New York City strengthens anti-idling laws, reflecting nationwide trend of state and local idling regulation
On February 10, 2009, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed legislation reducing the amount of time that vehicles can idle near schools and expanding New York City's enforcement of idling laws. Introductory Number 631-A reduces the amount of time that non-emergency vehicles can idle adjacent to schools from three minutes to one minute. In addition, the legislation requires the Environmental Control Board and Department of Finance to submit annual reports on the number of idling violations issued and the total value of penalties assessed. Introductory Number 40-A authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Sanitation to enforce idling laws (enforcement was previously limited to the Department of Environmental Protection and the Police Department). The new legislation also gives civilians the ability to report truck idling violations. (Previously, citizens were entitled to report noncompliant buses only.) Hearings were recently held on a third piece of potential legislation, known as Proposed Introductory Number 881-A, which, if passed would require the city to implement technology to allow traffic enforcement agents to issue idling tickets via their hand-held computers.
Numerous states and municipalities have enacted similar laws aimed at reducing idling with idle times ranging from approximately 2 minutes to 15 minutes and fines ranging from approximately $25 to $25,000 (and in some cases, imprisonment). In April 2006, EPA compiled a list of state and local anti-idling laws. However, new state and local laws have since been passed and existing laws have since been modified. Accordingly, the EPA website now directs viewers to a continually-updated list of state and local anti-idling laws compiled by the American Transportation Research Institute.
California's anti-idling laws are some of the most rigorous. In July 2004, California adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling ("ATCM"), which prohibits drivers of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds from idling the vehicle's primary diesel engine for more than 5 minutes anywhere in California. In October 2005, the California Air Resources Board ("ARB") amended the ATCM, effective January 1, 2008. The amended ATCM applies to sleeper berth trucks, which were previously exempt from the anti-idling regulations. In addition, the amended ATCM requires heavy-duty diesel engines manufactured for model year 2008 and later to either include a non-programmable engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of idling or meet a new standard of emitting no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides per hour while idling. Operators of trucks with heavy-duty diesel engines manufactured before model year 2008 are required to manually shut down their engines when idling more than five minutes. The amended ATCM also imposes restrictions on emission producing alternative technologies, such as diesel-fueled auxiliary power systems ("APS") and fuel-fired heaters. Violations of the amended ATCM range from a minimum penalty of $300 for first time violators to up to $10,000 and/or criminal charges. Further, as part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32), ARB has proposed that strong enforcement of anti-idling laws for trucks be added to the list of early action measures.
Critics of state and local anti-idling laws worry that the laws will be used as a source of revenue for state and local governments, particularly during these difficult economic times. Other opponents have expressed concern about inconsistencies between various state and local laws, and the interplay between anti-idling laws and other laws. For example, workers in the trucking industry are concerned that anti-idling laws could interfere with their ability to comply with other laws, such as laws requiring truck drivers to have specified amounts of uninterrupted rest. Workers in the trucking industry are further concerned about the problems associated with drivers having to continually be aware of the applicable state and/or local laws at each break location. Some trucking industry workers have even indicated that they will avoid California because of its rigorous laws. Of course, depending on the industry and the degree of federal regulation involved, there are also likely to be federal preemption issues implicated by these types of state and local efforts.
