BILL ANALYSIS
SB 124
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 124 (Oropeza)
As Amended April 30, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :26-13
TRANSPORTATION 9-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Eng, Blumenfield, Buchanan, | | |
| |Brownley, Galgaini, Bonnie | | |
| |Lowenthal, | | |
| |John A. Perez, Solorio, | | |
| |Torlakson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+------------------------------+-+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Jeffries, Conway, Garrick, | | |
| |Miller, Niello | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Codifies the existing state regulation that limits
school bus idling and idling near schools, and conforms the
minimum penalty for a violation of this rule to the minimum
penalty ($300) for a violation of the rule to limit the idling
of commercial motor vehicles.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Designates the State Air Resources Board (ARB) as the state
agency charged with coordinating efforts to attain and
maintain ambient air quality standards and as the state agency
with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular
air pollution.
2)Existing regulations adopted by ARB establishes toxic control
measures to limit schoolbus idling and idling at schools.
Those existing regulations require drivers of schoolbuses,
transit buses, school pupil activity buses, youth buses,
general public paratransit vehicles, and specified transit
buses and commercial motor vehicles to, among other things,
turn off the bus or vehicle engine upon stopping at or within
100 feet of a school, prohibits those drivers from turning the
bus or vehicle engine on more than 30 seconds before beginning
SB 124
Page 2
to depart from a school or within 100 feet of a school, and
prohibits those drivers from causing the bus or vehicle to
idle for more than five consecutive minutes or five aggregate
minutes in any one hour at any location greater than 100 feet
from a school.
3)Existing ARB schoolbus idling regulation provides that any
violation of those requirements subjects the driver or the
motor carrier to a minimum civil penalty of $100 and makes any
violation of nonvehicular air pollution control laws, or any
rule, regulation, permit, or order of ARB, or an air quality
management district or an air pollution control district, a
misdemeanor. In addition, the regulation requires a motor
carrier of an affected bus or vehicle to ensure that drivers
are informed of the idling requirements, to track complaints
and enforcement actions regarding the requirements, and to
keep records of such driver education and tracking activities.
4)Existing ARB regulation exempts specific idling situations
where health, safety, or operational concerns take precedence.
Exemptions are provided for idling in the midst of traffic;
to ascertain safe operating conditions of a bus or vehicle;
for test, service, repair, or diagnostic purposes; to
accomplish work, other than transportation, for which a
vehicle was designed (e.g., controlling cargo temperature or
operating a lift, drill, etc.); to operate equipment needed by
persons with disabilities and heaters or air conditioners for
special needs children; to operate defrosters or other
equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency; and to
recharge a hybrid electric bus or vehicle.
5)Existing ARB regulations, effective February 2005, prohibits
the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles for more
than five minutes, regardless of the location. It also
establishes the minimum civil penalty accompanying a violation
of this rule at $100.
6)Increases the penalty for violating anti-idling regulations
for heavy-duty diesel vehicles from $100 to $300, pursuant to
AB 233 (Jones), Chapter 592, Statutes of 2007.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
SB 124
Page 3
COMMENTS : According to the author, "While we currently have a
Governor who is often seen as "green-friendly," it is
anticipated that perhaps the next Administration may not be as
eco-friendly. Planning for such a contingency is paramount, so
codifying these ARB rules makes it much harder to roll them back
without significant public and legislative input. Why codify
this regulation over others? Senate District 28 has some of the
most polluted air in the country, and this, coupled with the
high rate of asthma among children in SD 28, has pushed this
issue to the forefront. In many cases, children have greater
exposure than adults to airborne pollutants. Infants and
children generally breathe more rapidly than adults, which
increases their exposure to any pollutants in the air. Infants
and children often breathe through their mouths, bypassing the
filtering effect of the nose and allowing more pollutants to be
inhaled. Children are also often more susceptible to the health
effects of air pollution because their immune systems and vital
organs are still developing and immature. Lead that is inhaled
is more easily deposited in the fast-growing bones of children.
Irritation or inflammation caused by air pollution is more
likely to obstruct their narrower airways?Motor carriers are
required to educate drivers of the regulation and retain records
of the education, complaints of non-compliance, enforcement
actions, and remedies for at least three years and make these
records available to enforcement personnel."
In December, 2002, ARB adopted, within Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations, a new rule entitled "Airborne
Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at
Schools." That rule, which became effective the following July,
placed new restrictions on the idling of schoolbuses and on the
idling of other commercial vehicles in the vicinity of schools.
The rule was developed in response to concerns over the exposure
of school children to dangerous levels of vehicular emissions.
It was also intended to protect parents, teachers, and others
who frequent schools as well as the neighborhoods that surround
those schools. Additionally, ARB also expected the rule to
reduce the cost of operating affected buses and vehicles by
reducing the fuel use and the engine wear associated with
unnecessary idling. This bill would simply codify that rule.
Some might argue that, as a matter of principle, regulations are
best left uncodified so that future modifications may be made
administratively. The author feels, however, that in this
SB 124
Page 4
instance the health benefits of these regulations are too
important to risk their weakening or evisceration by future
administrative action. Putting the regulations into statute
would require affirmative steps by both the Legislature and the
Governor in order for the program to be materially changed.
This is the sort of protection the author is seeking.
Related bill: In 2004, the Legislature passed AB 2644
(Oropeza), a nearly identical measure to SB 124. In his veto
message, the Governor indicated that "? AB 2644 is duplicative
of existing state regulations for idling school buses and is
unnecessary. This bill will limit ARB's discretionary authority
to modify the program. Future refinements, such as changes to
reporting and training provisions and other substantive and
nonsubstantive amendments, would need to go through the
legislative process and be approved by the Governor. This is an
unnecessary level of micro-management that the state's
regulatory system is designed to address."
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0001650