NEW YORK CITY -- Motorcoach operators wont sit still for far-reaching changes to New York Citys anti-idling law that one tour-and-charter operator calls "lunacy" and "unenforceable."

If enacted, the amended law would prohibit motorcoaches from idling for more than three minutes when the outside temperature exceeds 40 degrees.

A one-minute limit would be in effect near schools, regardless of whether the school is even open.

Industry executives say the proposal would add to traffic congestion because drivers would resort to what is sometimes called a "rolling idle," which increases air pollution.

And, say operators, it would send a clear message that New York City is not tourist friendly, causing a loss of tourism dollars.

In addition, the amended law would perhaps present health hazards for passengers, including school children, on tour buses that would not be adequately cooled in hot weather or heated in near-freezing temperatures.

Godfrey Lebron, chairman of the United Motorcoach Association and vice president and general manager of Paradise Trailways in Hicksville, N.Y, said he could sum up the proposal in one word "lunacy."

"What theyre looking to do is very unenforceable. All its going to do is (force) us to spend a lot of time in court. What is a driver supposed to do measure the temperature to see if its more than 40 degrees? Well have to give them thermometers."

Ken Presley, vice president of the United Motorcoach Association, said the proposal calls for "certified smoke watchers" to file complaints against bus operators that appear to be violating the anti-idling provisions.

"It sounds like itll be a boon for attorneys," said Lebron.

Cases brought under the law would be heard in a criminal court, and only lawyers who are members of the New York State Bar could represent clients. Owners of a bus company could not represent themselves.

Presley noted that "it would be very easy for an out-of-town operator to not even have a clue that hes near a school. It sends a very bad signal to the motorcoach industry that New York is not welcoming the tourism dollars and the shopping dollars that pour into the city every day via buses."

If the proposed amendments are enacted, Lebron predicted that drivers "will start their coaches, build the air up," and then "theyll drive the coach around to get it either warm or cool inside. So, what have we done? We have added to the traffic congestion, and probably added more pollution to the air.

"Driving around at slow speeds will create more pollution than idling for five minutes."

That practice is know as a rolling idle.

"Instead of sitting there idling, they will roll around like they do in (Washington) D.C.," said Presley. "Rolling around burns more fuel and emits more emissions."

Whats more, the possibility of an accident increases, Lebron said.

"The bottom line is Im going to have more exposure," he said. "If the bus is parked, I dont have to worry about a car running a light or a pedestrian walking into its path."

Dale Moser, president and CEO of Coach USA, said he was disappointed by New Yorks attempt to tighten the existing anti-idling law and expand regulatory authority to additional agencies. The move, he said, diminishes New York Citys consumer-oriented focus.

"Coach USA transports almost seven million passengers a year in and out of New York City a combination of commuters, local riders, consumers and tourists to partake in restaurants, theaters and shopping," Moser said.

The proposal comes at a time when the city has embarked on a significant initiative to increase tourism.

"This goes counter intuitive to what theyre trying to do," Moser said.

Regarding the one-minute limit near schools, Moser said, "We do a lot of school transportation. With this, children will be getting into a bus in June or September that hasnt had an opportunity to cool down or in winter it might not be warm enough, which sometimes could be deemed unsafe conditions, especially in frigid weather."

Whats more, Moser said, starting a bus and shutting it down numerous times is not the best way to take care of the vehicle. "It seems they dont understand that a motorcoach is one of the most energy-efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles out there for transporting passengers," he said.

New Yorks elected officials should be focused on there not being enough bus-friendly parking facilities, Moser said, adding that the trend should be toward more public transportation as the nation tries to reduce its dependency on foreign oil.

"They seem to consider the bus an inconvenience," Moser said. "Its not the bus, its the people inside the bus who wont be coming to the city. If you think theyre going to get in their car and come back, theyre not. New York City will lose some significant revenue."

Jerry Kremer, counsel to the Bus Association of New York State and a former member of the state legislature for 23 years, said BANY opposes the proposed measure, which he said was poorly drafted, on three grounds.

"Its difficult enough for the bus industry to park in New York City without more restrictions on where they can stand," Kremer said.

"Second, this legislation says buses cant idle near schools more than one minute, even on days when there are no classes, and it doesnt solve the real problem of the citys lack of places for tourist buses to park.

"The last thing is that the bus industry is the environments best friend, based on the number of cars removed and the amount of pollution we eliminate. This kind of legislation does no one any good."

As a former legislator, Kremer said he is familiar with so-called special-interest bills. The anti-idling measure is being pushed by the New York Asthma Association, he said.

"The industry to pick on in a stagnant economy is not the bus industry," Kremer said. "We bring millions of people a year to the city. They were bragging recently how tourism was up in 2008 over 2007. Why cripple it?"

Lebron said the only aspect of the law that makes sense is a provision to require drivers to pass an idling test.

Presley said city officials should have consulted with the bus industry to develop a workable idling law. As written, he said, it is untenable. He suggested the proposal might even be in violation of federal law.