Office of Transportation EPA420-S-05-008 

and Air Quality August 2005 

Model State Idling Law 

Workshop — Baltimore, 

Maryland 

Meeting Summary 
EPA420-S-05-008 

August 2005 

Model State Idling Law Workshop —

Baltimore, Maryland

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 May 6, 2005, in 

Baltimore, Maryland, to develop a model state idling law. Participants included EPA Region III 

stakeholders, such as representatives from states and local governments, and the trucking 

industry. 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: Purpose of the law ........................................................ . . 1
 

B: Incentives ............................................................... . . 1
 

C: Exemption for Traffic and Adverse Weather .................................... . . 2
 

D: Exemption for Emergency Vehicles .......................................... . . 3
 

E: Exemption for Maintenance ................................................. . . 3
 

F: Exemption for Research and Development ..................................... . . 3
 

G: Exemption for Power Take Off .............................................. . . 4
 

H: Exemption for Transportation Refrigeration Units ................................ . 4
 

I: Exemption for OEM Warm-Up and Cool-Down .................................. . 4
 

J: Exemption for Weather (Long Haul Trucks) .................................... . . 5
 

K: Exemption for Weather (School, Transit, Tour Buses) ............................ . . 5
 

L: Exemption for Required Inspections .......................................... . . 6
 

M: Exemption for Clean Vehicles ............................................... . . 6
 

N: Motor Coach/Tour Bus/Passenger Bus Loading/Unloading ........................ . . 6
 

O: Exemption for Mobile Idle Reduction Technologies ............................. . . 7
 

P: Penalties ............................................................... . . 7
 

Q: Enforcement ............................................................. . . 8
 

R: Outreach and Education ..................................................... . 8
 

S: Other .................................................................. . . 9
 

ii 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 

A 

Issue:	 Purpose of the law 

Discussion:	 Idling laws should articulate their purpose. These laws are more than reductions 

in noise and emissions. The purpose of these laws should include all of the 

following benefits: emission reductions, noise reductions, fuel savings, 

maintenance reductions, and improved driver health and safety. This last one is 

often overlooked, but if a truck driver does not get sufficient rest they may be 

prone to accidents. 

Consensus:	 The group agreed that stating the benefits of reducing idling should be included in 

the “purpose” section of the law. 

B 

Issue:	 Incentives 

Discussion:	 Today’s idle laws restrict idling yet provide a long list of exemptions. While 

many of these exemptions are absolutely necessary as the list below demonstrates, 

some idling behavior is simply a matter of personal choice and behavior 

(discretionary). Especially when considering a weather related exemption or a 

sleeper berth exemption, many participants felt that a blanket exemption for this 

activity simply defeated the purpose of an idling law which is to reduce emission 

by deterring idling, and not simply excuse or exempt every type of idling 

behavior. If the purpose of these laws is to reduce idling, then the model law 

needs to provide some kind of incentive to reduce this discretionary type of idling 

and not simply exempt it. An incentive that provides for idle reduction 

technologies is an important component of the effort to reduce idling because they 

allow for the driver to rest comfortably without idling the main engine. The laws 

by themselves have minimal impact, especially when considering all the 

exemptions. If we want to balance drafting a humane and reasonable law that 

allows truck drivers to idle for cab comfort needs with a law that reduces idling, 

then the law must provide incentives for technologies. 

Consensus:	 Many participants agreed that this was an important goal to reach, but some 

expressed the difficulty in legislating a technology solution because of the high 

up-front capital costs associated with some technologies, the need for a voluntary 

approach to technology use, and in some cases, the unreasonable request to 

mandate technology that may not yet be ready. The group agreed that the way to 

get this done is through a voluntary approach at encouraging technology use. One 

example is EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership for Truck Parking 

Locations. This is a voluntary agreement whereby truck parking location 

owners/operators create a non-idling zone to encourage non-idlers and those with 

mobile idle reduction technologies to use a designated area for non-idling. By 

doing this, they would receive EPA recognition under EPA’s SmartWay 

Transport Program. A co-benefit is that SmartWay trucking partners would visit 

their location and use the non-idling zone as a means to receive more credit 

towards their own truck program goals. An addendum to the SmartWay 

agreement for truck parking locations encourages the voluntary deployment of 

1
 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 

electrified parking spaces in return for a State agreement to place the location on a 

“low enforcement priority.” The State gets the benefit of knowing that the truck 

parking location has an alternative to idling even in extreme weather conditions 

where an idling law would have exempted the idling, and the truck drivers get 

their cab comfort needs. This is especially helpful for those states that exempt 

sleeper berths from the idling law or have weather exemptions. In the case of a 

sleeper berth or weather exemption, truck idling is permitted. Under this 

voluntary approach, the weather and sleeper berth idling can be addressed through 

the use of electrified parking spaces. Therefore, the State receives the benefit of 

greater emission reductions where the law would not have achieved such 

reductions. States may want to consider adopting this voluntary approach with 

truck stops in their state as a means to encourage the voluntary adoption of idle 

reduction technologies. For more information contact your EPA SmartWay 

representative. 

Another related idea was the use of the SmartWay logo on SmartWay Trucks. 

The logo would mean the truck meets certain emission reduction and energy 

efficiency standards established by the SmartWay program. Similar to the State 

agreement not to enforce at SmartWay truck stops, law enforcement would agree 

not to enforce against SmartWay trucks. 

C 

Issue:	 Exemption for Traffic and Adverse Weather 

Allow idling when 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. Also, exempt vehicles idling while waiting in a queue. Finally, exempt 

vehicle idling when adverse weather conditions affect the safe operation of the 

vehicle (e.g., operating defrosters, heaters, air conditioning) to prevent a safety or 

health emergency. 

Discussion:	 Issues beyond the control of a truck driver, like traffic, should always be included 

as an exemption in any state idle law. Same with idling due to adverse weather 

conditions. Many of us have all experienced the need to idle to operate the 

defroster so we can see out the window. The harder issue is idling due to waiting 

in a queue. Much depends on the movement of the queue. For a queue that is 

moving along very slowly, it doesn’t make much sense to require drivers to keep 

turning their engine on and off. However, in the circumstance of a queue to enter 

a port or distribution center in the morning, where the queue is not expected to 

move for awhile, the truck drivers should not be allowed to idle merely to wait. 

Some discussion focused on who is responsible for the queue. If it is a Federal, 

state, or local authority causing the wait then there’s not much the truck driver 

can do. But if the truck driver shows up early at a private facility to get a good 

place in the queue, then he is more responsible for this behavior. 

Consensus:	 The group agreed that an exemption to idling applies to traffic and weather 

conditions, but no consensus was reached on idling in a queue. Much depends on 

2
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

the movement of the queue and who is responsible for the wait. If the queue is 

not in a “creep” mode (i.e., inching forward) and the driver is responsible for the 

wait, then the driver should not be exempted from idling. 

D 

Issue:	 Exemption for Emergency Vehicles 

Exempt idling for police, fire, ambulance, public safety, military, and other 

emergency or law enforcement vehicles in an emergency or training mode. 

Discussion:	 Almost everyone understood the need for an exemption for emergency vehicles. 

Some discussion focused on whether or not the emergency vehicle had to be in an 

emergency mode to qualify for the exemption. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on this exemption. 

E 

Issue:	 Exemption for Maintenance 

Exempt idling of a vehicle when the primary propulsion engine is being operated 

for maintenance, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes. Also, exempt a 

vehicle if idling due to mechanical difficulties over which the driver has no 

control. 

Discussion:	 Most participants recognized the need for an exemption for vehicle idling while 

undergoing maintenance; however, some participants mentioned that this was an 

area subject to abuse. For example, some truck drivers have claimed mechanical 

difficulties to avoid receiving an idling ticket when there was no real mechanical 

difficulty or the mechanical difficulty did not require engine idling. This is an 

issue of enforcement, and interpretation of specific idling exemption provisions. 

To try to define what mechanical repairs would require engine idling would be 

too difficult. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on this exemption. 

F 

Issue:	 Exemption for Research and Development 

Exempt a vehicle when the primary engine, vehicle, or device is engaged in idling 

testing operated by the manufacturers or their partners (including labs, research 

facilities, and trucking companies). 

Discussion:	 General agreement by participants for this exemption. However, this is another 

area subject to abuse. Participants recommended that any truck undergoing this 

testing be required to carry official documentation verifying that the truck is, in 

fact, part of a test. While there are no guidelines for what constitutes official 

documentation, at a minimum this additional language adds some protection 

against egregious abuses. 

3
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on this exemption. 

G 

Issue:	 Exemption for Power Take Off 

Exempt a vehicle when the primary propulsion engine is providing a power 

source necessary for mechanical or electrical operations other than propulsion 

such as loading or unloading, mixing or processing cargo, direct drive trailer 

refrigeration, or providing a mechanical extension to perform work functions. 

Discussion:	 Participants found this exemption important. It was widely recognized that this 

exemption was necessary. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on this exemption. 

H 

Issue:	 Exemption for Transportation Refrigeration Units 

Exempt any trailer with an independent engine used for the sole purpose of 

controlling cargo temperature. 

Discussion:	 Participants stressed that TRUs don’t technically idle but operate to keep their 

cargo cool. At times the TRU will cycle on and off once the appropriate 

temperature is reached. The fact that the cargo can be (and should be) rejected if 

the temperature falls below acceptable standards is a considerable economic 

incentive to not turn off the TRU’s auxiliary power unit. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on this exemption. 

I 

Issue:	 Exemption for OEM Warm-Up and Cool-Down 

Exempt the vehicle when the primary propulsion engine is idling to reach the 

manufacturer’s recommended operating temperature or idling to cool down the 

engine. 

Discussion:	 Most participants agreed that truck engines need a warm-up and cool-down 

period. The warm-up period will depend on the ambient temperature. The 

Engine Manufacturer’s Association informed EPA that they will provide OEM 

recommended warm-up and cool-down times for future meetings. The group 

talked about the need to pick a conservative estimate so law enforcement did not 

have to distinguish between different engine warm-up/cool-down times among 

the different engines. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on this exemption, but pending more specific 

information from EMA. 

4
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

J 

Issue:	 Exemption for Weather (Long Haul Trucks) 

Exempt vehicles during certain weather conditions, both low and high 

temperature conditions. 

Discussion:	 One of the more difficult issues to reconcile is recognizing that truck drivers must 

live in their sleeper berth, and during hot or cold days/nights the truck driver will 

need to operate the air conditioning or heat to rest comfortably. Much discussion 

centered around the fact that states without weather exemptions have an 

unrealistic and inhumane view of truck drivers. For those states with a weather 

exemption, most were considered unrealistic. For example, a 20 degree 

Fahrenheit exemption was considered absurd. Trying to determine the 

appropriate weather exemption temperatures proved difficult. One group agreed 

that a broad exemption for all sleeper berths was appropriate because the comfort 

level of one person may not be that of another. Another group selected a low 

range of 50 degrees Fahrenheit and a high range of 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The 

third group could not agree on any weather exemption, and the discussion focused 

on creating incentives. See Section B above for discussion on incentives. 

Consensus:	 No consensus reached. One option is possible implementation of the SmartWay 

Transport Partnership Agreement for Truck Parking Locations. This approach 

recognizes that truck drivers need to rest comfortably, and encourages the 

deployment of technology that allows the truck driver to rest comfortably without 

idling the engine. In this case no exemption for weather or sleeper berths would 

exist. The state applies a “low enforcement priority” status to the location, and 

focuses enforcement of the law at other non-partner locations. In time, the hope 

is that all locations deploy technology that allow for non-idling. 

K 

Issue:	 Exemption for Weather (School, Transit, Tour Buses) 

Exempt vehicles during certain weather conditions, both low and high 

temperature conditions. 

Discussion:	 For school, transit, and tour buses the need for cab comfort differs from that of a 

long haul truck driver. The long haul truck drivers needs a 8-10 hour mandated 

rest period, and during this time the engine may be at idle. Buses, on the other 

hand, have distinct idling times throughout the day. School and transit buses need 

to warm up at the beginning of the day; tour buses need to cool and warm the 

compartment whenever passengers are about to board the bus. School and transit 

buses have openable windows, but tour buses do not. Pre-heaters are common on 

newer buses which would require a relatively short warm-up period. The need for 

idling is to allow the engine to reach its optimal engine temperature before 

starting the trip, and to begin to warm or cool the interior. Buses should not be 

allowed to wait until the entire compartment reaches a comfortable temperature 

because this could take hours at idle for buses. 

5
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

L 

Consensus:	 One group reached the following consensus: (1) allow 20 minutes of idling in any 

90 minute period if above 75 degrees Fahrenheit and the vehicle has air 

conditioning and non-openable windows; (2) allow 10 minutes of idling in any 

90 minute period if below 32 degrees Fahrenheit; (3) allow 20 minutes of idling 

in any 90 minute period if between -10 degrees Fahrenheit and 32 degrees 

Fahrenheit; and (4) completely exempt idling if below -10 degrees Fahrenheit. 

These apply to buses only. 

Issue:	 Exemption for Required Inspections 

Exempt the time required for a truck to pass through any State/Federal inspection 

where the engine must be in idle. 

Discussion:	 All participants agreed that there was a need to exempt trucks during any State or 

Federal inspection. However, the group was divided about the need to exempt 

idling during the pre-trip inspection period. While some noted that the engine 

needed to be on to check the air brake pressure, they also noted that this would 

take only a couple of minutes, and that the time needed would overlap with the 

engine warm-up time to bring the truck to the OEM’s recommended operating 

temperature. 

Consensus:	 No consensus reached on this exemption. 

M 

Issue:	 Exemption for Clean Vehicles 

Exempt natural gas, electric, or hybrid vehicles 

Discussion:	 The group felt strongly that there should not be an exemption for these types of 

vehicles because the policy to reduce idling should apply to all vehicles 

regardless of their fuel source. The idea here was to encourage fuel conservation. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on not allowing this exemption. 

N 

Issue:	 Motor Coach/Tour Bus/Passenger Bus Loading/Unloading 

Discussion:	 Passenger buses should be allowed to idle while loading or unloading. Some 

considered this a PTO function, especially if the bus needed to be lowered or 

there was a wheel chair lift. Generally, this idea would not allow idling while the 

bus waited for its passengers to return to the bus, but it recognizes the need for the 

bus to warm or cool the interior while the passengers where boarding. No time 

limit should be imposed for this activity because of the different sizes of buses. 

Consensus:	 General consensus on the need to allow passenger buses an idling exemption only 

when passengers where loading or unloading. 

6
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

O 

Issue:	 Exemption for Mobile Idle Reduction Technologies 

Exempt any mobile idle reduction technology (generator sets, auxiliary power 

units, direct fuel fired heaters) operating to provide heating, air conditioning, or 

auxiliary power to the vehicle. 

Discussion:	 Currently no state has an exemption for these technologies. While these 

technologies may not be technically idling (they cycle on and off to provide the 

necessary heat or air conditioning), reports of truck drivers receiving idling 

tickets for using an auxiliary power unit has been confirmed. The group felt that 

it was important to exempt these technologies because we should be encouraging 

their use. One state has proposed regulating auxiliary power units (APUs) more 

stringently than current state law on the basis that heavy-duty diesel engines in 

the near future will emit less on a grams per hour basis than the APUs. Several 

participants questioned how this state could make such a determination since the 

newer engines have not been tested in a long duration idle mode, and that some of 

the anticipated control technologies may perform effectively for some pollutants 

but not others, and that generally not enough is known. Finally, some participants 

expressed concern on how to define a mobile idle reduction technology. 

Consensus:	 General consensus reached on the need to exempt mobile idle reduction 

technologies. Further, any action to more stringently regulate APUs should wait 

until testing is conducted on the newer engines in the long duration idle mode. 

Finally, EPA should verify mobile idle reduction technologies. 

P 

Issue:	 Penalties 

Discussion:	 Some states issue the fine to the truck driver, while other states mail the fine to 

the company owner. Participants felt that making the company pay was one way 

to ensure that companies required that their drivers not idle, but other participants 

noted that company owners have little or no control over their driver behavior. 

Compounding this issue is the fact that many company owners who passed on this 

fine to the driver resulted in that driver leaving the company (truck drivers have a 

notoriously high turn-over rate). Truck owners want their drivers to reduce idling 

times to conserve fuel costs, but many of these owners were drivers themselves so 

they recognize the need to idle for cab comfort needs. Another issue is the 

escalating fine (first offense - warning; 2nd offense - $100, 3rd offense - $500, 

etc.). If the fine is sent to the owner and passed on to the driver, a first time 

offender who is the 4th or 5th offender in the company ends up paying hundreds of 

dollars for their first offense. The truck owner still needs to be involved in their 

employee actions, so education about the laws and the benefits of not idling are 

important. 

Consensus:	 The fines should be issued to the truck driver only, with accompanying 

documentation warning the truck company owner to educate their drivers about 

the idling law. For each subsequent fine issued to the truck driver, a warning 

7
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

should be sent to the company owner indicating that the 10th offense by one of 

their employees will result in a fine to the company. At the 10th violation of a 

company driver, the truck owner should be issued a fine. The first infraction by a 

truck driver should always be a warning, and the next fine should begin at $100, 

then $500, and then $1,000 for the third and subsequent offenses. The 10th 

company driver violation should result in a $1,000 fine to the company, and any 

subsequent fine should be at $1,000 to the truck company owner. 

Q 

Issue:	 Enforcement 

Discussion:	 Enforcement is a sensitive issue whereby a few states are actively enforcing the 

law but many other states are not actively enforcing. This is partly due to higher 

priorities, limited budgets, and an unwillingness to issue tickets at some locations. 

Some in the trucking industry felt that if all the laws were uniformly enforced 

then they would make the investment in a idle reduction technology, but since 

that is not the case they are more likely to gamble that they will not be caught. 

Another issue involves issuing a ticket to the truck parking location facility owner 

(e.g., truck owner or distribution center owner). Participants felt strongly that 

unless the facility owner has control over the drivers, they should not be held 

responsible for the violation. Truck parking location owners should not be made 

to enforce the state’s laws, especially if the state’s own enforcement officials 

were not doing so. One exception would be if the company driver is idling on 

company property. In this case, the company owner has greater control over their 

driver and their location. 

Consensus:	 (1) If the states adopt a uniform idling law, they should also adopt a policy of 

active enforcement so truck drivers and owners invest in technology to reduce 

idling. (2) Fines should not be issued to the truck parking location owner, unless 

the owner has direct control over the driver (employee-employer relationship). 

R 

Issue:	 Outreach and Education 

Discussion:	 While an idling law would not explicitly mandate outreach or education, it should 

accompany any state effort to reduce idling. If a state has an idling law, they 

should make an effort at educating the affected entities about the law. This may 

include publishing brochures, creating signs, and distributing the brochures and 

signs in areas where trucks park. 

Consensus:	 States should conduct outreach by educating truck drivers and owners about the 

idling law. Signs should be posted at public truck parking locations. During state 

truck registration, driver training, or licensing information about the law should 

be distributed. Private truck parking facility owners should be required to post 

permanent signs that state the idling law and its fine for violation. 

8
 
S 

Issue:	 Other 

Discussion:	 The groups felt that a discussion of a sleeper berth exemption was redundant 

because of the weather related discussion. In other words, the sleeper berth 

exemption and a weather related exemption, at least for long haul trucks, 

addresses the same concern. As stated above under B, both weather and sleeper 

berth exemptions, while important to recognize the need for drivers to rest 

comfortably, should not simply be given a blanket exemption. Rather, States 

should implement voluntary incentives whereby the State recognizes trucks and 

truck stops that use or deploy idle reduction technologies. These trucks or 

locations should be exempt from the law, and law enforcement should concentrate 

on those entities that do not have the idle reduction technologies. 

9