United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
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.
-------
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
11
-------
A
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Purpose of the law.
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.
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:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Non-Applicability
General agreement that the law should not apply to reefers. Some mention that
these manufacturers are progressive and "good players."
General consensus reached on this non-applicability section.
D
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
General Requirement
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.
Agreement to edit the "embark/disembark" language per suggestion.
-------
E
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Exemption for Traffic
Very similar to CA and other state language on traffic.
General consensus reached on this exemption.
F
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Consensus:
Exemption for Adverse Weather
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.
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:
Discussion:
Exempting for Power Take Off
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.
General consensus reached on this exemption, and consideration should be given
to the limitations of PTO so not everything comes under it.
-------
K
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Exemption for Armored Vehicles
No substantive discussion. All participants recognized the need to exempt this.
General consensus reached on deleting this exemption.
L
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Exemption for Passenger Buses
Participants recommended adding "to maintain passenger comfort."
General agreement if new language suggested above is added.
M
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Conditional Exemption for Mechanical Problems
Suggestion to remove "at a recognized facility" and that the ticket is not be placed
on their record.
General agreement on this exemption.
N
Issue:
Discussion:
Conditional Exemption for Sleeper Berth Trucks
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.
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.
Consensus:
-------
p
Issue:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Penalties
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).
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:
Discussion:
Consensus:
Auxiliary Power Units
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.
General agreement reached if emissions testing validates the situation to be the
case.
------- |