EDU-14-08-00012-E School Bus and Vehicle Engine Idling
7/16/08 N.Y. St. Reg. EDU-14-08-00012-E
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXX, ISSUE 29
July 16, 2008
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY RULE MAKING
I.D No. EDU-14-08-00012-E
Filing No. 640
Filing Date. Jul. 01, 2008
Effective Date. Jul. 01, 2008
School Bus and Vehicle Engine Idling
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Addition of section 156.3(h) to Title 8 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Education Law, sections 207 (not subdivided), 3264 (not subdivided) and 3267(1), (2), and (3); and L. 2007, ch. 670
Finding of necessity for emergency rule:
Preservation of public health and general welfare.
Specific reasons underlying the finding of necessity:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 by prescribing requirements for minimizing the idling of school buses and other vehicles. Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, directs the Commissioner to promulgate, on or before July 1, 2008, regulations requiring school districts to minimize, to the extent practicable, the idling of the engine of any school bus and other vehicles owned or leased by the school district while such bus or vehicle is parked or standing on school grounds, or in front of any school.
New York State has the largest fleet of school buses and vehicles in the nation. With such a large student population and amount of miles transported, our children are being exposed to sizeable hazards from school bus emissions. The diesel exhaust from a school bus can be harmful to adults but even more so for our children, because their respiratory systems are still developing and they have a faster breathing rate. Diesel exhaust contains billions of small particles that are so small that several thousand of them could fit on the period at the end of this sentence. When children breath in the exhaust from school buses, these particles can cause lung damage and aggravate asthma, bronchitis and other health problems.
Furthermore, the exhaust from an idling school bus does not just target children, but also pollutes the air in the entire community. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that exhaust fumes pollute the air in our communities and can enter school buildings through fresh air intakes, doors and open windows (See There are 25 Million Reasons Why it is Important to Reduce Idling, April 2006 — http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/documents/420f06018.pdf). One-third of our student population resides in areas of the State where the air quality is compromised. By minimizing the amount of time school buses and other vehicles idle on or near school grounds, we will improve the health of students, parents, area residents and employees of school districts across the State.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 performed a study on school bus idling in New York State using the Katonah-Lewisboro School District located in Cross River, New York. The study was specifically designed to determine which of several different methods of running a school bus engine during the winter months was the most effective in reducing emissions while providing cost efficient and safe pupil transportation services. The study results clearly showed that “turning off the bus engine is the preferred operating choice.” The study also showed that the short burst of emissions that occurs when restarting an engine that was turned off, is still less than keeping an engine idling. (The study has been posted at the following website: http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanschoolbus/r2schoolbusstudy.pdf)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has identified 21 chemicals in truck and bus exhaust that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health conditions. Some of these chemicals include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and benzene. Emissions also contain other pollutants linked to respiratory diseases including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Particulate matter consists of both black soot that you can see and tiny, invisible particles that are a fraction of the width of a human hair which can lodge deep in your lungs. Pollutants in bus exhaust can cause or trigger lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, impaired immune system function, decreased lung function and shortness of breathe. These adverse health effects can hurt the entire population not just school children. This can lead to increased hospital admissions, emergency room use, school absences, and work loss, which all increase our health care costs. Idling from diesel engines damages our environment by adding to smog. It reduces crop yields and acid rain means fewer fish in our lakes and streams in the Adirondacks and Finger Lakes. It increases the growth of algae and harms the coastal waters in Long Island Sound. For these reasons it is important that we not limit the protection afforded our children to those whose respiratory health is already compromised, but take firm steps to insure that all of our children and citizenry are protected from the harmful effects of pollutants from idling school buses.
Furthermore, limiting the idling time of a school bus is also cost efficient. Unnecessary idling of school bus engines taxes the mechanical health of the engine and uses more fuel than turning the bus engine off and on. Running an engine at low speed causes twice the wear on internal parts compared to driving at regular speed. While some may suggest that idling for lengthy periods is important to warm up the engine for in cold weather, engine manufacturers routinely suggest a warm up time of less than five minutes. In especially severe winter weather bus heaters or engine block heaters are more effective than unnecessary idling.
For these reasons, and consistent with the statute's directive to minimize the idling of school buses and other vehicles, the proposed rule has been drafted to apply to all school districts.
The proposed rule was published in the State Register on April 2, 2008. Further additional revisions to the rule are now proposed, as set forth in the Notice of Revised Rule Making published in the State Register on June 11, 2008. Pursuant to State Administrative Procedure Act section 202(4-a), the revised rule cannot be adopted by regular (non-emergency) action until at least 30 days after publication of the revised rule in the State Register. Since the Board of Regents meets at fixed intervals, the earliest the proposed amendment can be adopted by regular action, after expiration of the 30-day public comment period for a revised rule making, is the July 28–29, 2008 Regents meeting. Pursuant to SAPA section 202, the earliest the proposed rule can become effective is after the Notice of Adoption is published in the State Register on August 20, 2008. However, a delay in the rule's effective date is contrary to Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, which directs the Commissioner to promulgate regulations requiring school districts to minimize school vehicle idling, on or before July 1, 2008, and will result in children and others being unnecessarily exposed to harmful vehicle exhaust.
Emergency action is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and the general welfare to immediately prescribe requirements for minimizing the idling of school buses and other vehicles owned or leased by school districts, consistent with the requirements of Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, and thus reduce the exposure of children and others from harmful vehicle exhaust.
It is anticipated that the proposed rule will be presented for permanent adoption at the July 28–29, 2008 Regents meeting, which is the first scheduled meeting after expiration of the 30-day public comment period for revised rule makings.
Subject:
School bus and vehicle engine idling.
Purpose:
To minimize the idling of school buses and other vehicles.
Text of emergency rule:
Subdivision (h) of section 156.3 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education is added, effective July 1, 2008, as follows:
(h) Idling school buses on school grounds.
(1) General provisions.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, each school district shall ensure that each driver of a school bus, as defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law section 142, or other vehicle owned, leased or contracted for by such school district, shall turn off the engine of such school bus or vehicle while waiting for passengers to load or off load on school grounds, or while such vehicle is parked or standing on school grounds or in front of or adjacent to any school.
(ii) School districts shall consider adopting policies which provide for the prompt loading and unloading of individual school buses rather than a policy of waiting for all buses to arrive before loading or unloading.
(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subdivision and unless otherwise required by State or local law, the idling of a school bus or vehicle engine may be permitted to the extent necessary to achieve the following purposes: (i) for mechanical work; or (ii) to maintain an appropriate temperature for passenger comfort; or (iii) in emergency evacuations where necessary to operate wheelchair lifts.
(3) Driver requirements. Each school district shall ensure that each driver of a school bus shall:
(i) instruct pupils on the necessity to board the school bus promptly in the afternoon in order to reduce loading time;
(ii) whenever possible, park the school bus diagonally in school loading areas to minimize the exhaust from adjacent buses that may enter the school bus and school buildings; and
(iii) turn off the bus engine during sporting or other events.
(4) Notice. Each school district shall annually provide their school personnel, no later than five school days after the start of school, with notice of the provisions of Education Law section 3637 and of this section, in a format prescribed and provided by the Commissioner to such school districts for dissemination.
(5) Monitoring and reports. Each school district shall periodically but at least semi-annually monitor compliance with the provisions of this subdivision by school bus drivers and drivers of vehicles owned, leased or contracted for by such school district. Each school district shall prepare a written report of such review, which shall describe the actions taken to review compliance and the degree of adherence found with the provisions of this subdivision. Copies of the report shall be retained in the school district's files for a period of six years and made available upon request. The Commissioner may also require specific school districts to provide additional information as necessary to address health concerns related to their compliance with the provisions of this subdivision.
(6) Private vendor transportation contracts. All contracts for pupil transportation services between a school district and a private vendor that are entered into on or after July 1, 2008, shall include a provision requiring such vendor's compliance with the provisions of this subdivision.
This notice is intended
to serve only as a notice of emergency adoption. This agency intends to adopt the provisions of this emergency rule as a permanent rule, having previously published a notice of proposed rule making, I.D. No. EDU-14-08-00012-P, Issue of April 2, 2008. The emergency rule will expire September 28, 2008.
Text of emergency rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Anne Marie Koschnick, Legal Assistant, Office of Counsel, Education Department, State Education Bldg., Rm. 148, Albany, NY 12234, (518) 473-8296, e-mail: legal@mail.nysed.gov
Regulatory Impact Statement
STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
Education Law section 207 empowers the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the laws of the State regarding education and the functions and duties conferred on the State Education Department by law.
Education Law section 3624 authorizes the Commissioner of Education to establish and define qualifications of school bus drivers and to make rules and regulations governing the operation of transportation facilities used by pupils. Such rules and regulations shall include acts or conduct which would affect the safe operation of such transportation facilities.
Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, directs the Commissioner to promulgate regulations requiring school districts to minimize, to the extent practicable, the idling of the engine of any school bus and other vehicles owned or leased by the school district while such bus or vehicle is parked or standing on school grounds, or in front of any school.
LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 by prescribing requirements for minimizing the idling of school buses and other vehicles.
NEEDS AND BENEFITS:
New York State has the largest fleet of school buses and vehicles in the nation. Over 50,000 vehicles are used in the State each day to transport over 2.5 million school children to and from school. Simply stated, New York State transports ten percent of all the nation's pupils. In a year, our school buses travel over 225 million miles.
With such a large student population and amount of miles transported, our children are being exposed to sizeable hazards from school bus emissions. The diesel exhaust from a school bus can be harmful to adults but even more so for our children. This is because children are more susceptible to air pollution than adults because their respiratory systems are still developing and they have a faster breathing rate. Diesel exhaust contains billions of small particles that are so small that several thousand of them could fit on the period at the end of this sentence. When children breath in the exhaust from school buses, these particles can cause lung damage and aggravate asthma, bronchitis and other health problems.
Furthermore, the exhaust from an idling school bus does not just target children, but also pollutes the air in the entire community. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that exhaust fumes pollute the air in our communities and can enter school buildings through fresh air intakes, doors and open windows (See There are 25 Million Reasons Why it is Important to Reduce Idling, April 2006 — http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/documents/420f06018.pdf). One-third of our student population resides in areas of the State where the air quality is compromised. By minimizing the amount of time school buses and other vehicles idle on or near school grounds, we will improve the health of students, parents, area residents and employees of school districts across the State.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 performed a study on school bus idling in New York State using the Katonah-Lewisboro School District located in Cross River, New York. The study was specifically designed to determine which of several different methods of running a school bus engine during the winter months was the most effective in reducing emissions while providing cost efficient and safe pupil transportation services. The study results clearly showed that “turning off the bus engine is the preferred operating choice.” The study also showed that the short burst of emissions that occurs when restarting an engine that was turned off, is still less than keeping an engine idling. (The study has been posted at the following website: http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanschoolbus/r2schoolbusstudy.pdf)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has identified 21 chemicals in truck and bus exhaust that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health conditions. Some of these chemicals include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and benzene. Emissions also contain other pollutants linked to respiratory diseases including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Particulate matter consists of both black soot that you can see and tiny, invisible particles that are a fraction of the width of a human hair which can lodge deep in your lungs. Pollutants in bus exhaust can cause or trigger lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, impaired immune system function, decreased lung function and shortness of breathe. These adverse health effects can hurt the entire population not just school children. This can lead to increased hospital admissions, emergency room use, school absences, and work loss, which all increase our health care costs. Idling from diesel engines damages our environment by adding to smog. It reduces crop yields and acid rain means fewer fish in our lakes and streams in the Adirondacks and Finger Lakes. It increases the growth of algae and harms the coastal waters in Long Island Sound. For these reasons it is important that we not limit the protection afforded our children to those whose respiratory health is already compromised, but take firm steps to insure that all of our children and citizenry are protected from the harmful effects of pollutants from idling school buses.
Furthermore, limiting the idling time of a school bus is also cost efficient. Unnecessary idling of school bus engines taxes the mechanical health of the engine and uses more fuel than turning the bus engine off and on. Running an engine at low speed causes twice the wear on internal parts compared to driving at regular speed. While some may suggest that idling for lengthy periods is important to warm up the engine for in cold weather, engine manufacturers routinely suggest a warm up time of less than five minutes. In especially severe winter weather bus heaters or engine block heaters are more effective than unnecessary idling.
For these reasons, and consistent with the statute's directive to minimize the idling of school buses and other vehicles, the proposed rule has been drafted to apply to all school districts.
COSTS:
(a) Costs to the state: The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any additional costs beyond those intrinsic to the statute. The effect on State aid will be minimal. The additional time necessary for staff to semi-annually check school bus driver compliance should be minimal as the monitoring may be part of other school bus driver and contract monitoring functions performed by district supervisory staff.
(b) Costs to local government: The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any additional costs beyond those intrinsic to the statute. School districts are responsible for annually providing employees with copies of materials on minimizing idling. The cost of such activity is expected to be minimal since the content of the materials will be supplied by the Commissioner and is estimated to be four pages in length. Notice to employees may be by handouts, group meetings or postings. Districts will monitor school bus driver compliance twice annually and record the results. The cost of this activity should be minimal as it can be made part of routine school bus driver performance checks and monitoring of contract provider compliance.
(c) Costs to private regulated parties: None.
(d) Costs to the regulation agency for implementation and central administration: The proposed rule implements the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any additional costs beyond those intrinsic to the statute. The materials concerning minimizing idling of school buses and vehicles have previously been developed as part the State Education Department “Anti-Idling Campaign” for the 2004 School Bus Driver Safety Training Program. A copy of those materials will be supplied to all school districts.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any additional program, service, duty or responsibility on school districts beyond those intrinsic to the statute. The proposed rule generally requires that all school districts work to minimize idling of school buses and vehicles on school grounds or adjacent to the school. It requires school districts to annually provide school bus drivers and employees with information concerning the dangers of idling of vehicles. The materials may be supplied as paper copy, or the information may be covered in an employee staff meeting. In addition, to insure compliance, school districts must monitor driver adherence to the policy semi-annually and record the results, but are not required to submit written reports to the Commissioner. Such reports shall be retained in the school district's files for a period of six years and shall be made available upon request. The Commissioner may also require specific school districts to provide additional information as necessary to address health concerns related to their compliance with the rule.
PAPERWORK:
The proposed rule requires school districts to complete a semi-annual monitoring check of driver compliance and record the results. It does not specify any particular forms or require the filing of paperwork with the Department. School districts are responsible for annually providing employees with copies of materials on minimizing idling. However, the content of the materials will be supplied by the Commissioner and is currently estimated to be four pages in length.
In addition, all contracts for pupil transportation services between a school district and a private vendor that are entered into on or after the effective date of the proposed rule shall include a provision requiring such vendor's compliance with the provisions of the rule.
DUPLICATION:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, and will not duplicate any other State or Federal statute or regulation. Section 217 (3.2b) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation applies a 5 minute maximum time for idling of diesel buses while the bus is not in traffic. There may be local codes that apply a more stringent requirement such as New York City Administrative Code 24-163, which restricts idling of diesel engines to three minutes within New York City. Consistent with the statute, the rule allows idling to the extent necessary for mechanical work, or to maintain an appropriate temperature for passenger comfort, or in emergency evacuations where necessary to operate wheelchair lifts, unless otherwise prohibited by State or local law.
ALTERNATIVES:
Consideration was given to limiting the provisions of the proposed rule to those school districts identified as having a significant number of children with asthma or other similar health conditions. However, as discussed in more detail in the Needs and Benefits section of this Regulatory Impact Statement, exhaust from idling school buses and other vehicles is harmful not only to children with these health conditions, but is harmful to all children, as well as to adults and the environment. Limiting the idling time of a school bus is a win-win situation. It improves the air quality for all the State's citizenry, is environmentally sound, and cost efficient. For these reasons, and consistent with the statute's directive to minimize the idling of school buses and other vehicles, the proposed rule has been drafted to apply to all school districts.
FEDERAL STANDARDS:
The proposed rule relates to State standards for school districts. There are no Federal standards for school districts concerning idling of school buses and vehicles.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The proposed rule requires the Commissioner to provide school districts with a copy of Education Law section 3637, information concerning minimizing idling and a copy of this regulation. School districts are annually required to provide those materials to all school bus drivers and other drivers of school vehicles. Districts are then required to monitor compliance with the anti-idling provisions on a semi-annual basis to be determined by each district. We do not anticipate any difficulty for school districts to comply with the proposed rule by its effective date.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Small Businesses:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 by prescribing requirements for minimizing the idling of school buses and other vehicles. It does not impose any adverse economic impact, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small businesses. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses is not required and one has not been prepared.
Local Government:
EFFECT OF RULE:
The proposed rule applies to all public school districts in the State. It requires all school districts to implement a program to reduce idling of school buses and vehicles on school grounds.
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, and generally requires that all school districts work to minimize idling of school buses and vehicles on school grounds or adjacent to the school. It requires school districts to annually provide school bus drivers and employees with information concerning the dangers of idling vehicles. The materials for the annual notice to school bus drivers and other drivers for implementation of the program are to be developed and provided by the Department. School districts may provide paper copies of the materials to all drivers and school employees or they may provide annual notice of the requirements through staff meetings. They may provide notice of the anti-idling program requirements via staff meetings, school handbooks, calendar and web-sites. Districts are responsible for monitoring compliance semi-annually but are not required to submit written reports to the Commissioner. Such reports shall be retained in the school district's files for a period of six years and shall be made available upon request.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed rule does not impose any additional professional services requirements on school districts.
COMPLIANCE COSTS:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any additional costs beyond those intrinsic to the statute. School districts are responsible for annually providing employees with copies or notice of Education Law section 3637, of this regulation and training materials in ways to minimize the idling of vehicles on school grounds. The cost of such activity is expected to be minimal since the content of the materials will be supplied by the Commissioner. Notice to employees may be by handouts, group meetings or postings. The cost of monitoring compliance by drivers semi-annually should be minimal as it can be made part of routine school bus driver performance checks and monitoring of contract provider compliance.
ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY:
The proposed rule implements the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any costs beyond those intrinsic to the statute or impose requirements for which there are technological feasibility barriers. The materials concerning minimizing idling of school buses and vehicles have previously been developed and piloted as part of the State Education Department “Anti-Idling Campaign” for the 2004 – 2005 school year as part of the School Bus Driver Safety Training Program. A copy of those materials will be supplied to all school districts.
MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007. The materials for the annual notice to school bus drivers and other drivers for implementation of the program are to be developed and provided by the Department to school districts. The proposed rule lessens adverse impact upon school districts by permitting school districts to either provide paper copy of the materials to all drivers, or provide annual notice of the requirements through staff meetings, employee handbook or district website. The proposed rule, while requiring compliance monitoring, does not require submission of written compliance reports to the Department, but requires that they be made available upon request. The cost of monitoring compliance by drivers semi-annually should be minimal as it can be made part of routine school bus driver performance checks and monitoring of contract provider compliance.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION:
Department staff met with public interest groups, including the American Lung Association of New York State, concerning the importance of reducing harmful emissions for school buses and other vehicles on and around school grounds in order to reduce the hazard to pupils and the general population.
Staff also requested comments and advice from statewide pupil transportation associations such as the New York Association for Pupil Transportation, and the New York School Bus Contractors Association. Copies of draft language have been shared with these groups, as well as, the New York State School Boards Association and the Department's Rural Education Advisory Committee.
The Anti-Idling campaign that was developed and implemented in the 2004–2005 school year was part of the School Bus Driver Safety Training Program. The campaign was developed by a non-profit pupil transportation training agency with suggestions from Master Instructors and School Bus Driver Instructors from across the State.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RURAL AREAS:
The proposed rule applies to all school districts in the State, including those located in the 44 rural counties with less than 200,000 inhabitants and the 71 towns in urban counties with a population density of 150 per square mile or less.
REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007, and generally requires that all school districts work to minimize idling of school buses and vehicles on school grounds or adjacent to the school. It requires school districts to annually provide school bus drivers and employees with information concerning the dangers of idling vehicles. The materials for the annual notice to school bus drivers and other drivers for implementation of the program are to be developed and provided by the Department. School districts may provide paper copies of the materials to all drivers or they may provide annual notice of the requirements through staff meetings. They may provide notice of the anti-idling program requirements to student, parent and business delivery agent drivers via student assemblies, school handbook, calendar and web-site. Districts are responsible for monitoring compliance semi-annually but are not required to submit written reports to the Commissioner. Such reports shall be retained in the school district's files for a period of six years and shall be made available upon request.
The proposed rule does not impose any additional professional services requirements on school districts.
COSTS:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement the requirements of Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 and does not impose any additional costs beyond those intrinsic to the statute. School districts are responsible for annually providing employees with copies or notice of Education Law section 3637, of this regulation and training materials in ways to minimize the idling of vehicles on school grounds. The cost of such activity is expected to be minimal since the content of the materials will be supplied by the Commissioner. Notice to employees may be by handouts, group meetings or postings. The cost of monitoring compliance by drivers semi-annually should be minimal as it can be made part of routine school bus driver performance checks and monitoring of contract provider compliance.
MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3637, as added by Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007. The materials for the annual notice to school bus drivers and other drivers for implementation of the program are to be developed and provided by the Department to school districts. The proposed rule lessens adverse impact upon school districts by permitting school districts to either provide paper copy of the materials to all drivers, or provide annual notice of the requirements through staff meetings, employee handbook or district website. The proposed rule, while requiring compliance monitoring, does not require submission of written compliance reports to the Department, but requires that they be made available upon request. The cost of monitoring compliance by drivers semi-annually should be minimal as it can be made part of routine school bus driver performance checks and monitoring of contract provider compliance.
RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:
The proposed rule has been provided for review, discussion and comment to the State Education Department's Rural Education Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of school districts in rural areas.
Department staff met with public interest groups, including the American Lung Association of New York State, concerning the importance of reducing harmful emissions for school buses and other vehicles on and around school grounds in order to reduce the hazard to pupils and the general population.
Staff have also requested comments and advice from statewide pupil transportation associations such as the New York Association for Pupil Transportation, and the New York School Bus Contractors Association. Copies of draft language have been shared with these groups, as well as, the New York State School Boards Association.
The Anti-Idling campaign that was developed and implemented in the 2004–2005 school year was part of the School Bus Driver Safety Training Program. The campaign was developed by a non-profit pupil transportation training agency with suggestions from Master Instructors and School Bus Driver Instructors from across the State.
Job Impact Statement
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Chapter 670 of the Laws of 2007 by prescribing requirements for minimizing the idling of school buses and other vehicles. The proposed rule will not have a substantial impact on jobs and employment opportunities. Because it is evident from the nature of the rule that it will not affect job and employment opportunities, no affirmative steps were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required, and one has not been prepared.
