Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 27: Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (School Buses)

July 2, 2022

Statutory authority
Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

Although school buses are the safest way to transport children to and from school, they are not without safety risks. Despite their excellent safety record, NCDB data from 1998 to 2017 indicates that, every year, an average of one child is fatally injured and 18 injuries are reported in collisions with a school bus or collisions with a passing vehicle while in the immediate vicinity of a school bus in Canada. This regulatory initiative is needed to support the Government of Canada’s commitment to further improving road safety for school buses.

Every school bus collision has a detrimental impact on more than just those directly involved in the collision. School bus collisions negatively affect the mental and emotional wellbeing of school-aged children, their peers, their families and the greater community. As a result, this regulatory initiative is needed to improve school bus safety and reduce the risk of fatalities and injuries so as to lessen mental and emotional trauma to those directly and indirectly involved in school bus collisions and to improve and maintain public confidence around school buses as the safest form of transportation for school-aged children.

New technologies have been developed which can assist in improving road safety around school buses. This initiative is required to ensure such technologies are subject to proper regulatory oversight, and to ensure that the implementation of such technologies does not result in unintended safety risks.

While developing this regulatory proposal, the department observed that sections 15.1 and 17 of the MVSR, which pertain to naming conventions for Test Methods and notices published in the Canada Gazette for updates to Technical Standards Documents^{footnote 1} (TSDs) respectively, needed to be repealed in order to better align the MVSR with amendments made to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 2014.

Background

School bus safety is a shared responsibility with federal/provincial/territorial governments, school boards and school bus operators each playing a role. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA), Transport Canada is responsible for establishing the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR) which include specific requirements for newly manufactured or imported school buses. In Canada, the vehicle manufacturer or importer must certify that all new vehicles offered for sale in Canada comply with all applicable safety regulations and standards. Transport Canada does not have jurisdiction over aftermarket modifications or retrofitting of school buses. Provinces and territories are responsible for the enforcement of safety on Canada’s roads and highways, for driver and vehicle licensing, the rules of the road and aftermarket vehicle modifications. Legislation can vary from one province to another.

Federally governed by some 40 Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the MVSR, school buses have a series of structural safety features that are specifically designed to safeguard children in the event of a collision in addition to pedestrian safety features to help prevent injuries to vulnerable road users (VRUs) outside the bus. That said, the Government of Canada is always searching for ways to improve road safety. Therefore, on October 15, 2018, Minister Garneau, then Minister of Transport, asked Transport Canada to take a fresh look at school bus safety. As part of this fresh look, Transport Canada reviewed available literature and existing technologies for improvements that could benefit safety both inside and outside the school bus.

On January 21, 2019, the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety (the Council of Ministers) established a Task Force on School Bus Safety using a two-tiered governance model to support a cohesive, national approach. Specifically, a Steering Committee consisting of federal, provincial and territorial government representatives was established along with an Advisory Panel consisting of manufacturers, school board representatives, school bus fleet operators, labour unions and safety associations. Their mandate was to review safety standards and operations, both inside and outside school buses, and to identify where school bus safety could be further strengthened.

On June 20, 2019, the Task Force’s Preliminary Report (PDF) was posted on the Council of Ministers’ website, identifying a range of opportunities to further strengthen school bus safety. Informed by the results of its broadly scoped review, the Task Force recognized that opportunities exist to help make school buses even safer. To achieve this increased level of safety, the Task Force identified a series of countermeasures that would need to be taken in three key areas: driver assistance, safety features outside the bus, and occupant protection.

In February 2020, the final Report of the Task Force on School Bus Safety (PDF) was posted on the Council of Ministers’ website. Consistent with the direction from the Council of Ministers, the Task Force identified a shortlist of opportunities to further improve school bus safety. The supporting evidence confirmed that school children are at greater risk in or near school bus loading zones than they are as school bus passengers. Indeed, 79% of school-aged fatalities involving a school bus occur outside the bus, in or near school bus loading zones. The Task Force focused on developing recommendations to address this reality. Specifically, the Task Force submitted that consideration be given to adding the following safety features to school buses, and encouraged all jurisdictions to explore the application of these measures:

1. Infraction cameras are a means to deter motorists from passing a school bus when its stop arm has been deployed, as this is when children may be crossing the street in front of the school bus. Infraction cameras would help deter passing motorists and thereby prevent potentially dangerous incidents;
2. Extended stop signal arms serve as a visual stop signal to motorists approaching a school bus from both the front and rear of the bus. The extended stop signal arm may also serve as a physical barrier to prevent vehicles from passing the school bus and act to further deter motorists from passing school buses while children are entering or leaving the school bus;
3. Exterior 360° cameras help the driver of a vehicle identify if any VRUs, such as children, are around the vehicle while the vehicle is stopped or travelling slowly, preventing incidents where the school bus would collide with an unseen VRU. These systems feature a series of cameras installed on the vehicle and a monitor to display the images to the driver. The cameras provide views around the vehicle which are difficult to obtain with mirrors alone and are a means of better detecting and protecting children and other VRUs around the exterior of school buses;
4. Automatic emergency braking is an advanced driver assistance system designed to monitor the area in front of the vehicle when it is in motion, provide a warning to the driver in the case of a potential collision, and automatically apply the vehicle brakes if an imminent crash is detected and the driver is not responding to the situation, all to help avoid collisions with pedestrians, cyclists or other vehicles.

Following the February 2020 Report, three school bus pilot projects were launched in 2020 in collaboration with Transport Canada (two in British Columbia and one in Ontario involving a total of six school buses), in order to assess operational considerations for the use of seat belts on school buses as well as to validate the Guidelines for the Use of Seatbelts on School Buses developed by the Task Force on School Bus Safety. These pilot projects were initially slated to run for one full academic year. Due to disruptions caused by measures implemented to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, the pilot projects are ongoing and end dates have yet to be confirmed. As part of these pilot projects, some of the above-mentioned technologies were installed on the buses based on jurisdictional interest. These pilot projects continue to provide practical evidence on the technologies. In parallel, research to evaluate the safety performance of automatic emergency braking and field of view of 360° cameras, was conducted at Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Test Centre in Blainville, Quebec.

Extended stop signal arm

Extended stop signal arms are currently available as aftermarket products from third-party companies, but not from school bus original equipment manufacturers (OEM).^{footnote 2} Extended stop signal arms, specifically, are not currently regulated federally. However, Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 131 – School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices (CMVSS 131) does require that Canadian school buses be equipped with one or two (forward and rearward) stop signal arms that must meet the technical requirements of Technical Standards Document (TSD) 131 – School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices (PDF). TSD 131 does not limit the length of a stop signal arm when it is deployed, but rather, it sets minimum dimensions for the stop signal and letters, outlines reflective material and lighting requirements, and indicates the location of installation on the driver’s side of the school bus. No requirements in CMVSS 131 or TSD 131 currently prohibit the installation of an extended stop signal arm on new school buses by school bus OEMs.

A stop signal arm is defined in TSD 131: “Stop signal arm means a device that can be extended outward from the side of a school bus to provide a signal to other motorists not to pass the bus because it has stopped to load or discharge passengers.” An extended stop signal arm is a stop signal arm that extends out further than the “normal” stop signal arm to make it more difficult for a vehicle to pass a school bus with this device extended, and to provide a more obvious signal to motorists not to pass the school bus because it has stopped to load or unload passengers; it is meant to increase conspicuity of the stop signal over and above the current stop signal arm.

An extended stop signal arm has the potential to improve road safety for VRUs (including school children) by blocking and deterring vehicles from illegally passing a stopped school bus when it is deployed (as demonstrated by the 89%^{footnote 3} reduction of motorist violations from a 2017 pilot project in Virginia).

360° Camera and perimeter visibility systems

An exterior 360° camera system is meant to help the driver of a vehicle identify if any VRUs, including children, are around the vehicle while the vehicle is stopped or travelling slowly. This identification is achieved by providing the driver with an aerial overview of the vehicle and surrounding area so that the driver may see VRUs. These systems feature a series of cameras installed on the vehicle and a monitor to display the image to the driver. The cameras provide the driver with views around the vehicle which would otherwise be difficult to for the driver to see directly or by using mirrors. Currently, some school bus manufacturers offer their own versions of 360° camera systems as an option on their new school buses. Other 360° camera systems are available as aftermarket systems by third-party manufacturers.

The positioning and images displayed to the driver on the display system vary between manufacturers. Systems may display views to the driver when the vehicle is starting to move from a stopped position, when the vehicle is about to make a turn (left or right, where the appropriate view can be shown on the display) and/or when the vehicle is in reverse. The vehicle operators may also toggle between different views on the display. The aerial overview is a specific component of the 360° camera system. This aerial overview component generates a synthetic image that digitally stitches together images captured by cameras placed on the exterior of the school bus. Currently, there are no requirements in North America or internationally that oblige school buses to be fitted with this type of technology.

Because of their size and design, school buses have many areas around their periphery where visibility for the driver is only partial or even zero. These areas are generally referred to as the “danger zone.” It can be extremely difficult for a driver to detect VRUs in the “danger zone.” To help detect children and other VRUs, school buses are fitted with different types of mirrors; however, visibility around the entire perimeter of a school bus remains an important road safety issue. Transport Canada had the road safety team at Polytechnique Montréal conduct visibility tests on two school buses to establish baseline visibility patterns subsequently used to evaluate the performance of various systems, including 360° camera systems installed on newly manufactured school buses by the OEM, and to support regulatory development.

Both vehicles studied were equipped with the same number of cameras on the sides, front and rear of the vehicle and were positioned similarly on the vehicles. Both buses were also capable of displaying the individual image of each of the cameras in addition to the 360° synthetic image produced by stitching together the individual camera views. During the indirect visibility testing conducted, it was determined that the synthetic 360° image produced from the individual camera images was severely distorted and afforded only a very limited view of the total area visible to the individual cameras themselves. For this reason, the usefulness of the synthetic 360° camera view is expected to be very limited. A child present around the perimeter of the school bus may not be visible on the synthetic 360° view displayed to the driver because the stitching of the image can lead to blind spots on the visual display. In order to help increase the driver’s visibility of the area surrounding the perimeter of the school bus, it would be more useful to show images from the individual cameras on the driver’s display. At present, 360​​° camera systems would need to be improved to provide a comprehensive picture for safety purposes. For this reason, Transport Canada is proposing that a perimeter visibility system, also consisting of a series of cameras on the exterior of the school bus and a monitor to display images of the area surrounding the school bus (i.e. the danger zone) to the driver, be considered to help increase driver visibility of this area. The objective of the implementation of a perimeter visibility system on a school bus is the same as that of a 360° camera system without requiring the synthetic 360° image. Similar to a 360° camera system, a perimeter visibility system is also composed of a series of cameras around the exterior of the school bus, whose images can be displayed to the driver in order to provide a full view of the danger zone around a school bus.

Regarding the display component of a perimeter visibility system, Transport Canada has published Guidelines to Limit Distraction from Visual Displays in Vehicles in order to address distraction from visual displays installed in a vehicle. The underlying premise for these guidelines is the need to fully consider what contributes to distraction. This means examining the device or system the driver is using, how the driver interacts with that device, the task they are doing, the duration of the interaction and the context of the device’s use to determine the level of potential distraction. The guidelines apply to visual displays that drivers may use while their vehicle is in motion such as the display of the perimeter visibility system. It is important to note that visual displays which help the driver with the driving task are not considered to be causes of distraction as they benefit the driver. The displays of these types of systems are currently used only during specific conditions under which the risk of a VRU in a blind spot of a vehicle are highest.

Infraction camera

At present, infraction cameras are aftermarket products that have been installed on certain school buses in various jurisdictions in Canada, based on a needs assessment conducted by the individual jurisdiction. There are currently no federal standards under the MVSR that apply to this equipment or its installation, nor are there any federal standards under the MVSR that would prevent the installation of such equipment on a school bus. Infraction cameras are not currently installed on new school buses by any OEM.

In certain jurisdictions, school bus drivers are required to manually note the licence plate of a vehicle that illegally passes their school bus and to report this information as appropriate. Such a task can be distracting for the drivers. In many cases drivers are not able to capture this information and most violations go unreported.

Infraction camera technology has the potential to improve road safety for VRUs, including school children, by deterring vehicles from illegally passing a stopped school bus with its stop signal arm deployed. The camera is part of a broader enforcement system to deter illegally passing vehicles and prosecute violations defined within provincial/territorial/municipal jurisdictions as applicable. Various strategies may be used to inform motorists of the use of infraction cameras in a particular jurisdiction, including but not limited to information campaigns, labelling on school buses, and informational pamphlets sent out with issued fines for infractions. There is no single standard practice regarding these strategies, and jurisdictions implementing infraction cameras must assess what is best for their circumstances.

Infraction camera systems work by capturing a video or image of a vehicle passing a stopped school bus with its stop signal arm deployed. The infraction camera may allow for enforcement of violations that occur around every school bus on which the technology is installed, therefore increasing the ability to report, fine and educate drivers of safe driving practices and the rules of the road around a school bus.

Passing a stopped school bus is illegal in every Canadian province and territory. Violations are defined by the respective provincial or territorial Highway Traffic Acts and therefore are enforced by law enforcement in the respective jurisdictions. As violations are defined by provinces and territories, the requirements, allowances, and other legislation around infraction cameras vary in different jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that choose to make use of infraction camera systems need to have an enforcement strategy in place with local or provincial law enforcement.

Other amendments

The change made to the MVSA in 2014, under subsection 11(3), now allows for a technical or explanatory document produced by the Minister including specifications, classifications, illustrations, graphs, test methods, procedures, operational standards and performance standards to be incorporated by reference in the MVSR. MVSR section 15.1, which was created prior to the 2014 MVSA amendment to allow the use of test methods that could be incorporated by reference in the MVSR, requires a prescribed naming convention for test methods. This type of naming requirement is not present in the MVSR for any other type of document produced by the Minister that may be incorporated by reference into the regulations. The MVSR incorporate by reference many technical standards and test methods, all of which follow the same style for naming, description, and identification. Due to the 2014 MVSA amendment allowing a broader incorporation by reference power, Transport Canada is proposing to repeal section 15.1 of the MVSR, as it is no longer required and the naming convention is unnecessarily restrictive.

The MVSA allows for the incorporation by reference of technical standards documents. Currently, section 17 of the MVSR requires that Transport Canada publish a notice in the Canada Gazette, Part I, each time it amends a TSD. The 2014 MVSA amendments added subsection 12(3), which clarifies that technical standard documents do not need to be published in the Canada Gazette. Since the MVSA does not require TSDs to be published in the Canada Gazette, and due to the fact that Transport Canada has been utilizing a new and more and effective process for notifying stakeholders of updates to technical standard documents (namely, publishing a notice on the department’s consultation webpage), Transport Canada is proposing to repeal section 17 of the MVSR.

Objective

The objective of the proposed regulatory amendments is to better protect school children outside and around school buses.

The proposed amendments would mandate that every newly manufactured school bus subject to the MVSA be equipped with an extended stop signal arm. The goal of mandating this technology is to prevent motorists from passing stopped school buses in order to protect children and other pedestrians from death and serious injury.

The proposed amendments would also mandate that all newly manufactured school buses subject to under the MVSA be equipped with exterior perimeter visibility systems. The goal of mandating this technology on school buses is to support the driver by providing a means of better detecting children, and other VRUs, around the exterior of the bus to avoid death and serious injuries. The perimeter visibility system would do so by providing the driver with appropriate views of the danger zone around a school bus in which a VRU would be otherwise hidden from view of the driver.

Infraction cameras are a means to deter motorists from passing a school bus when its stop arm has been deployed, as this is when children may be crossing the street in front of the school bus. The technology is essentially an enforcement tool for violations defined under provincial and territorial Highway Traffic Acts. This technology on school buses offers increased vehicle safety by acting as a deterrent for motorists from passing stopped school buses, thus avoiding potential death and serious injuries to children and other pedestrians while they are crossing the street in front of the buses. By introducing requirements that would apply only if the technology is installed on new or imported school buses, it is Transport Canada’s intention to avoid impeding individual system requirements that may be set by jurisdictions, while highlighting the potential safety benefit of the technology for deterring illegally passing vehicles.

In addition, the proposal aims to repeal sections 15.1 and 17 of the MVSR, which pertain to naming conventions for Test Methods and notices published in the Canada Gazette for updates to TSDs respectively, in order to better align the MVSR with amendments made to the MVSA in 2014.

The proposed amendments would improve safety for school-aged children while also introducing qualitative benefits related to reducing societal toll and emotional distress for communities that may be affected by incidents involving a school-aged child and a school bus. Improvements to school bus safety can also improve public perception of school buses and their use for transporting school aged children.

Description

The proposed amendments would require new school buses to be equipped with an extended stop signal arm as well as an exterior perimeter visibility system, including a monitor, to display views to the driver. In addition, the proposal will set requirements for the voluntary installation of an infraction camera on school buses.

The proposed amendments would require an extended stop signal arm on all new school buses subject to under the MVSA in addition to specifying that the extended stop signal arms meet the amended technical requirements of TSD 131 - School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. In conjunction with the proposed amendments, modifications are also being proposed to TSD 131 in order to adapt the TSD for application with the extended stop signal arm. TSD 131 is also being modified in order to allow either the word “STOP,” in English, or “ARRÊT,” in French, to be printed on the stop signal of the stop signal arm or extended stop signal arm.

The proposed amendments would mandate the use of perimeter visibility systems and rename CMVSS 111, where the requirements for this technology are to be proposed within the MVSR, to the more general title “Mirrors and Visibility Systems” from “Mirrors and Rear Visibility Systems.” Transport Canada would incorporate a new standards document (Document 111 – Perimeter Visibility Systems), which would be used to demonstrate compliance with requirements of CMVSS 111. Document 111 would specify the area around a school bus within which a defined test tool must be visible and displayed to the driver by the perimeter visibility system rather than requiring a 360° camera system and a specific aerial view with stitched synthetic imaging. The new Document 111 would also specify requirements for the field of view to be provided to the driver; prescribe the test conditions for the system; identify how to establish the visibility zone around the school bus; prescribe the dimensions of the test tool to be used for testing; and set out the operating conditions for the display unit.

The proposed amendments would also establish requirements for infraction cameras if they are installed on school buses. For example, a jurisdiction may voluntarily request to have this technology installed, by the OEM, on a new school bus subject to the MVSA. In this case, the proposed amendments would specify that, when an infraction camera is installed on a school bus subject to the MVSA, the system must function without driver intervention and be positioned in a way that would allow the camera to capture vehicle licence plate information from the front or rear of a vehicle. The proposed amendments would not require the installation of infraction cameras, nor would the proposed amendments set requirements for specific data collection or processing, as what is necessary for enforcement may vary from one jurisdiction to another.

The proposed amendments would repeal sections 15.1 and 17 of the MVSR to align with the changes made to the MVSA in 2014.

Finally, in order to tap into the deterrent ability of the infraction camera, the proposed amendments would include a requirement that all new and imported school buses subject to the MVSA be equipped with a label indicating that the school bus may be equipped with an infraction camera system, regardless of whether an infraction camera is installed on the school bus. The presence of the label would help raise awareness with drivers of the potential use of an infraction camera system on a school bus and may further deter drivers from passing a stopped school bus that is loading or unloading school aged passengers.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Transport Canada informs the automotive industry, public safety organizations, and the general public when changes are planned to the MVSR. This notification is done, in part, through the publication of Transport Canada’s Departmental Forward Regulatory Plan as well as Motor Vehicle Safety’s Schedule of Proposed Regulations. These regulatory plans give stakeholders advance notice of the Department’s planned regulatory agenda and provide the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. Transport Canada also consults regularly in face-to-face meetings or teleconferences with the automotive industry, public safety organizations, the provinces, and the territories. The proposed amendments are included in the Departmental Forward Regulatory Plan and were discussed at multiple meetings with stakeholders leading up to a formal consultation in a public notice (see the “Public notice” section below).

Transport Canada also meets regularly with the federal authorities of other countries, as aligned regulations are central to trade and to a competitive Canadian automotive industry. For example, Transport Canada and the United States Department of Transportation hold semi-annual meetings to discuss issues of mutual importance and planned regulatory changes.

Task Force on School Bus Safety

The Task Force on School Bus Safety brings together federal, provincial and territorial government representatives, safety associations, manufacturers and industry, school board representatives and school bus drivers to support a cohesive pan-Canadian approach to improving school bus safety. Since January 2019, the membership has met on a biweekly basis to share information and expertise on all aspects of school bus safety. Their work has been instrumental in determining the recommended safety measures that Transport Canada is currently proposing to mandate on school buses. These efforts have resulted in significant data collection and research to build an evidence base in support of a range of opportunities to strengthen school bus safety. This work also led to the development of the Strengthening School Bus Safety in Canada (PDF) report which was approved for publication by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Safety in February 2020.

Since the publication of the report in February 2020, the Advisory Panel and Steering Committee has continued its meetings in order to share information regarding ongoing pilot projects, research findings, consultation on regulatory development, as well as other school bus safety considerations, with the broader school bus safety community.

Public notice

A public consultation titled Improving School Bus Safety in Canada, was posted on Transport Canada’s Let’s Talk Transportation online platform for comment from September 1, 2020, to October 7, 2020. The online consultation allowed stakeholders and members of the public to comment on the plan to require the recommended technologies on school buses. Motor Vehicle Safety stakeholders were contacted via email, and Transport Canada shared the consultation details via its social media platforms to target feedback from Canadians. Interested parties were invited to provide comments in a public discussion forum or to send more detailed submissions via email.

The online consultation indicated that Transport Canada intended to mandate all three technologies on Canadian school buses. A variety of stakeholders participated in the public consultation, including provincial governments and government organizations, transportation authorities, school districts, standards authorities, technical experts, consultants, Non-Governmental Organizations, and industry including school bus operators and manufacturers. Stakeholders indicated broad support for any technology that could improve the safety of children on and around school buses. General concerns regarding the increased cost of school buses were brought up by a variety of stakeholders, in addition to the need for continued research and full regulatory analysis, including a cost-benefit analysis prior to mandating any new technologies on school buses. Some stakeholders also highlighted that increasing the cost of school buses by mandating new safety equipment could result in fewer buses being purchased and, consequently, more students using less safe forms of transportation than school buses.

As part of the development of this regulatory proposal, three school bus pilot projects were launched in collaboration with Transport Canada, which continue to provide practical evidence on the technologies included in this regulatory proposal. Research to evaluate the performance and the field of view of 360° cameras, among other technologies, was also conducted at Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Test Centre in Blainville, Quebec, to inform this proposal. Although the proposed amendments would carry a high net monetized cost, Transport Canada has concluded that the overall qualitative benefits of the proposed amendments, including avoided psychological trauma and long-lasting cognitive consequences for communities affected by incidents involving school aged children and a school bus, would outweigh the overall costs.

Regarding infraction cameras, most comments supported their use but indicated that the technology is a punitive measure rather than a preventative one. Stakeholders expressed that infraction cameras are a part of a broader system of enforcement against the illegal passing of a school bus and that there are many aspects to such systems that go beyond the vehicle itself, including data storage, transfer and review, as well as privacy considerations surrounding the data captured by the system. Further to this, differences exist at the provincial level regarding school bus stopping laws and judicial procedures which would make a national specification regarding this technology difficult to develop. Ontario indicated that the implementation and use of infraction cameras are left to the discretion of municipalities. Quebec indicated that it had undertaken a review of infraction camera technology in the past and would not be in a position to utilize the technology if it were to be mandated on Canadian school buses as it would not undertake the complex legislative changes needed to do so. The province of Quebec did, however, indicate that they would support a voluntary approach to regulating infraction cameras as this would allow individual jurisdictions to continue to assess for themselves if the technology would be beneficial for them. Based on this feedback, Transport Canada concluded that the proposed amendments should not mandate the installation of infraction cameras. Instead, the proposed amendments would prescribe specific safety requirements that must be met if infraction cameras are installed.

Comments regarding the extended stop signal arm were supportive of the technology as it was perceived to have the potential to increase the visibility of the stop signal for other motorists, therefore preventing dangerous passing incidents. Discussion around 360° cameras was also generally supportive of the technology; however, some concern was raised regarding the potential for driver distraction from the display. To address these concerns, the Department incorporated components of the Guidelines to Limit Distraction from Visual Displays in Vehicles under the proposed Document 111 for the display component of perimeter visibility systems.

Some stakeholders suggested that, as an alternative to regulation, information campaigns be conducted to better educate drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians on how to safely behave around school buses. Transport Canada views informational campaigns about rules of the road concerning school buses as a measure that could be taken by individual jurisdictions as appropriate in addition to the proposed federal regulations. However, Transport Canada concluded that such measures alone would not meet the objectives of the proposed amendments.

Detailed comments regarding mandating extended stop signal arms were generally supportive of the technology and increasing the conspicuity of the stop signal. However, stakeholders raised a potential issue with use of the technology due to provincial traffic or vehicle width laws that may restrict the deployment of the extended stop signal arm. Although Transport Canada has not set an extension length for the extended stop signal arm in the proposed regulations, further work may need to be undertaken in provincial regulations to allow the deployment of the extended stop signal arm on school buses.^{footnote 4} For example, a province or territory may have width requirements for vehicles, and it is unclear if there may be instances where the extended stop arm when extended, would require exemptions for being over width like in the case of snowplows. It should be noted that no provinces or territories would be obliged to update their requirements as a result of the proposed amendments.

If a specific jurisdiction does not allow the deployment of this safety technology, then no safety benefit will come from it being equipped on the school bus. As part of the proposed regulations, Transport Canada would require the extended stop signal arm to be able to function and be deployed independently from the stop signal arm, currently installed on school buses. This functionality will allow the arms to be deployed independently as appropriate in various situations (i.e. not deploying the extended stop signal arm on a narrow street or if an obstacle is in the way of its deployment).

In addition to the comments on the technologies included in this regulatory proposal, stakeholders also suggested that Transport Canada review the current allowance in the MVSR for a four-lamp warning system for school buses to determine if such an allowance is still appropriate given that the eight-lamp warning system has been adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions and all jurisdictions in Canada with the exception of Ontario. Transport Canada determined it would consider this suggestion for a future proposal as additional consultations would be required.^{footnote 5}

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the proposed regulations may give rise to modern treaty obligations. Based on the analysis done, the proposal does not have modern treaty implications and is not expected to have differential impacts on Indigenous peoples.

Instrument choice

The mandate of the Task Force created by the Council of Ministers was to identify and assess potential measures to improve school bus safety including seat belts. Given the excellent safety record of school buses in Canada, the Task Force identified a shortlist of opportunities to further improve school bus safety. In order to achieve this increased level of safety, the Task Force identified a series of countermeasures in three key areas of focus, including driver assistance, safety features outside the bus, and occupant protection. Work through the Task Force on school bus safety is ongoing and has allowed Transport Canada to facilitate discussions between various jurisdictions on a variety of school bus safety topics including jurisdictional strategies for use and implementation of infraction camera systems, interior camera systems and seat belts; presentations by manufacturers of various school bus safety technologies; presentations of provincial vehicle standards development and legislative changes; and, measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic, among other topics. The Task Force has also led to other instruments being implemented by the department to improve and assess the school bus safety landscape, including

• the implementation of seat belt pilot projects in British Columbia and Ontario to validate draft Guidelines for the Use of Seatbelts on School Buses, and
• the development of guidance documents related to school transportation and COVID-19 (Federal Guidance for School Bus Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic, May 29, 2020, and Joint Guidance Document Transport Canada and CSA D250 School Bus Technical Committee, May 29, 2020)

Given the topic of improving safety features outside the bus, the supporting evidence confirmed that school children are at greatest risk in or near school bus loading zones. The Task Force submitted that consideration be given to adding certain safety features to school buses and encouraged all jurisdictions to explore the application of these measures based on their assessed needs. Through continuous consultation with the Task Force, Transport Canada has determined that by regulating the proposed technologies at the federal level, the safety benefits of these technologies will be consistent for the entire school bus fleet across all jurisdictions.

Other approaches, such as voluntary requirements, were considered and deemed appropriate for infraction cameras due to the role of this technology and its ties to the enforcement of provincial or territorial legislation, whereas consistent performance-based requirements and implementation of perimeter visibility systems and extended stop signal arms were deemed to provide the most safety benefit for school-aged children around school buses through consensus-based recommendations and consultations with the Task force on School Bus Safety. Additional measures, such as educational campaigns were also considered. This type of approach has and continues to be used in individual jurisdictions to help improve school bus safety based on the assessed needs of each jurisdiction; however, such an approach does not address improving safety consistently across Canada. Educational campaigns held at the federal level would be very broad in content. Specific strategies and education are most effective at the individual jurisdictional level in order to address safety outside the bus and around school bus loading zones.

Together, these proposed requirements would allow school bus drivers to focus on keeping children out of harm’s way and improve road safety for VRUs around the school bus. Federal regulatory requirements would apply, for example, if a jurisdiction requests to voluntarily equip their new school buses with infraction camera systems. The approach will maintain the responsibility of individual jurisdictions to set any requirements necessary for their enforcement regimes and regarding the activation and use of infraction camera systems, including, but not limited to, data storage, review, allowable use and transfer, enforcement, evidence gathering, and admissibility in court.

By addressing the area of greatest risk for school-aged children around school buses through regulation, Transport Canada aims to not only eliminate a number of fatalities and injuries to school-aged children but also to limit the physical and emotional effects of these incidents on peers and families, while also improving public confidence around school buses.

Federal regulations were determined to be the most appropriate solution to address the identified safety issues affecting school children and other VRUs outside and around school buses to ensure a consistent approach across Canada. Alternatively, these changes could have been proposed to the Canadian Standards Association D250 School bus committee, for implementation in the D250 School Bus Standard. However, not all jurisdictions apply the D250 standards, and therefore the implementation through the D250 standard risks being inconsistent across the country. In the absence of the proposed amendments, safety issues and inconsistencies, including limited perimeter visibility and potential driver distractions, would persist, which would continue to pose risk to children around school buses.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The proposed regulations would improve safety by requiring that school buses be equipped with specific technologies to better protect children and pedestrians in and around the school bus loading area. The proposed amendments would impose a regulatory cost of $406.1 million,^{footnote 6} with capital and installation costs directly carried by school bus manufacturers; however, it is expected that these costs would be passed down to provincial school systems. It is estimated that the monetized benefits from the amendments would be $62.7 million between 2022 and 2031. The total net present cost of the amendments is therefore estimated to be $343.4 million.

The information provided in the “Benefits and costs” section is meant to summarize the findings of the analysis. A full cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request.

Analytical framework

Following TBS’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide (PDF), the scope of this analysis is at the societal level, analyzing costs and benefits attributed to Canadians. The central (main) scenario in this analysis estimated the impact of the proposed amendments over a 10-year period from 2022 to 2031. Ten years was chosen as the analytical time frame as it corresponds to the expected useful life of a school bus. Unless otherwise stated, all costs are in present value 2021 dollars, discounted at a 7% discount rate with 2022 as the base year.

Affected stakeholders

The added safety features in school buses would have a wide array of implications for a broad range of stakeholders in Canada. For instance, school bus manufacturers would be required to include and install the new safety features. It is important, however, to consider that the burden of the cost would ultimately be passed on to provincial educational systems as either the purchasers of new school buses or school transportation services from school transportation providers.

The main beneficiaries of the proposed amendments would be school age children and their families. School age children would benefit through decreased rates of injuries and fatalities as a result of the added safety measures, while their families would benefit from decreased emotional and financial constraints. Furthermore, in addition to a decrease in the number of injuries and fatalities, the reduction in social costs would decrease the financial constraint on the health care system, first responders, and the legal system. In addition, the reduction in the number of collisions would provide positive societal benefits by reducing negative public externalities such as accident-related traffic and its associated pollution.

Data and methodology

Casualties

Information about casualties from school bus-related accidents was obtained from the NCDB. Casualties refer to fatalities and/or injuries. The NCDB data was used to estimate the number of casualties as the result of school bus accidents where the proposed technologies would have otherwise prevented them from happening.

When analyzing situations where an extended stop signal arm could provide added safety benefits, the data for collisions was filtered to only include school-related accidents on weekdays from September to June during school hours. However, accidents relating to the potential use and benefit of the perimeter visibility system go beyond the scope of those filters. A perimeter visibility system can stop impact school bus-related collisions on weekends as well as weekdays, summer months as well as autumn, winter or spring seasons at any time throughout the day and involving any individual irrespective of their age. This is because even though school buses are by and large mostly related to school systems by transporting students during school hours, they do offer transportation services outside of school hours as well. In some communities, school buses provide transportation services to community groups (e.g. senior citizens groups and amateur sport teams) during weekends and non-school hours. Furthermore, they offer transportation to summer camps during summer months and drive amateur sport teams in between cities. For the purpose of this analysis, the casualty numbers from the NCDB are classified into three categories: fatalities, major injuries and minor injuries.

Once the data was scoped properly, the effectiveness rates of the proposed technologies were applied to the casualty numbers to forecast the positive impact of the technologies in saving lives and avoiding injuries.

Technology effectiveness rate

Perimeter visibility system

It is estimated that the perimeter visibility system would reduce accidents that involve school bus collisions with individuals by 30.5%. This rate is comparable with the effectiveness rate of 28% to 33%^{footnote 7} in rear cameras estimated by the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.^{footnote 8}

Extended stop signal arm

It is estimated that the Extended Stop Signal Arm would reduce collisions resulting from a vehicle hitting a person during school bus onboarding and offboarding when the extended stop signal arm is out by 89%.^{footnote 3} This value is based on the success rates from a 2017 pilot project in Virginia.

Infraction camera (decal warning sign)

No consideration is given to the technology effectiveness rate for the infraction camera system as it would be installed on a voluntary basis. Instead, all school buses would have a warning notification label affixed on them (stating the potential existence of an infraction camera on the vehicle). It was estimated that the infraction camera warning label on the school buses can successfully act as a deterrent, with similar effectiveness rates to both stationary and mobile warning signs (e.g. traffic and speed camera warning signs). Due to this comparison, the effectiveness rate of the infraction camera warning label is to be included in the analysis. It is hypothesized that in a similar fashion to speed camera warning signs, where it notifies the drivers of the possible existence of a speed camera on the road, an infraction camera warning label would notify the passing drivers of the existence of an infraction camera installed on the school buses. The only difference between the two warning signs is that one is stationary and the other mobile. An effectiveness rate of 38%^{footnote 9} was assigned for infraction camera warning label, which is in line with the effectiveness rates of other traffic and road safety warning signs.^{footnote 10}

Projected number of new school buses

The annualized number of new school buses consists of bus replacements from natural turnover (fleet modernization) and new buses resulting from real growth because of the increase in demand. The information pertaining to the purchasing cost of new school buses was derived from 2019 National School Bus Fleet and Financial Consideration data and has been adjusted to 2021 dollars. In the analysis, the purchasing cost and distribution share pertaining to each separate class of school bus models (Type A1, Type A2, Type B, Type C, Type D) were individually estimated in the methodology with aggregating the overall cost at the final step to be used to estimate the purchasing cost of the new school buses.

The forecast includes and was designed to consider the number of school children in its estimations. The forecasted growth/decline rate in the number of school children per school bus ratio was a determinant when assessing the demand for school buses. The forecast took the number of school children and the derived ratio of number of school children per school bus between years 2008–2018 into consideration for calculating the predicted growth rate and the demand for school buses in the upcoming years.

It is estimated that a total of 58,350 new school buses would be affected by the proposed Regulations over the 10-year analytical period.

Costs

The present value cost of the proposed amendments is estimated to be $406.1 million between 2022 and 2031 in 2021 dollars. As previously discussed, these costs would be directly incurred by school bus manufacturers, with the cost passed on to provincial educational systems as the purchasers of new school buses or acquirers of school transportation services from school transportation providers.

Capital and installation cost

The capital costs constitute 96.2% of the overall cost, estimated to be $390.7 million over the 10-year analytical time frame at 7% discount rate.

Perimeter visibility system

For the perimeter visibility system to be fully functional, in addition to the camera technology itself, it is necessary to install a display system, either in a standalone setting or as part of a smart digital mirror. Furthermore, a calibration cost is included as part of the installation procedure. For perimeter visibility system, the calibration cost is considered as the overall installation cost. The costs were provided by the Florida Department of Education’s 2020 School Bus Price and Ordering Guide brochure.^{footnote 11} The unit capital cost of the technology is estimated to be $4,588, with an additional $482 as its installation cost. All the costs presented here are in Canadian dollars.

Of the $390.7 million technology capital and installation costs, the perimeter visibility technology would cost $204.6 million dollars over the 10-year analytical time frame. This constitutes 52.4% of the overall capital and installation cost.

Extended stop signal arm

The cost data for the extended stop signal arm was obtained from the 2019 listed retailed price posted by Canadian extended stop signal arm manufacturers and adjusted to 2021 dollars.^{footnote 12} In order to estimate the installation cost for extended stop signal arms, the average salaries for occupation classification in the National Occupational Classification (NOC) 95 were used.^{footnote 13} Successful installation of the extended stop signal arm is assumed to require three people working for three hours each. $4,283 is estimated to be the capital cost for the technology with $206 as its installation cost.

It is estimated that the extended stop signal arm would cost $181.1 million over the 10-year analytical time frame. This represents 46.4% of the overall capital and installation cost.

Infraction camera (decal warning sign)

As the proposed amendments set requirements only if the technology is installed on a new school bus, but do not mandate their installation, no capital (technology) and maintenance costs have been estimated for these provisions under the central scenario. Only the label cost, which is associated with notifying the drivers of the possible existence of an infraction camera on the school bus is considered in the cost portion. Label costs are valued at $123 per school bus.

It is estimated that the label warning sign would cost $5 million dollars, representing 1.2% of the capital and installation costs.

Maintenance costs

Maintenance costs constitute 3.8% of the overall cost, estimated to be $15.4 million over the 10-year analytical time frame at 7% discount rate.

The maintenance cost for the perimeter visibility system and extended stop signal arm technologies is calculated by first identifying the ratio of school bus maintenance cost over school bus purchasing price. Under the supposition that the overall maintenance to purchase ratio would be the same for school bus parts, technology maintenance costs are calculated by applying the derived ratio to the perimeter visibility system and extended stop signal arm purchasing price. It is important to note that, in the methodology, maintenance costs would be nonlinear, as the analysis assumed the maintenance cost would be sensitive to the fleet age. In other words, maintenance costs would be lower for newer school buses, and as they age, the costs associated with their maintenance would increase. As the proposed amendments set requirements for infraction cameras only if the technology is installed on a new school bus, but do not mandate their installation, the analysis in the central scenario does not include maintenance costs for infraction cameras. The maintenance cost associated with warning labels would be negligible and is, therefore, not counted.

Perimeter visibility system

Between 2022 and 2031, it is estimated that the perimeter visibility technology would cost $8.2 million dollars at 7% discount rate.

Extended stop signal arm

Likewise, in the same 10-year analytical time frame, costs affiliated with maintaining the extended stop signal arm are estimated to be $7.2 million dollars.

Infraction camera (decal warning sign)

No costs are assigned to the infraction camera in the central scenario or to the decal warning sign as it is a sticker permanently affixed on the body of the school buses.

Benefits

The proposed amendments would result in a broad spectrum of both monetized and non-monetized benefits. In addition to reducing and preventing the risk of fatalities and injuries, the proposed amendments would also result in societal, and mental health benefits.

Monetized benefits

The monetized present value benefits (at 7% discount rate in 2021 dollars) of the amendments is estimated to be $62.7 million between 2022 and 2031.

Human consequences

The human consequences include the monetized costs of accidents involving fatalities, and major and minor injuries. These are calculated following the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS) recommended CBA guideline.^{footnote 14} The Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) of $8.2 million dollars (in 2021 dollars) is used for avoided fatalities, while 13.42% of the VSL is used for major injuries. Similarly, a VSL fraction of 0.67%, equivalent to $0.0547 million is assigned to minor injuries in this analysis.^{footnote 15}

Based on the analysis, it is projected that there would be 34 fatalities, 105 major injuries, and 732 minor injuries between 2022 and 2031 without the implementation of the proposed amendments. The projected casualty numbers are derived by multiplying the annual average number of casualties with the average growth rate of school buses, which itself includes the average growth rate of the student population in the respective years.

Considering the effectiveness rate of the technologies and the share of new and replaced school buses to the overall number of operational school buses in Canada between 2022 and 2031, it is estimated that the proposed amendments would help to prevent 7 fatalities, 23 major injuries, and 154 minor injuries.

The human consequence benefits, through the application of VSL, are estimated to generate a monetized present value of $59.1 million dollars assuming a 7% discount rate between 2022 and 2031.

Social consequence benefits

The methodology that is used to estimate social consequences is based on the 2007 Analysis and Estimation of the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Collisions in Ontario model developed by Vodden et al;^{footnote 16} however, the numbers and values used in this report have been updated with 2019 collision figures. To calculate the costs, the average cost for each social consequence variable (fatality, major and minor injury) is divided by its respective total count. Table 1 provides the estimated average cost of each social consequence variable. These costs are then multiplied by the number of school bus-related fatalities, and major and minor injuries applicable to this analysis. The analysis considers avoided costs related to fatalities and injuries as benefits because the increased safety through the proposed technologies leads to the avoidance of these costs.

Table 1 – Average accident cost for each social consequence variable, 2021 prices

	Fatalities	Major Injury	Minor Injury
Hospital/Health Care	$3,013	$11,110	$2,259
Ambulance	$1,211	$1,795	$591
Police	$10,637	$847	$847
Courts	$1,565	$125	$125
Fire	$3,185	$1,499	$1,499
Tow Trucks	$883	$527	$527
Out of pocket	$1,102	$1,027	$1,027
Delay Costs table b1 note a	$442,642	$4,664	$4,664
Table b1 note(s) Table b1 note a Delays are comprised of social cost as the result of traffic delays due to accidents involving school buses. It includes the value of extra time lost, extra fuel consumed, and pollution emitted as the result of the traffic delay. Return to table b1 note a referrer

The aggregate of the social consequence benefits is estimated to be a combined monetized present value of $3.6 million dollars between 2022 and 2031 at a 7% discount rate.

Table 2 – Social consequence benefits at 7% discount rate (present value, 2021 prices)

Year	Fatalities	Minor Injuries	Major Injuries
Total	$2,170,218	$1,113,589	$307,738

Non-monetized benefits

In addition to the monetized benefits, there is a need to emphasize that these added school bus safety features have substantial non-monetized benefits for the injured individuals, the families of the deceased and injured, and the school and broader community as well.

Concerning the injured individuals, there is a psychological trauma that results from experiencing accidents. A study conducted on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on children in motor-related accidents determined that approximately 25% of children were diagnosed with PTSD for 7 to 12 months after the accident.^{footnote 17} Another study stated post-traumatic stress was especially evident 2 to 18 months after an incident, with survived or injured individuals suffering from a 42.1% to 77.8% increase in PTSD^{footnote 18}. Given that childhood and adolescent years are essential for an individual’s psychological development, such psychological trauma negatively impacts mental health and has adverse emotional and behavioural consequences not only in the immediate aftermath of an accident, but also in later stages of life as well. A longitudinal study analyzing the long-term effects of a tour school bus crash yielded that the directly affected group of the crash still suffered from some post-traumatic stress symptoms even 20 years after the incident.^{footnote 19} While it is complex to monetize the long-lasting cognitive consequences of accidents, it is very important to recognize that the increase in safety standards as the result of the amended technologies would reduce the number of accidents and in return mitigate post-traumatic stress resulting from these accidents.

The immediate families and close friends of severely injured or killed individuals also suffer from severe and long-lasting trauma and emotional hardship. The trauma from losing a loved one and a close friend or witnessing their distress can lead to long-lasting depression. A study by Keppel-Benson et al. (2002) refers to the family and friends of the victims as indirectly involved and asserts that they too suffer hardships such as bus travel anxiety, increased sadness levels, feelings of guilt, and nightmares.^{footnote 13} The study also claimed many indirectly involved persons suffered from a 48.1% to 77.6% increase in post-traumatic stress over the course of 20 years.^{footnote 20} In addition, research has found that sudden or lingering feelings of shock, disbelief, depression, loneliness, anger, emptiness, hopelessness, vulnerability, or fear of intimacy can emerge and sometimes lead to interruptions of the grieving process^{footnote 12}. The added safety from the amended technologies would have the benefit of alleviating the pressure and mental suffering of not only the victims, but the immediate families and close friends of the deceased and injured.

The uncertainty and anxiety from the unpredictability of accidents can impact the broader school and local communities as well. A community must often deal with levels of shock and fear at such an incident close to home, usually leaving schoolmates, teachers, and the broader community in grief. To protect their children, parents within the community may restrict a child’s independent mobility in ways that no longer allow children to freely explore the neighbourhood or play on the streets.^{footnote 21} This mobility restriction may hinder a child’s development by limiting feelings of independence and confidence, reducing opportunities to form new experiences, and decreasing physical activity.

Cost-benefit statement

In the central scenario, the total present value of costs is $406.1 million in 2021 dollars. Similarly, the total present value of benefits is $62.7 million. Therefore, the total net cost is -$343.4, which corresponds to a benefit/cost ratio of 0.154.

Summary of analytical framework

• Number of years: 10 (2022 to 2031)
• Base year: 2022
• Present value base year: 2021
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 3 – Summary of monetized costs (in millions)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	2022	2031	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Direct: School Bus manufacturers Indirect: Provincial Educational Systems and School Transportation Providers	Total purchasing cost of amended technologies in new school bus fleet	$41.4	$31.7	$390.7	$55.6
Direct: School Bus manufacturers Indirect: Provincial Educational Systems and School Transportation Providers	Total maintenance cost of amended technologies in new school bus fleet	$0.39	$4.8	$15.4	$2.2

Table 4 – Summary of monetized benefits (in millions)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	2022	2031	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Canadians	Avoided fatalities and injuries	$1.4	$8.9	$59.1	$8.4
Social Benefits	Social costs avoided as the result of reduction in number of collisions	$0.08	$0.54	$3.6	$0.51

Table 5 – Summary of monetized costs and benefits (in millions)

Impacts	2022	2031	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$41.8	$36.5	$406.1	$57.8
Total benefits	$1.4	$9.4	$62.7	$8.9
Net Impact	-$40.4	-$27	-$343.4	-$48.9

Qualitative benefits

Positive impacts

• Mitigating fear, anxiety, depression, and mental suffering.
• Mitigating post-traumatic stress resulting from accidents.
• Alleviating community fear that could otherwise result in reduced confidence and physical activities for children.

Distributional analysis

It is estimated that the addition of the proposed technologies will on average cost $7,859 per school bus in Canada. As such, as seen in Table 6, provinces such as Ontario and Quebec with the highest number of school buses in Canada will incur a higher share of costs. Conversely, the territories have the lowest number of school buses (as the result of a lower number of school children) and would, consequently, incur the lowest share of the costs.

Table 6 – Estimated regulatory cost in each province and territory

Province and Territories	Estimated Number of School Buses table b6 note b	Estimated Regulatory Cost by Province and Territories
Newfoundland and Labrador	1,009	$7,930,044
Prince Edward Island	323	$2,538,557
Nova Scotia	1,459	$11,466,734
New Brunswick	1,234	$9,698,389
Quebec	10,650	$83,701,658
Ontario	20,833	$163,733,018
Manitoba	2,546	$20,009,805
Saskatchewan	3,083	$24,230,255
Alberta	7,114	$55,911,136
British Columbia	3,166	$24,882,577
Yukon	60	$471,559
Northwest Territories	73	$573,730
Nunavut	120	$943,117
Table b6 note(s) Table b6 note b Task Force on School Bus Safety. 2020. STRENGTHENING SCHOOL BUS SAFETY IN CANADA. Cat. No. T22-243/2020E-PDF Return to table b6 note b referrer

Sensitivity analysis

Alternative technology costs

Alternative price structure for extended stop signal arm and perimeter visibility technologies

Under this hypothesis, alternative equipment and maintenance prices are used to calculate the costs. Lower and upper price structures relative to the main report are introduced for sensitivity analysis. Based on market research, three different price intervals were determined. The lower scenario represents the least expensive technology costs on the market. The central and upper scenarios respectively represent the technology offerings at the median and upper price levels in the market. It is important to note that there was no change in installation costs for either the lower or upper scenarios. The methodology in deriving the maintenance cost remained unchanged.

Under the lower scenario, the total present value cost is estimated to be $317.5 million dollars. This is a 21.8% decline in costs compared to the central scenario. This leads to a net present value of -$254.8 million dollars.

Similarly, the total present value cost for the upper scenario is estimated to be $474 million dollars. This is a 16.7% increase in regulatory costs compared to the central scenario. The net present value for the upper scenario is -$411.3 million dollars. In both sensitivity scenarios, in line with the central scenario, the technology cost associated with infraction camera technology is set at zero dollars.

Table 7 – Alternative technology costs per school bus

	Lower Scenario	Central Scenario	Upper Scenario
Extended Stop Signal Arm
Capital and Installation Cost	$2,777	$4,488	$5,671
Maintenance Cost	$267	$283	$299
Perimeter Visibility System
Capital and Installation Cost	$4,614	$5,070	$5,541
Maintenance Cost	$291	$320	$350

Table 8 – Alternative technology costs (7% discount rate, 2021 prices, millions of dollars)

Total Cost Present Value	$317.5	$406.1	$474
Net Present Value	-$254.8	-$343.4	-$411.3

Analytical time frame and alternative discount rates

Analytical time frame

In the central scenario, the analytical time frame is a 10-year planning horizon from 2022 to 2031. Table 8 presents the net present values in 15- and 20-year planning horizons.

Table 9 – Analytical period (7% discount rate, 2021 prices, millions of dollars)

	10 years	15 Years	20 Years
Net Present Value	-$343.4	-$450.8	-$523.3

Discount rates

The central analysis used a 7% discount rate as recommended by TBS. For the purpose of the sensitivity analysis, Table 10 presents the results should a 3% discount rate have been used, as well as a 10% discount rate. Table 10 also presents estimates at no discounting in the sensitivity analysis.

Table 10 – Alternative discount rates (2021 prices, millions of dollars)

	0%	3%	7%	10%
Net Present Value	-$492	-$418.5	-$343.4	-$299.7

Small business lens

As previously mentioned, manufacturers would be the regulated parties and would therefore incur the direct cost, however, the burden of the cost would ultimately be passed on to provincial and territorial educational systems as either the purchasers of new school buses or the employer of school transportation services from school transportation providers. Provincial and territorial educational systems are not considered businesses. As such, the small business lens does not apply to the proposed amendments.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as there would be no incremental change in administrative burden on business.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed amendments are not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum.

The Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety established a Task Force, comprised of federal, provincial and territorial governments and school bus safety stakeholders in January 2019. The original mandate of the Task Force was to identify areas to further enhance school bus safety both inside and outside the bus. This mandate was achieved through consensus of the Task Force members and included significant input from the full range of involved stakeholders (including provincial and territorial representatives).

School bus safety is a shared responsibility. Federal, provincial and territorial governments, school boards and school bus operators each play a role in making sure our school buses are safe. Transport Canada is responsible for establishing the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which include specific vehicle safety requirements for school buses. Provinces and territories enforce safety on Canada’s roads and highways and set the rules of the road. They are also responsible for licensing of school bus drivers, developing policies for the safe operation of school buses, and for school bus maintenance.

The Minister of Transport announced his intention to mandate technologies identified by the Task Force at a Council of Ministers meeting in February 2020. Provinces and territories indicated their support, with Quebec and Ontario signalling a consideration that since provinces and territories are responsible for enforcing safety on Canada’s roads and highways, it should be left to jurisdictions to explore the application of infraction cameras, based on their assessed needs.

While developing technical requirements for these technologies, Transport Canada considered whether there existed any potential implications linked to provincial or territorial legislation. With respect to perimeter visibility systems and extended stop signal arms, the proposed regulatory approach was not deemed to interfere with provincial or territorial jurisdiction. However, regarding the requirement for extended stop signal arms, the department did take into consideration that some jurisdictions may have maximum vehicle width requirements and therefore did not set a minimum deployed length for this technology. Transport Canada would require the extended stop signal arm to be able to function and be deployed independently from the stop signal arm currently installed on school buses. This requirement would allow the arms to be deployed independently as appropriate in various situations and would allow jurisdictions to use the safety feature as appropriate for their specific needs and based on the vehicle width rules in their jurisdictions.

In addition, Transport Canada initially considered mandating infraction camera systems on school buses. The Department, however, reversed its position because enforcement system considerations around the use of this technology are largely within provincial or territorial jurisdiction. With respect to infraction camera requirements, Transport Canada recognized that the effective implementation and use of this technology rest with enforcement by the jurisdictions; therefore, Transport Canada is proposing requirements only if the technology is installed on new or imported school buses in order to avoid impeding individual and varying system requirements that would be set by jurisdictions.

School buses are a regulated vehicle type unique to North America. Transport Canada works closely with the US National Traffic Highway Safety Administration to discuss approaches to vehicle and equipment regulations in both markets. Current regulations are aligned with those in the US; however, the requirements in the proposed amendments do not currently have equivalent requirements within the federal US regulatory regime for school buses. Although the proposed amendments do not align with the US, Transport Canada believes that improving the safety of children around school buses justifies proceeding with a unique approach.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process was followed for this proposal and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. No important environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this proposal. The assessment took into account potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS).

Gender-based analysis plus

This regulatory proposal is primarily designed to protect school-aged children and youth. The proposal will also benefit VRUs of all ages, such as parents, caregivers or very young children, in and around school bus loading zones.

The Task Force surveyed provincial and territorial school bus safety authorities to collect data on a range of school bus characteristics, including the number of buses in service, age of the fleet, service areas, category/type of buses and the installation of safety features (such as seatbelts, lighting systems, and electronic stability control). With respect to the effects of the proposal on specific regions, of the 36% of jurisdictions who provided information about the routes serviced by their fleets:

• 45% of buses operate in an urban environment;
• 51% commute in a rural setting; and
• 4% travel on urban/rural mixed routes.

Transport Canada does not anticipate any geographic discrepancy in the adoption of the safety features it is mandating as both urban and rural environments are serviced by approximately half of the existing vehicle fleet.

Feedback from stakeholders related to GBA+ was that increases in vehicle purchase price would affect acquisition budgets for school transportation and that increasing purchase price for school buses may reduce the number of school-aged children receiving transportation if fewer buses are available. The increased cost to purchasing a school bus may outweigh the benefits of a reduction of fatalities and injuries to school-aged children. Since school buses are publicly funded, provincial and territorial taxpayers will likely be made to absorb the additional cost of equipping school buses with these features. Either more funds will be required, or funds will have to be diverted from other public services if the same number of children are to be provided with school bus transportation. If purchasing budgets are not increased, negative impacts could apply to children and youth who no longer receive school transportation to and from school by bus. By increasing vehicle costs without increasing the budget for the purchase of school buses, fewer buses may be purchased to provide transportation services. A decrease in the number of available school buses generally would mean an increase in the number of students who would need to find alternative modes of transportation to and from school which may translate to an increase in fatalities and injuries of school-aged children using other modes of transportation.

Although the exact adoption rate of the proposed technologies on the current school bus fleet is unknown, Transport Canada is aware that school districts and school transportation consortiums have decided, independently, to purchase these technologies for their school buses due to their perceived benefits. 360° camera systems are the only technology which is currently equipped on buses by the OEM. For infraction cameras and extended stop signal arms, currently equipped vehicles have all been modified with this technology through aftermarket installation. Federally regulating these technologies will ensure that they comply to baseline safety standards and mandating perimeter visibility systems and extended stop signal arms will require their installation on all buses by OEMs, generally reducing their cost over time. With infraction cameras, cost mitigation and recovery strategies can be explored at the jurisdictional level through fine collection.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The proposed amendments to the MVSR regarding school bus safety would come into force on the day they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. Transport Canada understands that manufacturers may require lead time to procure parts and modify systems for these types of regulatory changes and sought stakeholder feedback on the coming-into-force date via its Let’s Talk Transportation webpage; however, no stakeholder comments were received on this topic. Having considered the key areas of risk, the Task Force on School Bus Safety comprising bus manufacturers, school boards, fleet operators, safety associations, and federal-provincial-territorial representatives recommended that consideration be given to adding certain safety features to school buses (e.g. 360° cameras, extended stop arms, infraction cameras) and that all jurisdictions explore the application of these school bus safety measures.

Based on Transport Canada’s assessment and given the consensus-based development of the recommendations made by the multi-stakeholder Task Force, the coming into force of the proposed amendments upon publication is anticipated to be achievable given that the proposed requirements would apply to new school buses on a go-forward basis and that existing school buses already in use would not need to be retrofitted. On an annual basis, it is estimated that up to 10% of the existing national fleet of school buses would be replaced. This rate of turnover would provide stakeholders with the opportunity to gradually implement the amendments by purchasing new school buses with the already available technology, such as the extended stop arm and 360° perimeter camera.

Companies are responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the MVSA and the MVSR. Transport Canada will monitor notices of defect and non-compliance to ensure that they contain, at a minimum, the information required by the MVSR, and that companies take action in accordance with timelines specified by the MVSR. In addition, Transport Canada will gather information related to the presence of safety issues through public complaints and other reports, and through vehicle or component inspection, testing and other proven investigative techniques. Under the authority of the MVSA, designated inspectors may also search places believed on reasonable grounds to contain records related to the vehicle or equipment, with a view to ascertain any defect or non-compliance with a product, and request documentation believed to contain information relevant to the enforcement of the MVSA. Any person or company that contravenes a provision of the MVSA the MVSR and is found guilty of an offence would be liable to the applicable penalty set out in the MVSA.

Contact

Jean-Michel Roy
Acting Manager, Standards and Regulations
Multi-Modal and Road Safety Programs
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: RegulationsClerk-ASFB-Commisauxreglements@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, under subsections 5(1)^{footnote a} and 11(1)^{footnote b} of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act ^{footnote c}, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (School Buses).

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be submitted online on the Canada Gazette, Part I, or, if submitted by email, post or other format, must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Jean-Michel Roy, Acting Manager, Standards and Regulations, Multi-Modal and Road Safety Programs, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0N5 (email: RegulationsClerk-ASFB-Commisauxreglements@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, June 22, 2022

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (School Buses)

Amendments

1 Subsection 15.1(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations ^{footnote 22} and the heading before it are repealed.

2 Section 17 of the Regulations is repealed.

3 The portion of item 111 to Schedule III of the Regulations in column II is replaced by the following:

Column I Item (CMVSS)	Column II Description
111	Mirrors and Visibility Systems

4 (1) The heading “Mirrors and Rear Visibility Systems” before section 111 to Schedule IV of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Mirrors and Visibility Systems

(2) Paragraph 111(25)(f) to Schedule IV of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (f) all of the still or video camera observations shall be done with the service door of the bus closed and all stop signal arms and extended stop signal arms fully retracted; and

(3) The heading before subsection 111(29) to Schedule IV of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Visibility Systems

Rear Visibility Systems

(4) Section 111 of Schedule IV of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (33):

Perimeter Visibility Systems

(34) Every school bus other than a multifunction school activity bus must be equipped with a perimeter visibility system that conforms to the requirements set out in Document No. 111 — Perimeter Visibility Systems (Document 111), as amended from time to time.

(35) The perimeter visibility system must include a device that displays to the driver a real-time image of the area that is immediately beyond the perimeter of the school bus and that would be, without the system, difficult or impossible for the driver to see. The boundaries of the area must be determined in accordance with Document 111.

(36) The device must be securely mounted in the driver’s line of sight and must not partially or completely obstruct the driver’s view through any windows or of any controls or displays.

(37) The device must automatically display the images and must only do so when the school bus is fully stopped or travelling at a speed less than 15 km/h.

(38) The device must not display more than two views to the driver at one time and those views must be automatically selected based on the driver’s operation of the school bus.

5 Section 131 of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Application

131 (1) This section applies to school buses other than multifunction school activity buses.

Stop Signals

(2) Every school bus must be equipped with one or two stop signal arms and at least one extended stop signal arm, all of which must conform to the requirements of Technical Standards Document No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices (TSD 131), as amended from time to time.

Stop Signals — Cameras

(3) If the school bus is equipped with a still or video camera that is intended to record images of a vehicle that is passing the school bus when one of its stop signal arms or extended stop signals arm is deployed, the camera must

• (a) be placed in a manner that allows the camera to record images of the vehicle’s front and rear licence plates;
• (b) record the images without intervention from the driver of the school bus; and
• (c) operate in temperatures from -40°C to 40°C.

(4) Whether or not the school bus is equipped with the camera referred to in subsection (3), the school bus must have a label, as shown in Figure 1, permanently affixed to the school bus so that the label is readily visible to a driver who is behind the school bus.

Figure 1

Coming into Force

6 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.