*** nCIJlk      Office of Transportation                     EPA420-S-05-010

            and Air Quality                        September 2005
  United States
  Environmental Protection
  Agency
            Model State Idling Law
            Workshop  Atlanta,
            Georgia

            Meeting Summary

-------
                                                                  EPA420-S-05-010
                                                                    September 2005
                                       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 June 16-17, 2005, in
Atlanta, Georgia, to develop a model state idling law. Participants included 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.

-------
                                     List of Issues
A: 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	1

B: 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... 1

C: 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	2

D: 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)	2

E: 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	3

F: Exemption for Transportation Refrigeration Units - Exempt any trailer with an independent
engine used for the sole purpose of controlling cargo temperature	3

G: 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	3

H: Exemption for Weather (Long Haul Trucks) - Exempt vehicles during certain weather
conditions, both low and high temperature conditions	4

I: Exemption for Weather (School, Transit, Tour Buses) - Exempt vehicles during certain weather
conditions, both low and high temperature conditions	4

J: Exemption for Required Inspections - Exempt the time required  for a truck to pass through any
State/Federal inspection where the engine must be idling  to conduct the inspection	5

K: Exemption for Clean Vehicles - Exempt natural gas,  electric, or hybrid vehicles	5

L: Motor  Coach/Tour Bus/Passenger Bus Loading/Unloading	5
                                           11

-------
M:  Exemption for Mobile Idle Reduction Technologies - Exempt any mobile idle reduction
technology (generator sets, auxiliary power units (APUs), direct fuel fired heaters) operating to
provide heating, air conditioning, or auxiliary power to the vehicle	6

N: Exemption for Sleeper Berths - Exempt any truck with a sleeper berth for the time period that
the truck driver rests/sleeps	6

O: Penalties	7

P: Outreach and Education	8

Q: Incentives	8
                                           in

-------
A
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
B
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 on this issue revolved primarily around the issue of defining traffic, as
             well as whether or not trucks queuing might be considered being stuck in traffic. It
             was suggested that traffic is when vehicles are stopped on the road, rather than
             off-road. It was also noted that this is usually beyond the control of the driver, so
             an exemption was favored.
             Consensus was reached on the need for an exemption for vehicles stuck in traffic
             or due to adverse weather conditions, but there was significant disagreement on
             how to treat queuing.
             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:   There was minimal discussion on this issue, because most participants agreed on
             the need for this exemption.  However, several suggestions were made.  It was
             suggested that snow plows be included in this category and be given an exemption.
              In addition, it was suggested that the exemption only apply to vehicles when they
             are in an emergency or training mode.  For example, a fire engine parked at a
             grocery store while firemen/women are purchasing groceries would not be allowed
             to idle. Many participants believed that significant outreach to achieve voluntary
             compliance would be needed in this area because they felt that enforcement would
             not be likely against law enforcement or emergency personnel.
Consensus:   General consensus reached on this exemption, with suggestions to include snow
             plows and to allow the exemption only for vehicles in emergency or training mode.

-------
c
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
              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 focused on the second portion of the exemption which would exempt
              idling due to mechanical difficulties. Participants generally felt that this might be
              too vague, and might result in a large loophole that could be exploited, since law
              enforcement personnel would really have no way to tell if there were truly
              mechanical difficulties which prevented the driver from turning off the truck.
              Some participants suggested that a system could be set up in which the driver is
              given a ticket which would be dismissed later once proof of the repair was
              submitted. Alternatively, they suggested that a warning could be given the first
              time, with escalating fines for subsequent similar offenses as a way to reduce
              exploitation of this exemption.  On the issue of the exemption for maintenance,
              servicing, etc., there was agreement that this was needed, but a suggestion was
              made to consider adding that this maintenance must be at "an official lab or
              facility."
              General consensus was reached on the first portion of this exemption for
              maintenance, servicing, etc.  There was consensus on the need for an exemption for
              idling due to mechanical difficulties, but it was noted that states would need to be
              careful to avoid creating a loophole that could be exploited.
D
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).
              There was general agreement by participants on this exemption, and only minimal
              discussion.  The majority of discussion was in relation to the possibility for fraud
              associated with the exemption, and how this could be prevented. It was suggested
              that states might want to consider requiring pre-notification of the authorities that
              testing or R&D would be taking place, or that some type of permit might be
              required in order to obtain the exemption.  Some participants also believed that the
              phrase "is engaged in idling testing operated" should be deleted because it was not
              clear what this meant.
              General consensus reached on this exemption, with suggestions as noted above.
Discussion:
Consensus:

-------
E
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
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.
Participants found this exemption important, and there was minimal discussion.
Two suggestions were made.  The first was to change the phrase "direct drive
trailer refrigeration" to "straight truck refrigeration." The second was to define
idling in this exemption as "not doing useful work." It was noted that some
existing regulations define idling in this way, and in doing so distinguish it from
power take-off applications.
General consensus reached on this exemption, with suggestions as noted above.
F
Issue:

Discussion:
Consensus:
Exemption for Transportation Refrigeration Units - Exempt any trailer with an
independent engine used for the sole purpose of controlling cargo temperature.
Participants noted that TRUs do not run with power generated by an idling main
engine, but instead are essentially auxiliary power units. Therefore, it was
questioned whether or not an exemption is actually needed, since no truck drivers
would idle the main engine to provide power to a TRU, and therefore this law
would not apply. Participants also noted that if there were a case where the TRU
was actually operated with power from the idling main engine, this would likely be
considered a power take off, and would be covered by that exemption. If the
exemption is to remain, several wording changes were recommended:  change
"trailer" to "vehicle" and change "independent engine" to "engine independent of
the propulsion engine".
Many participants questioned whether this exemption is needed due to the fact that
they do not believe TRUs  would be covered by the law since they are technicaly
APUs.  However, if the exemption remains, several wording changes were
recommended as discussed above.
G
Issue:
Discussion:
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.
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.
H
Issue:         Exemption for Weather (Long Haul Trucks) - Exempt vehicles during certain
              weather conditions, both low and high temperature conditions.
Discussion:    Discussion centered on whether or not it was reasonable and humane to expect
              truck drivers to rest or sleep in their trucks without the ability to use air
              conditioning or heat. Trucking representatives were generally strongly in favor of
              exemptions for driver comfort for both sleeper cabs and day cabs, indicating that
              often day cab drivers are forced to sit and wait in their trucks for long periods of
              time. There was also significant discussion about what incentives would be needed
              for truck drivers or trucking companies to invest in technologies that would reduce
              the need to idle in hot or cold weather. As in other meetings, trucking
              representatives pointed out that for truckers, their truck is their home, and not
              allowing them to idle for air conditioning or heating would be equivalent to
              regulating when home owners are allowed to use their heat or air conditioning.
              Representatives of government agencies acknowledged that this is a difficult issue,
              but also indicated the need to find a way to address this idling since it is probably
              the largest source of idling emissions from trucks. A  suggestion offered and
              discussed at length was to provide exemptions for several years, after which the
              exemptions would "sunset" and be removed. This would give truck drivers the
              time to evaluate alternatives to idling, and to select and purchase necessary
              equipment.  Some trucking representatives indicated that this would place an unfair
              burden on smaller trucking companies that do not have the monetary resources of
              larger companies, and in fact would force many of them to go out of business.
Consensus:    No consensus reached.  All agreed that this was an important issue, and that
              enforcement of any temperature exemptions would be very difficult.
I
Issue:

Discussion:
Consensus:
Exemption for Weather (School, Transit Tour Buses) - Exempt vehicles during
certain weather conditions, both low and high temperature conditions.
Discussion on this issue centered on the difficulties of regulating bus idling, given
the different types and uses of buses, the differences in personal thresholds for heat
and cold, travel patterns (county-to-county), and lack of alternatives. Participants
were split concerning whether or not drivers should be allowed to idle buses, but a
majority felt it was reasonable to idle for a limited time period if there were
passengers on board. It was expressed though that if it is only the driver, he/she
should look for an alternative to idling. There was also discussion on potential
liability issues for municipalities and counties if passengers complain about
problems relating to heat and cold if buses are not allowed to idle for passenger
comfort.
One of the three groups felt that there should be no exemption for transit, school,
or tour buses, but the other groups were unable to reach a consensus on the issue.

-------
J
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Exemption for Required Inspections - Exempt the time required for a truck to pass
through any State/Federal inspection where the engine must be idling to conduct
the inspection.
All participants agreed that there was a need to exempt trucks during any State or
Federal inspection, as well as during pre-trip and post-trip inspection.  Several
groups suggested that 5 minutes is typically sufficient to meet idling requirements
of these inspections, and so this could be covered by the general idling time limit
as long as it was at least 5 minutes, thereby eliminating the need for a specific
exemption. One of these two groups, however, acknowledged that it may be
beneficial to have this as a stand-alone exemption in case some states or localities
do not adopt a general idling time limit of at least 5 minutes.
Consensus was reached on the need for this exemption, and 5 minutes was
determined to be a sufficient amount of idling time.  The need for a specific
exemption will depend on the general  idling time limit adopted.
K
Issue:        Exemption for Clean Vehicles - Exempt natural gas, electric, or hybrid vehicles.
Discussion:   Most of the discussion centered on the need for an exemption, and whether or not
             granting an exemption would encourage the purchase of these types of vehicles, or
             would simply send the wrong message that idling is acceptable for certain types of
             vehicles.  All agreed that no exemption is needed for electric vehicles, since they
             do not generate emissions directly when idling. Most felt that there should not be
             an exemption for natural gas and hybrid vehicles, because they still  do consume
             fuel and would be generating unnecessary emissions if idling.
Consensus:   General consensus reached that this exemption should not be allowed.

L
Issue:        Motor Coach/Tour Bus/Passenger Bus Loading/Unloading
Discussion:   Discussion on this issue was limited due to time constraints, but it was the general
             feeling of participants that idling for some amount of time during loading and
             unloading of passengers was reasonable, as long as it was not excessive.  Most felt,
             however, that idling to heat or cool the vehicle prior to boarding, as opposed to
             during boarding, may not be necessary.
Consensus:   General consensus on the need to allow passenger buses an idling exemption only
             when passengers where boarding or disembarking.

-------
M
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
N
Issue:
             Exemption for Mobile Idle Reduction Technologies - Exempt any mobile idle
             reduction technology (generator sets, auxiliary power units (APUs), direct fuel
             fired heaters) operating to provide heating, air conditioning, or auxiliary power to
             the vehicle.
             Discussion focused on whether or not it is appropriate for this to be listed as an
             exemption, since participants did not feel that an APU "idles," and therefore it
             would not be covered under this law.  It was felt that perhaps a more explicit
             definition of "idling" is needed if APUs are to be considered as idling. If they were
             to be included though, opinions were split on whether or not APUs should be
             exempted, primarily because after 2007, the assumption is that new diesel vehicles
             will generate fewer particulate matter emissions than most APUs. Suggestions
             were made that there could be an exemption for the use of APUs on all pre-2007
             model year trucks. Finally, some participants expressed concern on how to define
             a mobile idle reduction technology.
             No consensus was reached, though in general participants agreed that APUs
             represent a major opportunity  to reduce truck idling, and therefore they should be
             careful not to discourage companies from purchasing and using them.
             Exemption for Sleeper Berths - Exempt any truck with a sleeper berth for the time
             period that the truck driver rests/sleeps.
Discussion:   There was significant discussion on this issue with most everyone agreeing that
             truck drivers need to be given the opportunity to remain comfortable.  It was
             pointed out that this is not just an issue of comfort though, because if a truck driver
             cannot sleep well due to heat or cold, he/she will be tired the next day and may pose
             a safety hazard due to this fatigue. There was also agreement among all
             participants that whenever a truck is not occupied by the driver, it should be turned
             off as there is no reason to idle. Temperature limits above or below which idling
             would be allowed were largely dismissed as inappropriate, due to both difficulty  in
             enforcement as well as differences in comfort thresholds of drivers.  It was pointed
             out that a driver from the south may be very comfortable in an 85 degree Fahrenheit
             cab, but a driver from the north may  find this very hot and uncomfortable.  All
             participants agreed that mobile idle reduction technology  seems to be the most
             appropriate method for reducing idling, and there was a discussion of allowing this
             exemption with a sunset several years in the future. This would allow truck drivers
             or trucking companies to identify alternatives to idling and to purchase any
             necessary equipment prior to the sunset  of the exemption. There was also
             significant discussion about whether or not a similar exemption is needed for day
             cabs, since drivers often must sit and wait in these trucks in extreme temperatures
             as well.

-------
Consensus:    No consensus was reached, though there was agreement on a number of points.
              These included the need for better education of drivers, as well as incentives to
              reduce idling.  There was also general agreement that mobile idle reduction
              technology mounted on the truck was going to be the most effective way to reduce
              long-duration idling of trucks with sleeper berths.

O
Issue:         Penalties
Discussion:    Discussion focused on who should be held liable, the truck driver or the trucking
              company owner, and there were strong arguments for both. It was felt that fining
              the driver for violations would hold that driver accountable for his/her actions. On
              the other hand, fining the trucking company would provide an  incentive for the
              company to provide training and idling reduction technologies on the trucks. Many
              felt that difficulty in recordkeeping might ultimately dictate who receives the fine.
              There were also suggestions that both the driver and the company could receive
              notices and/or fines, and this would have the positive impact of encouraging both to
              change how they do things with respect to idling. There was also substantial
              discussion about situations in which drivers are idling while waiting at a facility to
              load or unload. Many felt that the distribution center should share in the liability if
              they are  causing the drivers to wait due to some fault of the facility. It was agreed
              that this would be difficult to enforce, but participants encouraged EPA to consider
              this for the model law. Similarly, there was discussion about truck stops, and
              whether they should be held responsible for allowing trucks to idle on their
              premises.  The trucking industry representatives were generally opposed to this,
              noting that truck stops provide a safe place for drivers to park and rest, and that
              truck stop owners are not responsible for driver idling like a terminal operator.
              Finally, there was discussion about the level of fines, as well as the benefits of first
              issuing a warning.  There was a general agreement that an initial warning should be
              issued both to the driver and to the trucking company.  For subsequent violations,
              there was no agreement on levels of fines, or whether the fines should escalate with
              each subsequent violation.
Consensus:    There was consensus that in some way, both the drivers and the trucking companies
              that employ the drivers need to be made aware of violations when they occur.
              There was no consensus though on who should ultimately pay a monetary fine, and
              so a solution was suggested in which both pay fines  after receipt of an initial
              warning.  Though not consensus, there was a general  opinion voiced by participants
              that the penalty/fine structure should be kept as simple as possible.

-------
p
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Outreach and Education
All agreed that no matter what the idling law would say, it will not be useful
without effective outreach and education of drivers and trucking company
representatives.  A wide variety of options were discussed by participants for
getting the word out both about the need to reduce idling, as well as about the
provisions of the idling laws themselves.  These options included: companies
being required to have a written policy that is distributed to all drivers; drivers
signing a formal company policy notification; distribution of flyers/brochures at
truck stops, ports, distribution centers, terminals, toll booths, weigh  stations, etc.;
radio ads or programs; signage by the side of the road upon entering a state or
jurisdiction with an idling law; training during CDL courses; and sending
information with registration or tax documents.
There was consensus on the need for extensive  and effective outreach and
education in order for idling laws to have any significant positive impact. All
agreed that more education was better and that this should take place through
multiple avenues.
Q
Issue:         Incentives
Discussion:    General discussions took place about incentives that would be effective in
              convincing drivers and trucking companies to try to reduce idling. Most felt that
              two important incentives were a weight waiver for trucks purchasing and installing
              mobile idle reduction technologies, and tax incentives for the purchase of mobile
              idling reduction technologies. Some noted that they had observed trucks parked in
              spaces equipped with truck stop electrification technology, but the trucks were not
              using the equipment.  It was suggested that policies could be put in place by either
              the truck  stops or the  states that if you are parked in a space equipped with idle
              reduction technology, you must use that technology or vacate the space. Another
              suggestion was for more trucking companies to institute incentive plans for drivers,
              wherein drivers receive monetary or some other form of extra compensation as a
              reward for reducing idling. Finally, there was strong support for the concept of
              designated, reserved truck parking spaces for trucks that would not idle. The
              concept of a "SmartWay Rest Area" or "SmartWay Truck Stop" was endorsed by
              many participants.

-------