Pennsylvania Code
Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.

PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 96-1532

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 67--TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[67 PA. CODE CH. 171]

School Buses and School Vehicles

[26 Pa.B. 4411]

   The Department of Transportation (Department), Bureau of Motor Vehicles, by this order adopts amendments to Chapter 171 (relating to school buses and school vehicles). Notice of proposed rulemaking was published at 25 Pa.B. 5589 (December 9, 1995), with an invitation to submit written comments within 30 days of publication. The Department received seven comments.

Comments Received

   The Department received comments from the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC); American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP); M. A. Brightbill Body Works, Inc. (Brightbill); Elwyn Institute; HMS School for Children with Cerebral Palsy (HMS School); Pennsylvania School Bus Association (PSBA); and the University of Pittsburgh, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (University of Pittsburgh). The following is a summary of the comments received and the Department's response:

   (1)  IRRC expressed concern regarding the effective date of these amendments, as set forth in § 171.1(b) (relating to applicability). This subsection was proposed to be amended by establishing an effective date of September 1, 1996. If this final adoption order would have been published prior to the September 1, 1996, effective date, IRRC would not have been concerned with this subsection. However, if circumstances precluded the necessary approvals and publication of the final adoption order before September 1, 1996, IRRC recommended the Department amend this section to make these amendments effective upon publication, or a specific time period after publication.

   The Department anticipated adopting these amendments prior to the September 1, 1996, effective date. However, realizing that circumstances may arise that might delay the adoption of these amendments, the Department has heeded the suggestion of IRRC. Section 171.1(b) has been further amended by replacing the pro- posed September 1, 1996, effective date with an effective date of September 14, 1996, except that §§ 171.55(b) and 171.124(b) are effective September 15, 1997.

   (2)  IRRC, Elwyn Institute and the HMS School had comments concerning §§ 171.2 and 171.91 (relating to definitions; and general requirements). All three commentators recommended that § 171.2 be amended by revising the definition of the term ''specially equipped school bus.'' The HMS School and Elwyn Institute requested that the Department replace the phrase ''special education children'' with the phrase ''school children enrolled in special education programs.'' IRRC recommended further clarification to include any children who require specially equipped transportation. In order to focus on the needs, rather than the category of student, IRRC suggested the Department delete the phrase ''special education'' from the definition.

   The concerns regarding § 171.91 are similar. The Elwyn Institute and the HMS School requested the phrase ''school buses used for transporting special education (exceptional) children'' be amended to read, ''school buses transporting students who are enrolled in special education.'' IRRC recommended that the Department incorporate language from the definition of ''special education (exceptional) children,'' located in § 171.2, into the language of § 171.91. Further, if the Department accepts this recommendation, IRRC further recommended the deletion of the definition of ''special education (exceptional) children'' since the definition would no longer be necessary.

   Since the purpose of this chapter is to promulgate equipment, operation and safety standards for school buses and other vehicles used to transport school children, the Department agrees with IRRC that the definition of the term ''specially equipped school bus'' should address the needs of the student. The Department, therefore, has further amended the definition of the term ''specially equipped school bus'' by deleting the phrase ''special education.'' Further, the definition of the term ''special education (exceptional) children'' has been deleted since this term is mentioned only in § 171.91. Moreover, the Department has taken the advice of IRRC and deleted the term ''special education (exceptional) children'' from § 171.91 and replaced it with language explaining the term. The replacement language, however, differs from that presently in § 171.2. The definition of the term ''special education (exceptional) children'' was incorporated from 24 P. S. § 13-1371, which included a definition of ''exceptional children.'' This section was amended by the act of June 30, 1995 (P. L. 20, No. 26) by replacing the phrase ''exceptional children'' with the phrase ''children with exceptionalities.'' Further, the definition for this term was substantially amended. Therefore, § 171.91 has been further amended by incorporating the applicable amended language of 24 P. S. § 13-1371. The relevant language defines ''children with exceptionalities'' as ''children of school age who have a disability.''

   Finally, IRRC questioned why the Department proposed to amend the definitions of the terms ''bus,'' ''GVWR,'' ''school bus'' and ''school vehicle'' by referencing the corresponding definitions in 75 Pa.C.S. § 102 (relating to definitions). IRRC recommended that the Department include in the final-form regulations the complete definitions for these terms as set forth in the 75 Pa.C.S. (Vehicle Code). The Department, after further discussion with IRRC, realizes that the referencing of the Vehicle Code definitions will cause persons affected by these regulations to go to another source to determine the meaning of these terms. Therefore, to alleviate any problems that may have been created by referencing the Vehicle Code definitions, the Department has further amended this section by including the Vehicle Code definitions for the terms ''bus,'' ''GVWR,'' ''school bus'' and ''school vehicle.''

   (3)  IRRC, Brightbill, Elwyn Institute and the HMS School commented on § 171.21 (relating to exhaust system). Subsection (a) requires the exhaust pipe, muffler and tailpipe to be securely attached to the chassis. The Elwyn Institute, HMS School and IRRC requested the Department establish a specific standard or other qualification to clarify what is meant by ''securely'' attached. According to the inspection criteria at § 175.110(d)(6) (relating to inspection procedure), an inspection station mechanic shall reject a bus if the exhaust system elements are not securely fastened with proper clamps and hangers. The Department believes that the phrase ''proper clamps and hangers'' relates to clamps and hangers installed and recommended for use by the manufacturer. To eliminate confusion of affected persons, and to promote the safety of school bus occupants and the motoring public, the Department, therefore, has amended § 171.21(a) to require the exhaust system to be secured to the chassis with clamps and hangers of a type and installed as recommended by the chassis manufacturer. The Department believes this amended language more clearly indicates how to attach the exhaust pipe, muffler and tailpipe to the chassis.

   Brightbill believed the Department should extend, from June 15, 1998, to September 1, 2000, the deadline for equipping nonconforming school buses with tailpipe extensions that do not discharge to the atmosphere at or within 6 inches forward of the rearmost part of the school bus. Citing an estimated $500--$900 to convert a side-discharging exhaust pipe to a rear-discharging exhaust pipe, Brightbill opined that the longer phase-in time would allow school districts and contractors to betterbudget for the conversion of nonconforming exhaust systems.

   The amendments to this section were proposed to bring the Department's school bus exhaust system requirements into conformance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 CFR 393.83 (relating to exhaust system location). School bus manufacturers must manufacture school buses in compliance with these, and other applicable Federal regulations. Further, when a school bus is used for purposes other than school bus operations, or is being operated in interstate commerce, it is required to comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

   In this Commonwealth, school buses are not used exclusively for the transportation of school children. Many school buses are also used for other types of transportation needs, some of which necessitate operating in interstate commerce. School buses equipped with nonconforming tailpipe systems could be cited for violating the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations when traveling in other states. An additional issue was brought to the Department by school bus drivers and legislators. These entities were concerned about exhaust fumes filtering through open windows into the passengers' compartment.

   Before publishing the proposed amendment, the Department met with members of the Commonwealth's Pupil Transportation Advisory Committee and the State Police to discuss the amendment. At this meeting, the parties discussed the estimated cost differences involved, life expectancy of the tailpipe and an appropriate time period to allow for compliance with the proposed amendment. Moreover, upon receipt of Brightbill's comment, the Department contacted Rohrer Bus Service to obtain cost estimates for the installation of the Federally-required exhaust system.

   Using International buses as an example, it would cost approximately $171.19, including labor, to have the tailpipe extend at or within 6 inches forward of the rearmost part of the bus. This is an increase of $53.39 over the installation of a tailpipe that extends within 60 inches to the left rear wheel as measured from the center of the wheel axis. For diesel-powered school buses, the cost would be approximately $206.16, resulting in an increase of $36.86. The life expectancy of a tailpipe is estimated at approximately 3 years. This information tallies with the information that was discussed at the meeting with the Commonwealth's Pupil Transportation Advisory Committee and State Police. The proposed June 15, 1998, date was agreed upon as a reasonable and fair compliance date for the amendment. For these reasons, the Department believes it is necessary for this section to remain consistent with Federal requirements and that conformance with Federal exhaust system requirements should not be further delayed.

   (4)  IRRC, the AAP, Elwyn Institute and HMS School expressed concerns about § 171.31 (relating to passenger's load). IRRC noted that the heading for § 171.31(b)(4) reads ''Gross vehicle weight training'' and suggested that it should read ''gross vehicle weight rating.'' This heading is the result of an inadvertent printing error that occurred at publication. IRRC was correct in its belief that the heading should read ''Gross vehicle weight rating.'' The Department appreciated IRRC bringing this error to its attention and has amended this heading accordingly.

   Further, the Elwyn Institute and HMS School expressed concern about how the total seated pupil weight is determined. Both commentators suggested the Department look to the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation for suggested language. The Department compared the language of the suggested standards with that of § 171.31(a) as a whole. Paragraph (1) of this subsection states that the driver's weight, for the purposes of calculation, is 150 pounds. Paragraph (2) states the pupil weight is 120 pounds per pupil. This language is identical to that of the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation. The language in § 171.31(b)(1) and (2) is substantially similar to the language dealing with maximum actual gross weight and axle weight in the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation. Therefore, the Department believes it is unnecessary to amend § 171.31 since that section contains essentially the same information as the definition of the term ''passenger load'' in the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation.

   Finally, the AAP, Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested the Department clarify how to calculate the passenger load if a student is transported with additional equipment, for example a wheelchair, mobility device or another type of medical equipment. There are many variances in elements such as style, size and weight of wheelchairs, mobility devices and other types of medical equipment. There is no one specific or average weight the Department may use to clarify calculation of the passenger load when medical equipment is involved. As the HMS School pointed out, some wheelchairs are quite heavy. For example, a wheelchair designed for easy folding and storage is usually manufactured at a minimal weight, whereas an electric powered wheelchair may weigh several hundred pounds. This information is better known at the school or school district level. School personnel shall consider the number and weight of these items, as well as the number of passengers being transported, when planning school bus routes in order avoid exceeding the maximum gross vehicle weight indicated on the Federal weight certification label and to comply with section 4945 of the Vehicle Code (relating to penalties for exceeding maximum weights).

   In addition, after checking page 19 of the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation, the Department found that this page does not give a detailed gross vehicle weight calculation for school buses transporting students who utilize wheelchairs or other types of mobility devices. Therefore, the Department believes it is inappropriate to further amend this section to provide further information for calculating the passenger load when students are being transported with additional equipment. These calculations are best left to the individual school or school district, which is better able to ascertain its resources and is aware of when the issue of a wheelchair or other mobility device becomes relevant.

   (5)  Brightbill, the PSBA and IRRC expressed concern regarding § 171.47 (relating to color). The PSBA and IRRC believed the introductory language of paragraph (3) to be mandatory, which would be in direct contradiction of the intent the Department expressed in the Preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 25 Pa.B. 5589. The language in contention is as follows: ''School buses equipped with reflective material, other than that required under §§ 171.50 and 171.59 (relating to doors and emergency exits; and lamps and signals), shall be equipped with reflective material. . . .'' The Department interprets this sentence as applying only to school buses equipped with reflective material other than that provided for in §§ 171.50 and 171.59. This paragraph, therefore, does not apply to school buses without additional reflective material. Realizing, however, that the language as proposed has inadvertently generated confusion, the Department has further amended this section to clarify that if a school bus is equipped with reflective material--other than that required by §§ 171.50(b)(3) and 171.59(b)(2)(vi)(A)--the additional reflective material shall be applied consistent with § 171.47(3).

   Further, Brightbill recommended the Department amend its minimum and maximum width requirements for additional reflective material applied to the side of a school bus. The Department proposed that the material be at least 6 inches in width, and not more than 12 inches in width. Brightbill stated that the Blue Bird Corporation has been installing a 2-inch strip of reflective material the full length of each side of its school buses and the strips have provided excellent side visibility at dawn and evening hours. A 6-inch to 12-inch strip, Brightbill asserted, would be too wide, unnecessary and more prone to peel off or be damaged in collisions. To alleviate this problem, Brightbill recommended the reflective material be between 2 inches and 4 inches in width.

   The Department obtained the 6-inch to 12-inch recommendation from the 1990 National Standards for School Buses and National Standards for School Bus Operations. This recommendation was adopted by the majority of states. However, after publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking at 25 Pa.B. 5589, the Department noted that the 1995 National Standards on School Transportation amended its recommendation to a 1 and 3 1/4-inch minimum. This recommendation falls in line with that of Brightbill's. Since these reflective markings are optional, and since Brightbill's claims have merit, the Department has further amended § 171.47 by deleting the 6-inch to 12-inch requirement and replacing it with a 1 and 3 1/4-inch to 4-inch requirement. This amendment will reduce costs to school bus owners and operators wishing to affix additional reflective material to their school buses, yet will not compromise safety by diminishing a school bus' visibility in fog and inclement weather.

   (6)  The AAP, Elwyn Institute, HMS School and IRRC expressed concern about how fire extinguishers and first aid kits were to be mounted in school buses. Sections 171.51 and 171.52 (relating to fire extinguisher; and first aid) require school buses to be equipped with a fire extinguisher and first aid kit. These items are to be mounted in the driver's compartment. Sections 171.122, 171.123, 171.132 and 171.133 mirror the requirements of §§ 171.51 and 171.52.

   All commentators recommended the Department establish specific test criteria concerning how these items are mounted. IRRC requested the Department clarify the phrase ''securely placed and mounted.'' The AAP agreed with IRRC 's request and further suggested the phrase be clarified in terms of a 30mph/20g sled test. The Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested that mounted items comply with some type of crash testing criteria, suggesting the following language from the 1990 National Standards for School Buses and National Standards for School Bus Operations: ''Portable student support equipment or special accessory items shall be secured at the mounting location to withstand a pulling force of five times the weight of the item, or shall be retained in an enclosed, latched compartment.''

   After extensive research, which included contacting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the University of Pittsburgh, the Department was unable to locate a Federal or SAE sled test or crash test standard that specifically addresses the mounting and installation of first aid kits, fire extinguishers or portable life support equipment. The information the Department received from the University of Pittsburgh revealed that the test requirements and specifications mentioned in their comments, SAE J2249, have not been finalized. A working committee is drafting language for an SAE J2249, which the committee hopes to present to NHTSA in an effort to encourage the amendment of Federal crash test standards, specifically 49 CFR 571.201, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201 (relating to occupant protection in interior impact). This standard addresses occupant protection for passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Presently, however, SAE J2249 is not available. Moreover, if SAE J2249 is established as a part of FMVSS No. 201, its requirements would not extend to school buses.

   Further, portable life support systems and other types of medical equipment that are not school bus or passenger vehicle equipment items usually must remain near the person using the equipment. Since the securement of these items is not, at this time, addressed by Federal school bus or passenger vehicle equipment test standards, and an SAE test standard is not available, the Department believes it inappropriate to amend this chapter to address sled test or crash test requirements not yet established through Federal or SAE standards. The Department, after further discussion with IRRC, has instead amended §§ 171.51 and 171.52 to require fire extinguishers and first aid kits to be mounted as directed by the manufacturer. This requirement will give guidance to those installing these items. Mirror provisions at §§ 171.122, 171.123, 171.132 and 171.133 have been similarly amended to reflect this change.

   (7)  The AAP, Elwyn Institute and HMS School expressed concern regarding § 171.56 (relating to inside height). This section sets forth the minimum inside body height of a school bus, which is 72 inches. The commentators requested the Department establish a minimum height allowance for school vehicles. The Elwyn Institute and HMS School noted that some adolescent students, transported on school vehicles in wheelchairs, barely have head clearance into the vehicle via the wheelchair lift area, let alone within the van itself. These commentators requested the Department establish a headroom clearance standard for school vehicles that would, in effect, require students in wheelchairs to be transported in school buses instead of school vehicles.

   Since § 171.56 pertains only to school buses, amending this section to address school vehicle inside height would be inappropriate. The term ''school vehicle'' applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and other vehicles designed and manufactured to meet motorists' basic transportation needs. These vehicles come in various makes, models and body styles and are not designed and manufactured for transporting school children. Further, section 4553 of the Vehicle Code (relating to general requirements for other vehicles transporting school children) allows a school-chartered vehicle to be used without restriction for the transportation of school children with special needs as may be necessary to make reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Since the Legislature did not grant the Department the authority to prescribe the height and other dimensions of school-chartered vehicles, and since school vehicles met the applicable Federal safety requirements when these vehicles were manufactured, the Department believes it lacks authority to address the inside height of school vehicles or 11--15 passenger vehicles used for the transportation of school children with special needs.

   In addition, this chapter applies to equipment and safety requirements for school buses as provided for in section 4552 of the Vehicle Code (relating to general requirements for school buses) and for other vehicles transporting school children as provided for in section 4553 of the Vehicle Code. Section 4553(b) of the Vehicle Code permits a school-chartered vehicle to be used without restriction for the transportation of school children with special needs. Accordingly, the Department does not believe it has the authority to designate the type of vehicle a school or a school district must use to transport students with special needs.

   (8)  The PSBA expressed concern regarding § 171.59(b)(2) which sets forth the requirements for the use of stop signal arm devices on school buses. Section 171.59(b)(2)(v) was proposed to prohibit lettering, symbols or markings on the forward side of the rearmost stop signal arm if two stop signal arms are used. It was unclear to PSBA why the second stop signal arm may not have the word ''STOP'' printed on both sides, and PSBA suggested that this prohibition be removed. The PSBA believed that allowing both sides of the stop signal arm to be lettered would not deter from the safety function of the device. In fact, the PSBA believed eliminating this prohibition could enhance the safety function of the device for a passing motorist who, not seeing the first arm, observes the second arm further along the school bus. Further, the PSBA noted that this amendment would require school bus contractors and school districts to stock two different stop signal arms. The PSBA rightly pointed out that it would be more cost efficient to stock one stop signal arm than two different ones. For these reasons, the PSBA recommended the second stop signal arm should have the word ''STOP'' on both sides.

   The amendments to this section were proposed to bring the Department's stop signal arm requirements into conformance with FMVSS No. 131 (relating to school bus pedestrian safety devices). School buses are not required to be equipped with a second stop signal arm by either FMVSS No. 131 or section 4552(b.1) of the Vehicle Code. However, manufacturers who equip new school buses with a second stop signal arm must comply with FMVSS No. 131. In other words, the second stop signal arm may not have lettering, symbols or markings on the forward side and the forward side may not be reflectorized.

   If the Department acceded to the PSBA's request, the consequences would be threefold. First, school bus manufacturers would not be permitted to manufacture and sell school buses with nonconforming second stop signal arms for use in this Commonwealth. Second, persons operating school buses with nonconforming second stop signal arms could be cited for violating FMVSS No. 131 if traveling in interstate commerce. Third, school districts and school bus contractors who have nonconforming second stop signal arms installed on their school buses could be cited for violating § 171.84 (relating to additional equipment items). Section 171.84 requires equipment installed after manufacture to comply with applicable Federal standards. Therefore, to avoid these consequences, the Department has refrained from amending § 171.59(b)(2) as requested.

   (9)  The Elwyn Institute and HMS School commented on § 171.68(b) (relating to seat belts). Both commentators requested clarification on how Type 2 seat belts would be mounted for mid-row or aisle passenger seats. This request arose from the wording of the following sentence: ''All other designated seating positions shall have a Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assembly.'' The Department, after reading the sentence in question, realized that the word ''and'' was included in the sentence in error. Therefore, the word ''and'' has been replaced with the more appropriate preposition ''or.'' This amendment is designed to clarify that either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly may be used. Since Type 2 seat belts cannot be used for mid-row or aisle seats because there exists no location on which to secure the upper torso restraint, Type 1 seat belts would be used at these seating positions. The Department appreciated the Elwyn Institute and HMS School bringing this error to its attention and believes this amendment will alleviate their concerns.

   (10)  IRRC, the AAP, Elwyn Institute, HMS School and PSBA all expressed concern regarding § 171.69 (relating to seats and crash barriers). The Elwyn Institute, HMS School and PSBA were concerned about the exemption in § 171.69(4) relating to car seats manufactured and designed for use on school buses. The PSBA commented that there is not a car seat approved for use on a school bus. However, the Elwyn Institute and HMS School commented that currently there are only a few child safety seats--the MCM and Carrie Bus seats--manufactured and crash tested for use on school bus seats. Further, the AAP, Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested the Department define the term ''portable seats.''

   On August 7, 1995, the Department met with the PSBA and members of the Pupil Transportation Committee to discuss these amendments. The attendees informed the Department that they were unaware of child safety seats manufactured for school bus seats. It was agreed that the Department would amend these regulations to exempt only child safety seats designed and manufactured under FMVSS No. 213 (relating to child restraint systems). The Department, therefore, has further amended § 171.69(4) to reflect this requirement. Moreover, since the intent of this paragraph is to ensure that safe seats are used on school buses, the Department has further amended this section by deleting references to specific types of seats and clarifying that any seat that does not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 222 (relating to school bus passenger seating and crash protection) is not permitted. The Department believes this clarification will alleviate the need to list the types of seats allowed on school buses. Moreover, the Department has further amended this paragraph by deleting the unnecessary phrase, ''designed and manufactured for use on school bus seats,'' since FMVSS No. 213 applies to child restraints and seats designed for use in airplanes and motor vehicles, and school buses fall into the latter category.

   Further, the Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested the Department rephrase § 171.69(8) as follows: ''All seating shall be forward-facing.'' The commentators believed this wording will clarify that wheelchairs, as well as traditional seating, must be forward-facing. The Department does not believe it necessary to amend this paragraph as requested since the current language reads: ''Seats shall be forward-facing,'' and § 171.93(1) (relating to securement devices and safety restraints) clearly states that wheelchairs or other types of mobility devices are to be secured in a forward-facing position.

   Finally, the AAP questioned what is meant by the phrase ''securely mounted'' as used in § 171.69(9) and asked at what force the seat is likely to disengage or crumble. IRRC, the Elwyn Institute and HMS School expressed similar concerns. The Department realizes that the word ''securely'' is an ambiguous term and has therefore further amended this paragraph to clarify that seats are to be installed so as to prevent seats from disengaging from the seat frame under extraordinary operating conditions. Since school bus manufacturers shall install school bus seats under FMVSS No. 222, and § 171.84 requires equipment added to a school bus after its manufacture to meet applicable Federal standards, the Department believes no further clarification is necessary.

   (11)  IRRC and the AAP expressed concern regarding § 171.84. The AAP believed the wording should be broad enough to allow for new technology currently in the design process. Further, the AAP suggested that additional equipment that accompanies a child, such as oxygen or a ventilator, be mounted or secured according to the 30mph/20g sled test criteria. IRRC agreed with this suggestion, but recommended the Department add the requirement to a new section in Subchapter D (relating to specially equipped school buses).

   The Department believes the current language is broad enough to allow for new technology for school bus equipment. If the equipment is not required by Federal or State law, the equipment will be allowed if it does not replace or interfere with mandatory equipment, and possesses the trademark, name or code symbol under which it is approved. This language does not exclude new technology or address how the equipment is designed. However, this language does not, nor is it intended to, allow for the addition of experimental equipment. The Department wishes to ensure, as much as possible, that school buses have equipment that has been adequately tested and performs its intended function.

   Further, the Department believes that personal equipment such as oxygen and ventilators should remain near the student using the equipment. At this time, neither Federal nor SAE standards explicitly address mounting or securing requirements for personal equipment. Extensive research has revealed that the SAE J2249 mentioned by the commentators is presently being drafted by a working committee at the University of Pittsburgh. This committee anticipates presenting the proposed SAE J2249 language to the NHTSA. The hope is that the NHTSA will amend FMVSS No. 201 to include the SAE J2249. The purpose and scope of FMVSS No. 201, however, is to specify requirements to afford impact protection for occupants for passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Therefore, until there are Federal or SAE standards developed to specifically address mounting or securing equipment such as oxygen and ventilators, the Department believes it inappropriate to add a new section in Subchapter D to provide more specific or detailed sled test or other crash test requirements relating to mounting or securing this equipment.

   (12)  The Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested the Department consider amending § 171.91 to include vehicles such as minivans. The commentators want the Department to establish standards for passenger vehicles that transport students enrolled in early intervention services. According to 11 P. S. § 875-102 (relating to legislative findings for early intervention), early intervention services are designed to increase ''the opportunity for infants, toddlers and eligible young children who are handicapped in order to minimize their potential for developmental delay.'' Students enrolled in early intervention services are usually transported in minivans and other passenger vehicles that conform with only the Federal safety requirements for the vehicle as originally manufactured.

   Since § 171.91 pertains only to specially equipped school buses, an amendment addressing the utilization of other vehicles such as minivans would be inappropriate. Further, although the Department understands the concerns of the Elwyn Institute and HMS School, amending the school vehicle subchapter to mirror the provisions for specially equipped school buses would be inappropriate at this juncture. The vehicles and entities that would be affected by the suggested amendment would be numerous. Further, since the suggested amendment was not mentioned in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the affected entities have not been afforded the opportunity to comment. Moreover, the costs involved in adapting affected vehicles to requirements similar to those for specially equipped school buses would be prohibitive since the affected entities would not have had the opportunity to budget for these adaptations. Therefore, the Department has refrained from amending this section as requested. The Department will, however, address this issue at future meetings of the Transporting Students with Special Needs Task Force so the affected parties may discuss the issue and provide suggestions on how best to proceed.

   (13)  IRRC, the PSBA, Elwyn Institute, HMS School, AAP and University of Pittsburgh all expressed concern regarding § 171.93. The Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested the Department clearly define the term ''mobility device,'' and suggested including parameters that would be requisite for transportation of powered scooters.

   Prior to the proposal of this amendment, the Department attempted to obtain an official medical term or definition for the term ''mobility device.'' To that end, the Department spoke to various medical organizations as well as facilities selling mobility devices. Further, upon receipt of these comments, the Department contacted the HMS School for its input in obtaining a definition for the term ''mobility device.'' In both instances, the Department could not find anyone aware of an official medical term or definition that would encompass all available types and styles of devices used for children with special needs. The Department believes school buses are used to transport students with any special need and the term ''mobility device'' should be broad enough to include any type of device that may be used by these students, not just wheelchairs or powered scooters. Moreover, the Department used a term that is similar to the one used in the 1990 National Standards for School Buses and National Standards for School Bus Operations and the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation. In both publications, the term used for these devices is ''other mobile positioning device,'' whereas FMVSS No. 222 only provides requirements for wheelchairs. The Department also believes the current language must be broad enough to allow for emerging technology for these devices.

   Further, the University of Pittsburgh commented based on the assumption that this subchapter includes school buses, as defined by FMVSS 222, and smaller--less than 10 passengers--multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). The University of Pittsburgh believes that, due to the manner in which securement and restraint devices are manufactured, tested, installed and used, it is reasonable to assume the same products will be used in both sizes of vehicles. The University of Pittsburgh further asserts that FMVSS 222 does not recognize this important fact, as it only requires a static pull test of the securement devices; a test the University of Pittsburgh believes does not adequately cover the situation in which a lighter vehicle is involved in crash conditions. The University of Pittsburgh believes the 1995 National Standards for School Buses recognizes this limitation by requiring dynamic testing to SAE Standard J2249 and strongly urges the Department to seriously consider this precedent and add this requirement to Chapter 171. The University of Pittsburgh believes SAE J2249 will assure that an occupant will be secured and restrained at impact crash loads up to 20g/30mph, providing even greater protection for lighter school aged children.

   The Department contacted the Society of Automotive Engineers and the University of Pittsburgh to find out more about the 20g/30mph sled test and SAE J2249. The SAE was unaware of an SAE J2249 or the sled test. According to the University of Pittsburgh, SAE J2249 has not yet been developed. Members of the University of Pittsburgh are on a working committee developing language and specifications for a sled test and SAE J2249, which the committee expects to present to the NHTSA to encourage the amendment of FMVSS No. 201. This Federal standard applies to passenger cars and to MPVs, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. However, FMVSS 222 relates only to school bus passenger seating and crash protection and does not, as the University of Pittsburgh infers, apply to passenger cars, MPVs, trucks or other vehicles. The Department believes the University of Pittsburgh's confusion concerning MPVs and school buses being equipped to transport students with special needs may be caused by the introductory language for a section on ''Standards for Specially Equipped School Buses'' found in the 1995 National Standards for School Transportation. The language reads as follows: ''As defined by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49 § 571.3, ''Bus means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons'' (11 or more including the driver). This definition also embraces the more specific category, school bus. Vehicles with 10 or fewer passenger positions (including the driver) cannot be classified as buses. For this reason, the Federal vehicle classification multipurpose passenger vehicle (CFR 49 § 571.3) or MPV, must be used by manufacturers for these vehicles in lieu of the classification school bus. This classification system, while requiring compliance with a less stringent set of Federal standards for MPVs, does not preclude state or local agencies or these national standards from requiring compliance of school bus-type MPVs with the more stringent Federal standards for school buses.''

   Under section 4103(b) of the Vehicle Code (relating to promulgation of vehicle equipment standards), promulgated Federal standards have the same force and effect as if promulgated by the Department and supersede any Commonwealth standard applicable to the same aspect of performance for a vehicle or item of equipment. Since wheelchair accommodation is not mentioned in Federal standards relating to MPVs, the Department believes that issues such as wheelchair securement anchorages, latches and wheelchair occupant restraint anchorage requirements for school buses could be applied to MPVs, so long as the Federal standards for these vehicles will not be compromised by the installation of the additional equipment. However, an amendment of this magnitude would be inappropriate at this juncture. The vehicles and entities that would be affected by the suggested amendment would be numerous. Further, since the suggested amendment was not mentioned in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the affected entities have not been afforded the opportunity to comment. Moreover, the costs involved in adapting affected vehicles would be prohibitive since affected entities have not had the opportunity to budget for these adaptations.

   Moreover, on February 29, 1996, the Department conducted a roundtable meeting with the Elwyn Institute, the HMS School and other interested persons and organizations. The topic of discussion was transporting students with special needs. As in the comments received from the Elwyn Institute and HMS School and several telephone conversations with the HMS School, one of the requests was for the Department to give greater detail regarding issues such as the size, style and condition of child safety seats, wheelchairs and other types of mobility devices students may use. The HMS School also questioned whether an unoccupied wheelchair or other type of mobility device must be carried forward-facing.

   The Department believes it inappropriate to further specify, in this chapter, issues such as the size, style and condition of wheelchairs and other types of mobility devices students may use since these are personal equipment items, normally purchased by the parent. In addition, since the Vehicle Code authorizes the Department to establish school bus equipment regulations, the Department believes it does not have the authority to establish standards in this chapter for wheelchairs and other types of mobility devices since these items are not school bus equipment. Further, the FMVSS No. 222 requires wheelchair locations in school buses to be equipped so wheelchairs can be secured in a forward-facing position. These standards do not differentiate between occupied or unoccupied wheelchairs. The Department believes these standards apply to all wheelchair locations. Therefore, all wheelchairs or other type of mobility devices, occupied or unoccupied, shall be secured in a forward-facing position.

   (14)  The Elwyn Institute and HMS School requested that § 171.96 (relating to power lift) be amended by revising the phrase ''transportation of school children confined to wheelchairs'' to read ''transportation of school children who utilize wheelchairs.'' The Department agrees with the HMS School that the suggested wording would be more appropriate and has amended this section accordingly.

   (15)  The AAP, Elwyn Institute and HMS School expressed concern regarding § 171.101 (relating to seating arrangements). These commentators believe it may be necessary to remove vehicle seats or increase distance between seats to allow for sufficient head excursion and leg space when accommodating child restraint systems. This in turn, would compromise the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222 as they currently exist. The Elwyn Institute and HMS School further requested clarification of what is considered seating space; for example, is it the space from side to side or from front to back.

   In response to these concerns, the Department has further amended this section by deleting the sentence ''Flexibility in seat spacing to accommodate special devices shall be permitted.'' The sentence ''Seating shall be forward-facing,'' will remain. The Department believes that this amendment will ensure that all affected parties are notified that seating in specially equipped school buses must be forward-facing, whether it is traditional seating or other seating such as wheelchairs. Although the removal of seats may take place, § 171.16 (relating to certification) clearly states that additions or alterations to a school bus chassis after the time of manufacture must be certified, to the Department, as meeting the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381--1481) and the requirements of this chapter. Further, § 171.45 (relating to certification) clearly states that persons or entities may not alter a previously certified school bus in a way that does not conform to applicable FMVSS in effect at the time of manufacture, and § 171.84 requires equipment added and alterations made to a school bus after its manufacture shall meet applicable Federal standards. For these reasons, the Department believes it unnecessary to further amend § 171.101 to clarify that removal of seats may not result in the compromise of the requirements of FMVSS No. 222.

   (16)  The PSBA encouraged the Department to consider adopting language that would allow the installation of air conditioners in school buses. Although the current language does not specifically prohibit air-conditioning units, there is no guidance as to where after-market air- conditioning units can be installed without violating Federal and State safety standards. On August 7, 1995, the Department met with the PSBA and members of the Pupil Transportation Committee to discuss after-market interior mounted air-conditioning units on school buses. The parties agreed that these amendments should specify the acceptable locations for after-market air-conditioning units. There have been instances where school buses have failed school bus safety inspection because the installed after-market air-conditioning unit interfered with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, the Department has further amended the language in § 171.56 to clarify that the 72 inches or more required inside body height of a school bus must exist from the front vertical bow to the rear interior ceiling-mounted air-conditioning unit. Further, the Department has added a new paragraph (6) to § 171.58 (relating to interior) that addresses air-conditioning units. Subparagraph (i) requires after-market air-conditioning units to be labeled in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 and 568.8 (relating to requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles). These Federal standards require the installer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration and in effect at the time of manufacture. Subparagraph (ii) requires interior ceiling-mounted air-conditioning units, mounted above the seats within the head protection zone or at the rear of the bus, to be padded with materials meeting FMVSS No. 302 (relating to flammability of interior materials) to insure compliance with the head impact test requirements of FMVSS No. 222. Finally, subparagraph (iii) clarifies that air-conditioning units may be installed in other locations if they are labeled as described in subparagraph (ii). The Department believes that these amendments will ensure air-conditioning units are installed so as not to weaken the school bus' joint strength, body structure or other required safety feature. Further, these amendments will provide guidance for inspectors when conducting school bus safety inspections.

   (17)  The AAP submitted general comments relating to transporting children under 5 years of age and the prohibition on the use of small passenger vans for transporting these children. The AAP believes that because small vans that meet passenger vehicle requirements are now available, these vehicles should be revisited as possible carriers for children under 5 years of age. The current language in Subchapter E (relating to school vehicle standards), which has been in place since 1984, addresses equipment requirements for school vehicles. School vehicles are motor vehicles, except motor cycles, that are designed to seat no more than ten passengers, including the driver, and used for the transportation of preprimary, primary or secondary school students. Proposed language in this subchapter also addresses certain 11--15 passenger vehicles registered as buses before March 1, 1993, or September 1, 1993, which may be used for the transportation of school children. The Department is unaware of the prohibition discussed by the AAP, since the Department did not implement the prohibition. Therefore, the Department believes it unnecessary to make further amendments allowing the use of small vans for transporting school children.

   (18)  IRRC expressed concern about §§ 171.125 and 171.139 (relating to seating). IRRC questioned how the Department determines what is adequate and recommended the Department cross reference the specifications found at §§ 171.69(2) and 171.101 in these sections. Cross referencing school bus seating standards and specially equipped school bus seating standards in §§ 171.125 and 171.139 would be inappropriate for the following reasons. Section 171.125 addresses the seating requirements for school vehicles and 11--15 passenger vehicles permitted to be used for transporting school children. Section 171.139 addresses the seating requirements for mass transit pupil transportation buses when used for transporting school children. The seating systems in passenger vehicles and mass transit pupil transportation buses are designed and manufactured differently than school bus seats.

   Further, FMVSS No. 207, 208 and 209 (relating to seating systems; occupant crash protection; and seat belt assemblies) address seating requirements for passenger cars, trucks and buses. For example, passenger cars, trucks and buses 10,000 pounds or less are required to have a seat belt assembly at each designated seating position. Therefore, a vehicle operator can easily determine the number of designated seating positions per seat merely by counting the number of seat belt assemblies per seat. However, school bus seats are manufactured to be in compliance with FMVSS No. 222 and are normally 39-inch bench type seats without seat belt assemblies. The specific seating space width found in § 171.69(2) was derived from using the basic formula set forth in FMVSS No. 222 and was adopted from standards recommended by the National Conference on School Transportation and therefore would not be applicable to other types of vehicles. For these reasons, the Department believes it inappropriate to provide the cross references requested.

   The Department, however, has amended § 171.2 by including a definition for the term ''designated seating position.'' This definition is derived from 49 CFR 571.3 (relating to definitions) and will help determine the amount of seating available on vehicles other than school buses. Further, the Department has further amended §§ 171.125 and 171.139 to clarify that a designated seating position shall be provided for each passenger.

   (19)  IRRC expressed concern about § 171.147 (relating to fire extinguishers). IRRC questioned who provides and performs the inspection and signs the approval. This section was originally proposed to require inspection of fire extinguishers at least once a year, and that the fire extinguishers were to be tagged, signed and dated upon approval. IRRC has suggested that identification of the approving agency and party be added to this section. As a result of further discussion with IRRC, the Department has further amended this section to clarify that the owners of vehicles subject to this chapter must have the fire extinguishers on their vehicles inspected at least once a year. Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the fire extinguishers are inspected and approved at least once a year.

   (20)  IRRC questioned why the Department merely cited section 4530(b) of the Vehicle Code (relating to portable emergency warning devices) instead of incorporating the requirement into § 171.150 (relating to use of portable emergency warning devices). Section 4530(b) of the Vehicle Code requires the driver of a bus to display portable warning devices when the vehicle is disabled or stopped for more than 10 minutes upon a roadway or shoulder outside of an urban district, or upon any divided highway. These portable warning devices are to be displayed as set forth in Department regulations. IRRC believes it would be more useful to incorporate the requirements of section 4530(b) of the Vehicle Code in § 171.150.

   The Department has reevaluated this section and realizes the language does not clarify which vehicles are required to have portable warning devices. Therefore, the Department has agreed to IRRC's request and has further amended this section to set forth the relevant requirements relating to portable emergency warning devices. Further, the Department has recommended in this section that other vehicles subject to this chapter use portable warning devices as well.

[Continued on next Web Page]


No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.