Office of Transportation EPA420-S-05-012 

and Air Quality September 2005 

Model State Idling Law 

Workshop — 

San Francisco, California 

Meeting Summary 
EPA420-S-05-012 

September 2005 

Model State Idling Law Workshop —

San Francisco, California

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 14, 2005, in San 

Francisco, California, to develop a model state idling law. Participants included EPA Regions 

VIII, IX, and X 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 the 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: Applicability ............................................................. . 1

C: Non-Applicability ......................................................... . 1

D: General Requirement ....................................................... . 1

E: Exemption for Traffic ...................................................... . 2

F: Exemption for Adverse Weather ............................................. . 2

G: Exemption for Law Enforcement .............................................. . 2

H: Exemption for Maintenance ................................................. . 2

I: Exemption for Inspection ................................................... . 2

J: Exempting for Power Take Off ............................................... . 2

K: Exemption for Armored Vehicles ............................................ . . 3

L: Exemption for Passenger Buses .............................................. . . 3

M: Conditional Exemption for Mechanical Problems ................................. . 3

N: Conditional Exemption for Sleeper Berth Trucks ................................. . 3

O: Conditional Exemption for Temperature ........................................ . 3

P: Penalties ................................................................. . 4

Q: Enforcement ............................................................. . . 4

R: Auxiliary Power Units ..................................................... . . 4

ii 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

A 

Issue: Purpose of the law. 

Discussion: Discussion focused on adding near-term exposure to diesel exhaust is part of the 

purpose (community and driver/operator). Participants raised the issue of 

including more than just heavy-duty diesel vehicles – why not passenger vehicles 

(CARB says heavy-duty diesel vehicles are significant percentage of emissions) 

or other classes of engines? Finally, truck drivers stated that they felt they were 

being blamed for the entire problem, and that if states want to really reduce 

emissions they should help out with the costs instead of just passing laws that are 

rarely, if ever, enforced. 

Consensus: Agreement to add exposure. EPA should consider ways to build in incentives, 

especially financial, with the model. 

B 

Issue: Applicability 

Discussion: Participants suggested decreasing the weight ratings to 8500 pounds, to include 

commercial trucks and some very large SUVs/passenger vehicles, and that 

smaller, commercial vehicles were part of the problem. A suggestion to remove 

“heavy-duty” so other diesels can be included. Some opposition to opening the 

law to all these vehicles because of the difficulty and impracticality of enforcing 

the law. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this issue provided that “heavy-duty” is removed 

and the weight limit is reduced to 8,500 pounds or add “commercial” diesel 

vehicles. 

C 

Issue: Non-Applicability 

Discussion: General agreement that the law should not apply to reefers. Some mention that 

these manufacturers are progressive and “good players.” 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this non-applicability section. 

D 

Issue: General Requirement 

Discussion: Participants felt that the five minute general requirement was reasonable. 

Suggestion to edit “allow passengers to embark and disembark” – to “to 

condition the bus to allow passengers to embark and disembark” (in CA they 

allow 10 minutes for that). Question about how you enforce 5 minutes during a 

60 minute period – why not just say 5 minutes – how can you check on this? This 

was put in there to remove a loop hole for people juts to turn off and turn on. 

Consensus: Agreement to edit the “embark/disembark” language per suggestion. 

1
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

E 

Issue: Exemption for Traffic

Discussion: Very similar to CA and other state language on traffic.

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption.

F 

Issue: Exemption for Adverse Weather 

Discussion: Discussion focused on determining if this exemption applies to the driver or the 

vehicle. The key language is “safe operation of the vehicle.” Participants felt that 

other exemptions addressed driver comfort, so this one should be about vehicles. 

Discussion on adding “installing chains” as another example of a safety 

consideration. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption provided that consideration be 

given to “safe operation of the vehicle” and “installing chains”. 

G 

Issue: Exemption for Law Enforcement

Discussion: No substantive discussion. Everyone agreed this was necessary.

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption. 

H 

Issue: Exemption for Maintenance 

Discussion: Discussion focused on removing the words “at a recognized facility for such 

operations” because this penalizes those who do their own repairs. While a 

“recognized facility” may add greater assurance that a repair, for example, is 

actually underway it does not recognize that many truck owners do their own 

servicing or that servicing may occur outside of facilities (e.g., by a service 

truck). 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption provided that the words “at a 

recognized facility for such operations” is deleted. 

I 

Issue: Exemption for Inspection 

Discussion: No discussion. Everyone felt this was necessary.

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption.

J 

Issue: Exempting for Power Take Off 

Discussion: Participants felt that this should be clearly exempted sine it was not an 

unnecessary idle mode. Some questioned whether or not electrical use (such as 

operating a laptop) should be included under this exemption. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on this exemption, and consideration should be given 

to the limitations of PTO so not everything comes under it. 

2
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

L 

K 

Issue: Exemption for Armored Vehicles 

Discussion: No substantive discussion. All participants recognized the need to exempt this. 

Consensus: General consensus reached on deleting this exemption. 

Issue: Exemption for Passenger Buses

Discussion: Participants recommended adding “to maintain passenger comfort.”

Consensus: General agreement if new language suggested above is added.

M 

Issue: Conditional Exemption for Mechanical Problems 

Discussion: Suggestion to remove “at a recognized facility” and that the ticket is not be placed 

on their record. 

Consensus: General agreement on this exemption. 

N 

Issue: Conditional Exemption for Sleeper Berth Trucks 

Discussion: Some participants recommend not allowing this exemption if the truck is within 

100 feet from a school or residential neighborhood. Others questioned whether 

this was an issue about technology availability or access to capital. Trucking 

industry openly requested financial assistance with purchase of idle reduction 

technologies. Much discussion on balancing the needs of truck drivers and the 

needs of the state and its citizens. While the trucking industry participants want 

to reduce fuel consumption and save money, and reduce health risks to 

themselves and others, much comes down to the issue of funding. Truck owners 

need assistance with the purchase of these technologies, and they generally resent 

laws that do not take the economics into account. 

Consensus: No general agreement reached on the 100 foot circumstance, but discussion on 

considering it as a means to prevent diesel emissions near people’s homes or 

other sensitive populations. As to financing programs, an agreement to look into 

how this might be included in the model. 

O 

Issue: Conditional Exemption for Temperature 

Discussion: Participants discussed the temperature cut-offs for heat and air conditioning and 

felt that it is very difficult to dictate one’s comfort level. Some participants stated 

that one way to avoid this issue is to add “to prevent a safety or health 

emergency.” 

Consensus: General agreement to add recommended language. 

3
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

P 

Issue: Penalties 

Discussion: Participants recommended changing “contravene” to “violates”; fining the 

company and not the driver; building a grace period and an educational campaign 

before enforcement; allowing the driver or company at the second offense to 

submit proof that either the technology was or was not provided (and therefore 

either the driver or the company would not be fined). 

Consensus: No general consensus reached on who is responsible for paying the fine, but the 

conversation leaned towards making the truck owner liable for fines as an 

incentive for them to purchase alternative technologies. A guidance document to 

this model law should include information about an educational campaign before 

beginning any enforcement so truck drivers are on notice. 

Q 

Issue: Enforcement 

Discussion: Discussion focused on the liability of a property owner or operator. The 

prevailing view was that if the owner lacks control over the driver’s behavior or is 

not directly responsible for an unnecessary wait time (to load/unload), then the 

owner/operator should not be liable. For example, a truck stop owner should not 

be responsible because he/she does not control (or necessarily permit) the idling 

behavior, but is more a host for the trucker to utilize his/her facilities. Moreover, 

the truck stop owner is not creating a situation whereby the truck driver needs to 

idle. In the case of a distribution center with a long line of idling trucks waiting 

to load/unload, the case can be made that this owner has greater control over the 

trucks (via contracts) and may be the cause of the idling due to long wait times. 

Another often cited defense of truck stop operators is that they cannot, practically 

speaking, walk around their lot of hundreds of parking spaces and effectively tell 

truck drivers to not idle. They may be able to post no-idling signs, but 

enforcement of the law should not be imposed on the truck stop owner as a 

surrogate for law enforcement. 

Consensus: General agreement reached on fining facility owners who share in the 

responsibility for idling. 

R 

Issue: Auxiliary Power Units 

Discussion: Most participants felt that if it was true that APUs emitted more than a model year 

2007 or later truck, then the APU should be made to as clean or cleaner than this 

truck. 

Consensus: General agreement reached if emissions testing validates the situation to be the 

case. 

4