type of system might 

unduly clog the court system. Discussion also addressed whether the driver or the 

company should receive the ticket and have the burden of proving that the 

mechanical difficulty claimed was later repaired. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached on the need for this type of exemption, but no 

agreement was reached on the use of the system whereby a ticket is issued and 

later dismissed. 

4
____________________________________________________________________________ 

O 

Issue: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: idling of an occupied vehicle with a sleeper 

berth compartment for purposes of air conditioning, heating, or powering 

any ancillary equipment during sleeping or resting, until 2010 whereupon 

this exemption is no longer valid. [Depending on when enacted, allow 5 years 

for the industry to evaluate, select, and finance an idle reduction technology 

(or technologies) that addresses cab comfort needs]. 

Discussion: As in previous workshops, discussion focused on balancing needs of the state 

with that of the truck driver. States are seeking emission reductions, and idling 

while sleeping represents one of the largest sources of idling emissions. On the 

other hand, truck drivers want to ensure that they can sleep comfortably, thereby 

ensuring that they will be well-rested and safe the next day. Trucking 

representatives indicated that if idling of sleepers is banned, fewer sleepers will 

be used, and the price of trucking will increase significantly, in turn leading to 

increased prices for nearly all goods. All participants acknowledged the need for 

truck drivers to get a restful sleep, and there was general agreement on the need 

for this type of exemption. On the issue of the sunset of this exemption in 2010, 

there was significant discussion about the impacts of this sunset on truck owners, 

particularly independent owner-operators and small trucking companies. 

Trucking representatives indicated that, regardless of the lead time given to 

identify suitable technologies, the additional cost of $5,000 - $8,000 for a device 

like an auxiliary power unit (APU) would make trucks too expensive for 

independent drivers, and would likely drive many of them out of business. 

Trucking representatives also indicated that if some states adopted a sunset and 

others did not, many drivers would simply avoid traveling through those states, 

which could have implications for the transport of goods to stores in those states. 

Most government representatives were generally in favor of the sunset provision. 

 A suggestion was also made to change “sleeping or resting” to “sleeping, resting, 

or queuing”. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached on the need for a sleeper berth exemption at the 

present time, as well as on the need to ultimately reduce idling while sleeping. 

However, many participants, particularly from the trucking industry, were not in 

favor of a sunset provision due to the undue burden they feel it would place on 

independent owner-operators and small trucking companies. As an alternative, it 

was suggested that the Model Law might contain a sunset provision only for those 

trucks that are older, and therefore dirtier, and that newer trucks (in particular 

2007 MY trucks) might not be subject to the sunset provision, since their engines 

are cleaner, and in fact cleaner than most APUs that would otherwise be used to 

eliminate idling. This would need to be considered in conjunction with the 

possible Conditional Exemption for APUs described below. 

5
____________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

P 

Issue: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: idling of an occupied vehicle for purposes 

of air conditioning or heating to prevent a safety or health emergency, until 

2010 whereupon this exemption is no longer valid. [Depending on when 

enacted, allow 5 years for the industry to evaluate, select, and finance an idle 

reduction technology (or technologies) that addresses cab comfort needs]. 

Discussion: Discussion focused on whether or not this exemption could be combined with the 

exemption on sleeper berths, as well as on the situation in which delays that result 

in drivers idling are caused by distribution centers and other similar facilities. On 

the second point, trucking representatives pointed out that in many cases where a 

driver idles to remain comfortable while queuing, he or she is waiting to load or 

unload because the facility is not running on schedule. In these cases, the 

sentiment was that there should be some way to hold the facility causing the delay 

liable for any idling. A suggestion was made that some way be found to work 

into the Model Law a clause and related penalties for those facilities that “cause 

or permit” idling to take place. There was also significant discussion on just how 

“safety or health emergency” would be defined, and how these terms related to 

“driver comfort.” Some thought the phrase “safety or health emergency” might 

be too vague. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached on the need for an exemption such as this, but as 

with the sleeper berth exemption, there was considerable disagreement on the 

issue of the sunset provision. It was also suggested that the wording be modified 

to specify that this exemption refers to trucks, rather than “an occupied vehicle” 

to distinguish from buses, which are covered under a different exemption. 

Q 

Issue: CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION: operating a diesel-powered auxiliary 

engine to provide air conditioning, heat, or electrical power to the truck or 

engine as an alternative to idling the primary engine for all 2006 or older 

model year diesel vehicles; except for 2007 and subsequent model year diesel 

vehicles whereupon the diesel auxiliary engine must be verified by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or certified by the California Air 

Resources Board to meet the same or more stringent emission levels for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) as model year 2007 and subsequent heavy-duty 

diesel engines. 

Discussion: This is an issue of growing concern mainly due to California’s proposed 

regulation that would make 2007 model APUs meet a more stringent standard 

based on the assumption that these smaller engines will emit more in particulate 

matter than a 2007 and subsequent model year truck. Participants believed in the 

need to clean up the APUs, and their comments focused on tightening the 

language so it ready more clearly. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached. 

6
____________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

R 

Issue: Penalties 

Discussion: There was significant discussion on a number of topics, including who should 

receive tickets and be liable for fines (drivers and/or owners), whether or not 

drivers should receive points on the CDL for idling violations, and the difficulties 

that come with trying to recommend one set of penalties in a model law such as 

this. On the final point, many participants suggested that, rather than specifying 

liable parties and fine structures, the Model Law might simply list a variety of 

options, since the abilities of states vary so greatly. For example, some states 

indicated that while they might like to issue tickets to companies, their computer 

systems are set up only to allow tickets to be issued to drivers. Similarly, some 

states indicated that they can only track such tickets by company name and not by 

driver. Generally, there was agreement that it is useful to fine the company, as 

this will ensure that they management is aware of idling violations, and will 

encourage them to work with drivers to reduce unnecessary idling. There was 

also agreement that the proposed penalty structure with fines increasing with each 

offense is too complicated, and should be simplified. Some also felt that the fines 

for companies were too high. 

Consensus: General consensus was reached on the value of trying to standardize fines, but 

some indicated that standardizing who receives tickets may be difficult. 

Consensus was also reached on the need to simplify the penalty structure, to 

include a warnings or low fines for a first offense, and then a higher set of fines 

for the second offense, with these fines remaining the same for all subsequent 

offenses. There was also consensus that points should not be applied to a driver’s 

CDL for idling violations, which is consistent with policies for other nonmoving 

violations. 

S 

Issue: Enforcement 

Discussion: Due to time constraints, there was minimal discussion of enforcement. However, 

one suggestion made was that a “rule effectiveness study” be conducted as a 

method of determining the most efficient method of enforcement for idling laws. 

Consensus: N/A. 

7
T 

Issue: Education/Outreach 

Discussion: All agreed that the key to the success of any idling regulation will be education, 

since drivers will only be able to comply with the laws if they are aware of the 

provisions of the laws. It was noted that the requirements of idling laws need to 

be conveyed to drivers in layman’s terms, rather than in legal language. 

Suggestions for methods to educate drivers about laws in particular states 

included: sending mailings to drivers through state trucking associations and 

other membership organizations, sending information with bills or statements for 

E-Z Pass, Pre-Pass, and other similar programs used frequently by truck drivers, 

putting information on placemats at truck stops, and informing drivers of the 

existence of an idling law via roadside signs as they enter and travel throughout 

the state. It was also suggested that trucking companies who are making 

compliance a high priority with their drivers could put “reminders” on the side of 

their trucks so that other drivers will see it, as well as the public. 

Consensus: N/A. 

8