School buses are used to transport students to and from home and school and extracurricular activities like field trips and athletic events. The industry defines four basic types of school buses. Types A and B are comparatively small in size, while types C and D are comparatively large in size, as shown in figure 1. In general, the capacity of a school bus increases from type A to type D buses, and type D school buses can have a capacity up to 90 students. Type C school buses are most common, representing 70 percent of school bus sales in 2014 (23,715 of 34,021 buses) according to figures reported by School Bus Fleet. School districts or private contractors can operate school buses transporting public school students. School districts have a spectrum of contracting options from which to choose school bus transportation. When a school district contracts with a private company, the contractor could manage and provide all or some aspects of student transportation, depending on the school district’s needs and preferences. In full-service or “turnkey” contracts, the contractor takes on all aspects of pupil transportation services, such as hiring and training drivers and managing school bus routes. In other contracts, the district may retain ownership of school buses but have the contractor operate the buses, or the district may only have the contractor provide particular operations, such as special needs transportation. Whether district-operated or contracted, oversight of school bus transportation occurs across all levels of government and can involve multiple agencies at each level of government. At the federal level, NHTSA sets vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and administers grant programs as part of its mission to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA also collects and analyzes crash data for a variety of purposes, such as to determine the extent of a safety problem and steps it should take to develop countermeasures. Two data sets are used to generate national statistics: FARS is a census of fatal crashes, and the General Estimates System (GES) is a sample of fatal, injury, and property-damage crashes. In addition to these activities that apply broadly to motor vehicle safety, including school buses, NHTSA provides guidance and holds workshops specific to school bus safety. For example, in December 2016 NHTSA hosted a day-long meeting on school transportation safety that included panels on school transportation risks and school bus vehicle technology, among other topics. Also at the federal level, FMCSA’s mission is to reduce crashes and fatalities involving commercial motor vehicles. FMCSA is responsible for setting and enforcing federal safety regulations that apply to large commercial truck and bus operators. For school bus transportation, FMCSA’s safety regulations for commercial motor vehicle operations do not apply to home-to-school and school-to-home transportation. These regulations apply in very limited circumstances such as for contractors hired by schools who provide transportation for extracurricular activities across state lines. The primary exception to this, however, is commercial driver’s licensing; school bus drivers must have a commercial driver’s license with a school bus endorsement, which requires a driver to pass additional knowledge and skills tests specific to operating a school bus, and are subject to drug and alcohol testing. FMSCA collects data on motor vehicle crashes but focuses on crashes involving large trucks and commercial buses, given its mission and jurisdiction. This crash data is collected in the Motor Carrier Management Information System. At the state level, multiple agencies are often responsible for setting or enforcing state-specific requirements for school-bus driver qualifications and training, vehicles, inspections, and other operational aspects. Some states require school districts to provide students with transportation to and from home and school, while other states allow school districts to decide whether to provide such transportation. Finally, local school districts are responsible for implementing and supervising school bus operations. This includes managing and establishing routes and policies, operating and maintaining school buses, and training and assigning staff, sometimes in conjunction with contractors. At the federal level, both NHTSA and FMCSA collect data on motor vehicle crashes that include crashes involving school buses. Since these data cover crashes involving a range of vehicles, information that is specific to school buses, like the specific type of school bus or whether it was operated by a school district or contractor, is not included in these national data. States may have richer data on school bus crashes, and we found that a small number of states collect some school-bus-specific information in their crash data, such as the type of operator. However, state data on school bus crashes vary because states determine what specific data elements to collect in crash data. NHTSA collects basic data on motor vehicle crashes, including school- bus-related crashes, but not any in-depth data specific to school buses, such as whether a school bus was district or contractor operated or the type of school bus. NHTSA’s FARS and GES crash data both include a variable to identify school-bus-related crashes. Therefore, NHTSA uses this variable to isolate school-bus-related crashes in FARS data and generates an annual report describing the number and some characteristics of fatal school-bus-related crashes. For example, the report describes characteristics of fatal school-bus crashes such as the time of day and whether the fatality(ies) was an occupant or non- occupant of the school bus or other involved vehicles. NHTSA can also isolate school bus crashes from GES data; however, because GES is a sample of crashes and school bus crashes are such rare events, GES data cannot be used to reliably examine year-to-year trends, according to NHTSA. NHTSA’s crash data aim to cover all types of traffic accidents, and as such, FARS and GES do not include additional variables tailored to accidents involving school buses. Moreover, the source for FARS and GES—police accident reports—vary from state to state and may not contain such school-bus-specific information, such as type of bus and type of operator, for NHTSA to aggregate across states. FMCSA’s crash data for large truck and bus crashes do not include a variable to identify school-bus-related crashes. FMCSA’s crash data, which come from police accident reports, identify the vehicle involved as a bus or truck but does not further delineate the type of bus (e.g., transit bus or school bus). In addition, it does not define or collect data on the type of school bus operator. States collect crash data to help implement and evaluate highway safety policies, but the specific crash data that states collect vary. Some states have richer data on all types of school bus crashes, including fatal, injury, and property-damage-only crashes than NHTSA and FMCSA, based on our review of federal and select state’s crash data collection processes. However, since states have discretion in determining what specific data elements to collect, state data on school bus crashes vary. Each state has its own crash data system, and police accidents reports—a key source of crash data—are unique to each state. For example, on California’s police accident report, officers enter codes to identify the involved vehicles, and specific codes classify the type of school bus and operator (e.g., public or contractor). Other states’ police accident reports may not collect as detailed information on a school bus involved in a crash. For example, our review of police accident reports in our selected states found that one state’s police accident report had a field to indicate whether a crash involved a school bus, and another state’s report used the narrative section to note a school bus’s involvement. We surveyed states to determine whether they track the type of school bus operator in crash data, or other state data such as inspection or funding data, since information states collect on school bus crashes and operations differs. In our survey of states, about half of states that responded (22/47) reported that they track whether school buses are district operated or contracted, though least often in crash data. States most commonly reported tracking the type of operator in funding or reimbursement data (15), followed by inspection data (10), and statewide crash data (7). We asked these states why they tracked the type of operator, and states reported doing so most often for funding purposes (18), followed by compliance with state contracting laws (10), and educational or training purposes (7). For example, in its inspection data, New York state officials said they track the type of school bus operator along with several other variables that allow the state to analyze data on inspection outcomes, such as the number of buses passing inspection or being placed out of service, to see if there are different outcomes across these variables. For the 25 states that reported they do not track whether school buses are school-district or contractor operated, states nearly always indicated there was no need or requirement to track such data. For example, 17 states said there is no distinction made in state law or regulation on the type of operator. Three states also reported that there are no contractors operating school buses in the state because school districts choose not to use them, so there is no need to track such information. The Transportation Research Board noted in 2002 that fatalities and injuries involving students make up a relatively small proportion of all fatalities and injuries, so the benefits of additional data collection efforts that focus solely on school travel should be carefully considered before being recommended or implemented. Stakeholders we interviewed had mixed views on whether data improvements should be a priority for the federal government. For example, one stakeholder said that the federal government could create a repository for national school-bus data that would require standardized methods of data collection by the states and that the resultant data would help illuminate key areas of school bus safety, such as illegal passing of stopped school buses, that are not currently being highlighted. However, another stakeholder we interviewed, who believes national data is lacking, said examining and collecting additional crash data for other modes of transportation may be more revealing than it would be for school buses, given the safety record of school buses. School buses continue to have a strong safety record relative to other types of motor vehicles based on more recent fatal crash data, which we discuss in more detail below. According to NHTSA, only 8 percent of fatalities in crashes involving a school bus from 2005 to 2014 were school bus occupants (i.e., drivers or passengers). We also found that school bus crashes constituted less than 1 percent of all crashes in 6 of our selected states for which annual crash reports included a section on school bus crashes. NHTSA and FMCSA officials we interviewed said the agencies have no plans to change their data collection processes specific to school bus crashes, but both have efforts under way to improve the overall quality of crash data. For example, FMCSA is in the process of establishing a working group, as required in the FAST Act, to examine the information collected in police accident reports on commercial motor vehicles, a process that could lead to improvements in the data collected on crashes involving large trucks and buses. Also, if funding is available, NHTSA officials said the agency plans to analyze states’ reporting requirements for school bus crashes in fiscal year 2017. This analysis would identify sources of crash data and whether these sources provide reliable information that could be used to determine causative factors and examine potential countermeasures for all reported school bus crashes. Additionally, states play a primary role in overseeing school bus safety, as described later in this report, and states have their own mechanisms to use state crash data to identify and use federal grant programs to address highway safety issues in their state. NHTSA and FMCSA have grant programs whereby each state identifies its priorities for highway and motor carrier safety, respectively. For example, for NHTSA’s Highway Safety Grant Program, each state must develop a Highway Safety Plan based on an evaluation of highway safety data, including crash data, to identify safety problems within the state. Therefore, if a state identifies a need for initiatives to improve school bus safety and has jurisdiction, the state could include it as a priority in its grant application and target federal and state spending for related initiatives. NHTSA and FMCSA said that, at present, no states identified school bus safety as a priority area in applications for the State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program or Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. While national data on school bus crashes are limited, from 1999 to 2010 UMTRI collected BIFA data, with support from FMCSA; however, these data are no longer collected. BIFA data supplemented FARS data with detailed information collected through interviews and from police accident reports about the physical configuration and operating authority of each bus involved in a fatal crash, including the type of operator. For this report, we analyzed BIFA data for 2000 to 2010 to describe characteristics of fatal crashes involving school buses during that time period. However, for variables included in BIFA data that originated in FARS data, we also analyzed data from FARS for fatal crashes involving school buses for 2011 to 2014 to provide more recent information as BIFA data were only collected through 2010. Since this analysis examined data on fatal crashes involving school buses, it is not generalizable to all types of crashes involving school buses. Further, we did not have exposure data (e.g., vehicle miles traveled by school buses of different types or used for different types of trips) to allow us to report rates of crashes for the characteristics we examined. We found that from 2000 to 2010, an average of 118 fatal crashes involving a school bus occurred each year. The total number per year ranged from 93 (2009) to 128 (2008). When we extended our analysis to include 2011 to 2014, the average fell slightly to 115 fatal crashes each year, which is 0.3 percent of the 34,835 fatal motor-vehicle crashes that occurred on average each year during this time. Most fatal crashes involved local travel and occurred during times that would indicate the buses were traveling to and from school, according to our analysis. For 2000 to 2010, most fatal crashes (89 percent) were considered local, meaning the total trip distance was less than 50 miles. Seventy-four percent of fatal crashes from 2000 to 2010 occurred during home-to- school and school-to-home travel times. From 2011 to 2014, this percentage fell to 65 percent of fatal crashes, with the remainder of fatal crashes occurring during other times (see fig. 2). Our analysis of BIFA and FARS data also examined driver and vehicle factors that may have contributed to the fatal school bus crashes and found such factors were not prevalent. Driver-related factors: The data on fatal school bus crashes from 2000 to 2014 identified a driver-related factor involving the school bus driver for 27 percent of these crashes (see fig. 3). The most common type of driver-related factor was miscellaneous (e.g., leaving vehicle unattended with engine running, failing to keep in the proper lane), at 68 percent of all driver-related factors. The next most common category, identified for 12 percent of driver-related factors, was physical or mental condition (e.g., careless driving, reaction to or failure to take drugs or medications). In 8 percent of fatal crashes from both 2000 to 2010 and 2011 to 2014, the school bus driver was charged with a violation. The most common type of violation fell under either the “rules of the road” turning, yielding, and signaling category (e.g., failure to signal for a turn or stop) or the reckless/careless/hit- and-run category (e.g., inattentive, careless, improper driving), representing 36 and 32 percent of all violations, respectively. Vehicle-related factors: Vehicle-related factors involving the school bus were rarely cited in fatal crashes involving school buses. Of the 1,731 total fatal crashes from 2000 to 2014, only 5 crashes had an identified vehicle factor for the school bus—3 for brakes, 1 for tires and wheels, and 1 for other components. Examining other vehicle and crash characteristics, we found that about 80 percent of fatal crashes involved large school buses (type C or D)—which account for most bus sales, according to in recent sales data—and 6 percent involved small school buses (type A or B), with the remainder unknown or of another body type. Seven percent of buses involved in fatal crashes during this time were classified as special needs school buses. In addition, the average age of the school buses in fatal crashes from 2000 to 2010 was 7 years; the average age for school buses in fatal crashes rose slightly to 8 years for 2011 to 2014. Most of these crashes occurred on dry roads (81 percent) and in clear weather conditions (85 percent) for both the 2000 to 2010 and 2011 to 2014 time period. We found that school districts operated 67 percent of school buses involved in fatal crashes from 2000 to 2010, and contractors working for school districts operated 25 percent of school buses involved in these fatal crashes, which is roughly proportional to the operations conducted by districts and contractors. We found no definitive national data on the number of each type of operator or the miles driven by each type of operator, so we cannot directly compare the rates of fatal crashes for each type of operator. However, the percentage of fatal crashes involving buses operated by school districts and contractors roughly aligns with industry association estimates of operations conducted by each type of operator. One association estimates that contractors provide one-third of pupil transportation services in the United States. An official from another association estimated the extent of contracting in two ways: first, by number of buses (contractors operate about one-third of school buses); second, by the number of operations (contractors conduct about one- fourth of school bus operations). We also examined the share of fatal school bus crashes with driver- or vehicle-related factors, by type of operator, and did not find any major deviations from the overall percentage of fatal crashes involving school-district and contractor- operated school buses. Federal laws and regulations establish minimum requirements for school bus safety. Building on federal requirements, states establish more comprehensive safety requirements for school bus vehicles and operations. We found that all 50 states require school bus inspections, and most states also require driver training. However, fewer states require a specific maximum vehicle age or seating capacity for school buses. While state requirements build on federal laws and regulations, the specific requirements states set for school bus safety vary. The same two federal agencies that collect crash data set minimum safety regulations for school bus vehicles and operations. NHTSA sets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (vehicle safety standards) that create a baseline for school bus standards. Forty-eight out of 62 vehicle safety standards apply to new school buses, according to NHTSA. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 establishes standards for emergency exits and window retention and release, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221 specifies requirements for the strength of the body panel joints in the bodies of school buses. NHTSA has reported that new school buses have to meet more vehicle safety standards than any other type of new motor vehicle. All manufacturers of new motor vehicles and equipment must certify compliance with vehicle safety standards; therefore, school buses operated by school districts and contractors all must meet these federal standards. FMCSA is responsible for setting and enforcing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that apply to large commercial truck and bus operations. However, FMCSA’s safety oversight of school bus operations is limited because most school bus transportation is exempt from its safety regulations. In particular, all school bus transportation to and from home and school is exempt. Beyond home-to-school and school-to-home transportation, the type of operator—whether it is a private contractor or a school district or other governmental entity—and the type of trip—including whether the trip will cross state lines—determine whether all Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations apply. For example, contractors hired to provide interstate transportation for extracurricular activities, such as field trips or sporting competitions, are required to comply with other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations such as limits on driving and on-duty time. School district employees are exempt from these requirements. However, even with these exemptions, federal regulations for commercial drivers’ licenses and drug and alcohol testing for commercial driver’s license holders apply to all school bus drivers and operators. Figure 4 provides examples of federal regulations for school bus safety. Within federal laws and regulations for school bus operations and vehicles, we specifically examined what federal requirements exist for school bus inspections, driver training, and maximum vehicle age and seating capacity. While many federal requirements, like vehicle standards for school buses, apply to both school districts and contractors, some federal requirements apply to only certain types of school transportation. FMCSA’s safety regulations require inspections of commercial motor vehicles. However, most school bus operations are exempt from this requirement, as noted above. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require other types of commercial operators to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain vehicles under their control, requirements that include inspecting service brakes, the steering mechanism, lighting, and tires, among other components. For inspections, commercial operators must conduct periodic (at least annual) vehicle inspections, which could be conducted in-house, at a commercial business, or through a state-run inspection program. Therefore, a contractor’s school-bus operations may be subject to this federal inspection requirement if, for instance, the contractor is hired by the school district to transport students across state lines for school-sponsored extracurricular activities; a school district’s school-bus operations would not be subject to the federal inspection requirement if the district provides the transportation for this type of trip. Representatives of contractors we spoke with stated that in practice, most contractors usually comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, even when they are not using the school buses for interstate activities, as contractors want the flexibility and maximum ability to operate buses under different circumstances, such as chartered services on the weekend. NHTSA does not have an oversight role in school bus operations but recommends that states establish procedures for regularly scheduled inspections of school buses in accordance with FMCSA’s requirements, as described above. FMCSA recently established minimum training regulations for entry-level school bus drivers. In December 2016, FMCSA issued a final rule requiring all drivers—employed by school districts and contractors—to complete entry-level driver training when applying for a commercial driver’s license, including those seeking a school bus endorsement. As part of this final rule, FMCSA established a training curriculum to address the specific training needs of school bus drivers. Training providers are required to cover all topics in the curriculum, including loading and unloading, railroad-highway grade crossings, and emergency exit and evacuation, but FMCSA set no minimum hours for the knowledge and behind-the-wheel training for the school bus endorsement. Additionally, NHTSA developed a series of refresher (i.e., in-service) training modules for school bus drivers in 2011. NHTSA officials told us they developed this training module because school bus stakeholders often asked NHTSA for guidance and assistance on training experienced school-bus drivers. Stakeholders we interviewed, including selected state officials, told us that they widely use NHTSA’s refresher training materials for school bus drivers. As previously noted, 48 federal vehicle safety standards apply to school buses. However, federal vehicle safety standards do not stipulate a maximum vehicle age or maximum seating capacity for school buses because, according to NHTSA, it does not have regulatory authority regarding how school buses are used. Nevertheless, NHTSA has made recommendations and issued guidance related to both of these items. In its pupil transportation guideline, issued in March 2009, NHTSA recommended replacing school buses manufactured before April 1, 1977, with school buses that meet current vehicle safety standards for buses and recommended prohibiting schools from purchasing school buses built prior to April 1, 1977, for school transportation. For capacity, NHTSA has reported in information posted on its website that school bus manufacturers determine the maximum number of persons who can sit on a school bus seat, which is based on sitting three small elementary age school children or two high school age persons into a typical 39-inch school-bus seat. In this same posting, NHTSA also reported that states and school bus operators are responsible for determining the number of persons who can safely fit into a school bus seat, and NHTSA recommended that all passengers be seated entirely within the confines of the school bus seats while the bus is in operation. NHTSA sets vehicle safety standards, and FMCSA does not have a role setting vehicle standards for school buses. States build upon federal laws and regulations and usually set additional, state-specific requirements for school bus safety that generally apply to both school districts and contractors, according to stakeholders we spoke with. We found that multiple state agencies often play a role overseeing school bus vehicles and drivers. For example, in Illinois, the State Board of Education and Secretary of State oversee school bus driver training, and the Department of Transportation oversees school bus inspections, while in Pennsylvania the Department of Transportation oversees school bus driver training and the State Police oversees school bus inspections. In addition, state laws and regulations vary widely across states. For example, three school bus manufacturers we spoke with told us that no two states have the same vehicle standards for school buses, with varying requirements for eight-way flashing signal lights, content and location of first aid kits, and location of switch panels, among other things. Figure 5 describes examples of state requirements for school bus transportation. Upon examination of state laws and regulations, we found that states set requirements for inspections, driver training, and vehicle standards that supplement the baseline federal requirements. States’ school-bus safety requirements vary widely across states but tend not to differ based on the type of operator, according to all eight selected state officials we spoke with, as described below. Four other stakeholders we interviewed affirmed that there are no differences in state requirements for school bus transportation for different types of operators. However, for state requirements for commercial motor vehicles, which can apply to but are not specific to school buses, six stakeholders we interviewed, including manufacturers and contractors, said there are some differences in requirements for contractors and school districts. For example, two stakeholders commented that states vary in the extent to which they exempt school bus operations from state requirements for commercial motor vehicles, requirements that are not school-bus-specific but apply to a wider range of vehicles and that are similar to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. See appendix II for additional descriptions of state requirements for school bus inspection, driver training, and maximum vehicle age and seating capacity in the eight selected states. Based on our review of laws and regulations in the 50 states, we found that all 50 states require school bus inspections to check for defects and safety compliance with state rules at the state or local level. We also found that the frequency of these inspections and agency conducting or overseeing inspections varies across states. For 41 states, we found that the state required periodic inspections of school buses to be conducted by state inspectors or third-party inspectors. For example, California requires its state highway patrol to inspect school buses at least once every year, while the Illinois state transportation agency requires certified, private inspection stations to inspect school buses at least twice a year. In the other nine states, we found the state requires local school districts to conduct inspections and/or authorizes the state to conduct spot check inspections of school buses without any set frequency. For example, Nebraska requires local school districts to conduct an inspection of each school bus before the start of the school year and then every 80 days during the school year. According to a Nebraska state official, the state discontinued its state school bus inspection program due to resource constraints and delegated responsibility for inspections to local school districts. State officials in all eight selected states told us that all school bus operators, including contractors, are subject to the state’s school-bus inspection requirements. States may also require additional inspections to supplement the periodic inspections, including conducting random or unannounced inspections. Officials from four of the eight states we interviewed—Illinois, Washington, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania—stated that they complement annual or biannual inspections with unannounced or random school-bus inspections. For example, a Tennessee state official told us that the state conducts random inspections of school buses for at least 10 percent of the statewide school-bus fleet annually to ensure that all operators maintain their buses safely and appropriately. States may also require even more frequent inspections, sometimes on a daily basis. For example, California requires all school bus operators to inspect their school buses regularly—every 45 days or 3,000 miles, whichever occurs first—as part of a preventive maintenance program. To provide context to understand how states implement these requirements and the results of inspections, we asked the selected states about the data they collect on inspection outcomes. The selected states vary in how they collect and maintain inspection data and the extent to which results are accessible to the public, as was the case with the frequency of inspections. Officials from selected states told us there are different methods of collecting and compiling inspection results. For example, a Tennessee state official told us that the state uses electronic devices (e.g., tablets, laptops) to collect data during inspections and maintain results in a central database. Illinois state officials told us that private, certified inspection stations can use an electronic or paper form to document inspection results, and all completed forms are maintained by the state. Given these differences, states vary in their ability to easily search and summarize inspection results for school buses in the state. We found school bus inspection results are generally accessible to the public, but how the public can access results varies. For instance, Washington posts the number of school buses inspected and the number and percentage of buses placed out of service by school district each school year on its state agency website, while Pennsylvania and Tennessee state officials told us that school bus inspection results are accessible only through a formal request. Additionally, in our review of selected states’ school-bus inspection results, we found that a relatively small number of school buses were placed out of service after an inspection because they were determined to be unsafe to operate without repairs. Specifically, 3 to 5 percent of inspected school buses in a given year were put out of service for violations, based on data from four of our selected states, as shown in table 1 below. By contrast, the out-of-service rate for all types of buses nationwide is about 7 percent, according to FMCSA. Problems that could put a school bus out of service in one state we interviewed include any leaks on the exhaust system, an exterior brake or stop-arm light that doesn’t work, or a bus alarm not sounding when the emergency door is opened. In three states, the most common problems identified during inspection involved brakes, lights or signals, and exhaust systems. Officials we spoke with in the six selected states that had state inspection programs stated that out-of-service school buses cannot be operated until the identified problem has been fixed and the bus passes another inspection. We found that a majority of states require training for all school bus drivers. Specifically, we found that 44 states require entry-level (i.e., pre-service) training and 44 states require refresher training for all school bus drivers. However, as with inspection requirements, we found that the frequency, length, and other attributes of the required training vary across states. For example, Pennsylvania requires a minimum of 20 hours of school-bus-specific training for all entry-level drivers and a minimum of 10 hours of refresher training for drivers every 4 years. Tennessee requires all school bus drivers to receive at least 4 hours of annual refresher training on various topics, including operational safety of school buses, loading and unloading of students, and managing student behavior, but the state does not require entry-level school-bus driver training, according to a Tennessee state official. While the training requirements vary across states, officials from all eight of our selected states stated that all school bus drivers must meet state training requirements, whether they are employed by a school district or contractor. States administer school bus driver training in different ways, and additional training requirements may exist at the local level. For example, in Virginia and New York, the state departments of education oversee school bus driver training programs and train and certify instructors, who can be school district or contractor employees, to provide training to drivers. In Nebraska, the state department of education contracts with the Nebraska Safety Center at the University of Nebraska to develop training curriculum and train instructors to provide training. Beyond state requirements, local school districts and contractors may have additional training programs and requirements for school bus drivers. Contractors we spoke with told us that they also require entry-level and refresher training for their drivers that meets or exceeds state requirements. State officials in California, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee also told us that local school districts may require additional, supplemental training for drivers. For example, a state official told us that one large school district requires drivers to complete a minimum of 40 hours of gang awareness training. Additionally, all eight selected states require school bus drivers to receive training on transporting students with special needs. Drivers in these states typically receive training on transporting special needs students as part of the training curriculum for entry-level or refresher training for school bus drivers. For example, in New York, under state law, entry-level school bus drivers are required to take a minimum of two hours of instruction related to transporting special needs students during the first year of employment, and all school bus drivers are required to take one hour of annual training related to transporting special needs students. State officials in a few of our selected states said additional training on special needs transportation is provided to drivers at the local level. A Washington state official told us that the state trains all instructors on special needs transportation topics so the instructors can in turn provide more targeted training to drivers, such as how to secure wheelchairs on a particular bus model. In our search of state laws and regulations, we found six states that set a requirement for the maximum vehicle age for when a school bus must be replaced or no longer used. The requirements in these six states varied. For example, Tennessee sets a maximum age for school buses that applies to school districts and contractors; specifically, type A and B buses can be used for up to 15 years, and type C and D buses can be used for up to 18 years with unlimited miles, or up to 19 years for buses with less than 200,000 miles that have passed inspections twice a year. According to a state official, Tennessee has a maximum vehicle age requirement because older school buses may not be cost-effective to maintain, as older vehicles have more mechanical and maintenance issues. In other states, all types of school buses were subject to the same maximum age, such as stating that school buses used to transport students cannot be more than 20 or 25 years old. In addition to these six states with specific requirements, we also found instances where states provide funding or set a school bus depreciation schedule to replace school buses. Although these programs do not necessarily prohibit school bus operators from operating school buses that exceed the parameters of a state’s funding program, they encourage school districts to regularly replace school buses. For example, according to a state official, Washington provides replacement funding for school buses to school districts and contractors, and the state established a useful life cycle for each type of school bus, but the state does not require school districts and contractors to retire or stop using a bus at the end of the established life cycle. Washington sets an 8-year life cycle for type A buses and a 13-year life cycle for type C and D buses owned by the school district. In Virginia, the state has a 15-year life cycle for all school bus types, but according to state officials, a school bus older than 15 years can continue to be used as long as it passes inspections. While states do not typically set maximum school bus age requirements, local school bus operators usually make decisions on when to replace a school bus, according to stakeholders we interviewed. In particular, according to seven stakeholders we interviewed—3 manufacturers, 3 state agencies that conduct inspections, and 1 contractor—local operators make these decisions based on a business case that includes factors such as maintenance costs and environmental conditions. Representatives from two school bus manufacturers we interviewed told us that most states do not have a maximum vehicle age requirement and that many school districts will continue to use buses as long as they pass inspections and maintenance costs are not too high. State officials from Washington and Virginia said school bus operators need to maintain any school buses that are used for longer than the state-established life cycle and that these buses must pass the state inspection. With regard to school bus seating capacity, we found eight states that have a specific requirement for maximum seating capacity on school buses. Eight states set a specific maximum capacity or parameter that would yield a specific maximum capacity. For example, New York has a maximum seating capacity of 84 student passengers in type C and D school buses. We also found that about half of the states (23) had other types of seating capacity requirements, such as explicitly restricting school buses from transporting more student passengers than the manufacturer’s rated seating capacity. For example, Illinois does not allow a school bus to be operated with more passengers than recommended by the manufacturer’s rated seating capacity. Stakeholders from the school bus industry most commonly cited the National Congress on School Transportation (NCST) and its National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures as a source of leading practices for safe school bus transportation. Seventeen of the 30 stakeholders we interviewed, including state directors of student transportation and manufacturers, identified NCST and the voluntary document as a national standard for school bus safety. An NCST official told us that the National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures is meant to build on federal laws and regulations and for states to consider when establishing their standards, specifications, regulations, and guidelines for school transportation. NCST holds a congress roughly every 5 years. The primary purpose and product of the congresses is the specifications and procedures document that contains recommendations across different aspects of student transportation, including school-bus body and chassis specifications, procedures for conducting school bus inspections, and selecting and training drivers. As the congress meets regularly, NCST has discussed new safety concerns or needed guidance and amended its specifications and procedures document accordingly. For example, one stakeholder we spoke with said a relatively recent change in the document was the inclusion of criteria, based largely on federal regulations, to use in a school-bus inspection program to determine when a school bus should be placed out of service. Stakeholders also cited federal and state requirements and industry associations and experts as sources of leading practices. Eleven of 30 stakeholders we spoke with identified state laws and regulations, while 10 stakeholders identified federal laws and regulations and industry associations as sources they turn to for leading practices. Eight stakeholders also mentioned federal guidance as sources of best practices for school bus operations and inspections. For federal guidance, two stakeholders mentioned they look to NHTSA’s Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which recommends strategies for a school bus safety program at the state level. For example, this guideline recommends developing a training plan for drivers and establishing a systematic preventive-maintenance program for school buses that includes periodic vehicle inspections. Our literature review identified these same sources and also provided general practices for states and local school districts and contractors to follow. For example, we found NCST’s specifications and procedures document, NHTSA’s Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, and textbooks that often cited federal vehicle safety standards and FMCSA’s safety regulations in our literature research. In our review of these sources, including NCST’s specifications and procedures document, we found recommended practices for maintaining school buses, including establishing an inspection program with uniform criteria for placing school buses out of service and analyzing the intended life cycle of school buses with ongoing efficiencies associated with vehicle replacement. A few stakeholders we spoke with indicated that specific, national leading practices for certain aspects of school bus transportation may not always be appropriate, as school bus operations are driven by local or regional factors such as available funding and environmental and geographic conditions. For example, stakeholders we spoke with said that different factors, like weather and road conditions, can contribute to how long a school bus should remain in use. Three stakeholders, including a manufacturer, noted that school buses operating in adverse road and weather conditions in some states may need to be replaced more frequently due to higher maintenance costs. A 2002 National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) report noted that accurate and thorough records on operating and maintenance costs of a school bus fleet provide data needed to analyze and understand costs and said that establishing school bus replacement policies are important. As noted earlier, states and local districts largely oversee school bus safety, and as such, school bus transportation is subject to local district decisions, practices, and differences in operations. When we asked stakeholders what additional federal research and guidance would benefit the school bus industry, there was no consensus among the stakeholders. Seven of thirty stakeholders said current federal research and guidance is sufficient and did not cite a need for additional guidance. For the two areas stakeholders mentioned most often, federal agencies have related efforts under way. Five stakeholders said data on or guidance to combat illegal passing of school buses would be useful. NASDPTS conducts an annual survey on illegal passing, whereby school bus drivers voluntarily count the number of vehicles that pass them when they stop to load and unload students. For each of the 5 years NASDPTS has collected this data, participating school bus drivers have observed more than 74,000 instances of illegal passing on a single day. In 2000, NHTSA issued a best practices guide on reducing the illegal passing of school buses. Further, NHTSA officials told us that research on the effectiveness of using cameras to enforce laws on passing school buses is currently under way with data collected at multiple locations, to be completed in early 2018. Based on the results of this research, NHTSA officials said they may update the content of the best practices guide on reducing the illegal passing of school buses. Four stakeholders said that additional federal guidance on school bus driver training on various topics, including loading and unloading students and technology distraction, would be helpful. As previously mentioned, FMCSA recently established minimum training regulations for entry-level training for school bus drivers when applying for commercial driver’s license, and two school bus associations— NASDPTS and the National School Transportation Association—were part of the negotiated rulemaking committee that helped develop the training regulations. Additionally, NHTSA’s 2011 refresher training for school bus drivers covers several topics, including loading and unloading students. NHTSA officials said they plan to update the content, if needed, after consulting with school-bus industry stakeholders in fiscal year 2017. Finally, NHTSA officials and stakeholders commented that the school bus industry is a close-knit community that keeps one another informed with conferences and networks across all levels of government. Stakeholders we spoke with said that much of the school bus industry’s awareness comes from annual forums and conferences at the state and national level. For example, the annual NASDPTS conference held in November 2015 included sessions on incidents of dragging students in bus doors and FMCSA’s then proposed rule on entry-level driver training. Another stakeholder told us that they confer with state school transportation associations—state organizations of school bus drivers and transportation managers—to identify and address any school-bus safety issues in the state. In addition, NHTSA and FMCSA officials and one stakeholder told us that three of the national school bus associations meet annually with FMCSA and NHTSA to discuss various school-bus safety issues. We provided a draft of this product to the Department of Transportation for comment. The Department of Transportation provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act included a provision for GAO to conduct a review of school bus safety, including examining any differences in the safety performance of different types of school bus operators—that is, school districts and contractors—and what safety requirements apply to them. We examined: (1) data federal and state agencies collect on school bus crashes and the number and characteristics of fatal school-bus crashes that have occurred since 2000; (2) federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to school bus inspections, vehicles, and drivers, as well as state data on inspections’ outcomes; and (3) sources for leading practices for safe school-bus transportation, as identified by stakeholders and literature, as well as any areas where further federal guidance could be useful. As part of our work, we also examined whether there were differences for school-district and contractor-operated school buses in any of the above areas. Overall, we focused our review on the transportation of public K-12 students traveling to and from home and school and for extracurricular activities and not transportation of private school students. To describe what data federal and state agencies collect on school bus crashes, we reviewed agency documents that describe or use National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) crash datasets, including the 2014 FARS/NASS GES Coding and Validation Manual and Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2014. We interviewed NHTSA and FMCSA officials to understand what data each agency collects on school bus crashes and whether they track the type of operator involved in school bus crashes. We also asked about any planned or ongoing efforts to change or improve the data collected on school bus crashes. To understand crash data collected by states, we reviewed NHTSA guidance on crash data systems, primarily the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. We also interviewed school-bus industry associations, the Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals, and other stakeholders to identify national and state data on school bus crashes and to discuss the strengths and limitations of existing datasets. We also administered an e-mail survey to the 50 state pupil-transportation directors to gather information on school bus data. Specifically, the survey asked whether states systematically collect data on the type of school bus operator—that is, school district or contractor—in crash or other data, and the reasons why these data were or were not collected. We obtained contact information for the survey recipients from the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) and administered the survey between June 20, 2016, and August 8, 2016. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, we pretested the survey with the pupil transportation directors in three states and NASDPTS to ensure that questions were clear and unbiased and to minimize the burden the survey placed on respondents. Based on feedback from the pretests, we made minor changes to the content and format of survey questions. We received completed surveys from 47 respondents for an overall response rate of 94 percent. To describe the number and characteristics of fatal school-bus crashes since 2000, we analyzed data from two data sets. First, we analyzed Buses Involved in Fatal Accidents (BIFA) data from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) for calendar years 2000 to 2010 to describe the attributes of crashes involving school buses. BIFA includes data on fatal traffic crashes in the United States involving a bus. We used BIFA data as they were the only source of national crash data we identified that included bus-specific variables like type of operator and bus, and 2010 was the last year for which BIFA data were collected. Cases for BIFA are selected from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) file. BIFA supplements the FARS data; UMTRI collected police reports for each crash and trained interviewers to contact owners, operators, or drivers of the buses to collect detailed information on the bus, operator, and driver. Our analysis of BIFA data included variables collected by UMTRI, such as the type of bus, type of operator (school district or contractor), and length of trip, as well as FARS variables, such as driver- and vehicle-related factors, model year of the vehicle, and road and atmospheric conditions. Since the BIFA data were last collected for calendar year 2010, we reviewed NHTSA’s school-transportation-related analysis for 2000 through 2014 to compare the overall number of fatal school-bus crashes during and after BIFA data collection and examine whether there were any trends or changes after 2010. We also examined whether there were any changes to federal rules for school bus vehicles and operators that would substantially change the regulatory landscape for school bus operations after 2010. In reviewing the data and federal rule changes, we found no substantial changes that would raise concerns about using the BIFA data from 2000 to 2010 for our review. For BIFA, we identified crashes using the included variable for “school-bus-related crashes.” Second, we analyzed FARS data for calendar years 2011 to 2014, the latest year for which data were available, to examine this more recent FARS data to extend our analysis for certain variables like atmospheric and road conditions and time of day of the crash. For FARS, we implemented guidance NHTSA provided to use four variables from the accident and vehicle data files to identify school-bus-related crashes. Based on interviews with NHTSA and UMTRI officials, as well as reviewing system documentation and electronic data testing, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing the number and type of fatal school-bus crashes. While these data sets allow us to describe the attributes of fatal crashes, the descriptive information is not generalizable to crashes with non-fatal injuries or with property damage only. Moreover, we did not have exposure data, such as the total miles traveled by different types of buses or operators, so we could not calculate crash rates that would allow for directly comparing different types of crashes. To describe federal school bus safety requirements, we reviewed federal laws and regulations on school bus inspections, driver training, and vehicle standards—specifically, vehicle age and seating capacity of school buses. We primarily focused our review on these three areas based on our initial research into school bus safety requirements and the content of the mandate. We reviewed inspection requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that would apply to school bus operators, but the scope of our review did not include all other aspects of these regulations, such as hours-of-service requirements for drivers and driver qualifications. We did not examine seat belts as part of our review due in part to NHTSA’s current effort to further research seat belts on all school buses. We also reviewed and analyzed guidance and reports from NHTSA, FMCSA, and the National Transportation Safety Board, including NHTSA’s Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety; National Transportation Safety Board’s accident investigation reports involving school buses; and FMCSA’s March 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and December 2016 Final Rule on entry- level driver training. We also interviewed officials from those agencies to understand the scope and applicability of federal laws and regulations for school bus vehicles and operators. To describe state laws and regulations, we systematically searched laws and regulations for all 50 states to determine the extent to which states set requirements for school bus inspections, driver training, and vehicle standards. Specifically, we searched for state requirements for: (1) school bus inspections; (2) entry-level or refresher training for school bus drivers; (3) maximum age, mileage, or use that require retiring or no longer using school buses; and (4) maximum seating capacity for school buses. We conducted this search on state statutes and administrative codes in a legal database. In consultation with GAO’s Office of General Counsel and our librarian, we developed search terms and protocols and used a data collection instrument for each of the requirements to ensure consistent collection of information. For example, for our searches on state requirements for school bus inspections, we used the search term “school bus w/10 inspect!” and increased the proximity of the key words from within 10 words to within 15 and 20 words. When our search returned no results for a state, we then searched the websites of the state’s education, transportation, motor vehicle, and/or police agencies and used any information found from these searches, such as a legal citation or terminology, to direct additional searches in a legal database. We also consulted with our Office of General Counsel on coding the results of our searches in the data collection instrument. After completing our searches, we compared the results of our search on states’ school- bus inspection requirements with the 2011 survey results from South Carolina and NASDPTS on school bus inspection practices to verify our research. We also compared the results of our research on vehicle age with a list provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures and the results of our research on vehicle age and seating capacity with a stakeholder’s compiled list of state requirements and practices on school bus vehicle age/life cycle use and seating capacity. We took steps to reconcile any identified differences, including conducting further research in a legal database and state agency websites and contacting state officials to clarify and verify the information we found in our legal search. We also validated our search results with eight selected states as part of our in-depth review on how selected states implement school-bus safety requirements, as further described below. Finally, our Office of General Counsel reviewed and verified the search results for all 50 states. The scope of our research did not include local requirements, and thus we did not include any local requirements for school bus inspections, driver training, or maximum vehicle age or seating capacity that may be applicable to school bus operators. In addition, our search terms and protocols aimed to identify states with requirements, but due to the nature of keyword searches, we may not have identified all relevant school bus requirements. Further, for states for which we didn’t identify requirements, we attempted several types of searches to try to find state inspection, driver training, or maximum age or capacity requirements. However, we cannot definitively conclude that there are no requirements in the mentioned categories for these states. To better understand implementation of federal and state rules and whether public and private bus operators face different safety requirements, we performed additional research on and conducted in- depth interviews with state officials from eight selected states. Using School Bus Fleet’s 2013–2014 school year school transportation data, we selected states to include those with the highest number of students transported daily by school bus, the highest annual route miles traveled per student, and variation in the number of school buses owned by states/school districts and contractors. We also selected states that vary geographically and maintained data available on school bus involved accidents and school bus inspections. We selected eight states: California, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. These eight states account for about 28 percent of public K-12 students transported daily on school buses. We conducted semi-structured interviews with state officials from the selected eight states and, when available, collected data on the outcomes of school bus inspections and the age of school buses. These eight selected states are a non-probability sample of states, and thus, the information we obtained is used for illustrative purposes and is not generalizable. To identify sources of leading practices, we conducted a literature search to identify leading practices on school bus inspections, driver training, and maximum vehicle age and seating capacity. We reviewed literature for the last 15 years for pertinent studies in peer-reviewed journals, trade publications, and conferences, among others, to identify sources and leading practices. We also interviewed school bus industry stakeholders, including officials from school-bus industry associations, federal agencies, select state agencies, school bus manufacturers, and school bus contractors, to identify sources of leading practices. We selected stakeholders to represent a range of roles in the school bus industry and the federal and state levels of government. A full list of stakeholders interviewed for this review is provided in table 2 below. In these interviews, we asked stakeholders an open-ended question for them to generate sources of leading practices, rather than offering a list of possible sources. Therefore, not every stakeholder we interviewed commented on whether a particular document or organization represented a source of leading practices; we can only report counts of stakeholders that identified a particular document or organization. We also asked school bus industry stakeholders what areas of additional federal guidance and research, if any, are needed. In identifying sources of leading practices and areas of further federal guidance and research, our questions did not apply to 4 of the 30 stakeholders in both cases. For example, we did not ask federal agencies about what additional federal research or guidance would be useful as we instead asked them about current or future research on school bus safety. The views of these school bus stakeholders are not generalizable to the entire school bus community, but they provide us with valuable insights. We analyzed the content of interviews with stakeholders and identified sources of leading practices from our literature review in the areas of inspections, driver training, and vehicle standards. In our review of eight selected states, we found variation in state requirements for and implementation of school bus inspection, driver training, and vehicles standards for maximum age and seating capacity, as shown in table 3 below. In addition to the contact named above, Susan Zimmerman (Assistant Director), Joanie Lofgren (Analyst in Charge), Carl Barden, Pamela Daum, Leia Dickerson, H. Brandon Haller, David Hooper, Jennifer Kim, Avani Locke, Grant Mallie, Janet Mascia, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Malika Rice, Amy Rosewarne, and Carter Stevens made key contributions to this report.

Summary: School buses transport over 26 million students to school and other activities every day. While school buses have a strong safety record, crashes with fatalities and injuries do occur. Since school buses transport precious cargo—our children—government and industry strive to further improve their safety. Federal and state agencies both oversee school bus safety, and locally, school buses can be operated by school districts or private contractors, working on behalf of school districts. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act included a provision for GAO to review school bus safety. GAO examined (1) fatal crashes involving school buses for 2000 to 2014 and (2) federal and state school-bus-related laws and regulations, among other objectives. GAO analyzed two sets of data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute on fatal school bus crashes for 2000 to 2014, the latest year for which data were available; reviewed federal laws and regulations; and systematically searched state laws and regulations on school-bus inspections, driver training, and maximum vehicle age and capacity in all 50 states. GAO also interviewed federal officials from the Department of Transportation (DOT), school bus industry associations and manufacturers, and other stakeholders. DOT reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments that GAO incorporated as appropriate. Based on GAO's analysis of data for 2000 to 2014, 115 fatal crashes involved a school bus on average each year—which is 0.3 percent of the 34,835 total fatal motor-vehicle crashes on average each year. The school-bus driver and school-bus vehicle (e.g., a defect) were cited as contributing factors in 27 percent and less than 1 percent of fatal school-bus crashes, respectively. Seventy-two percent of fatal crashes occurred during home-to-school and school-to-home travel times. Limited national data on school bus crashes exist beyond data on fatal school-bus crashes, but some states have richer data—for example, on the type of bus or whether the operator was a school district or private contractor. Federal laws and regulations set requirements for certain aspects of school bus safety, and state laws and regulations in many cases go beyond the federal requirements. Federal regulations for school-bus vehicle standards and driver licensing apply to both school districts and contractors. DOT has reported that new school buses must meet more Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards than any other type of new motor vehicle. Federal safety regulations for commercial motor-vehicle operations apply in certain cases, such as for contractors hired by schools to provide transportation for extracurricular activities across state lines. Based on a systematic search of state laws and regulations, GAO found that all 50 states require school bus inspections while most states—GAO found 44—require refresher training for school bus drivers. However, GAO found that less than a quarter of states set specific requirements for the maximum age and seating capacity of school buses. Overall, according to stakeholders GAO interviewed, states' requirements vary by state for school bus inspections, driver training, and vehicles but tend not to differ based on the type of operator.