BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 247 Hearing Date: 1/12/2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Lara | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |1/4/2016 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Randy Chinn | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Charter bus transportation: safety improvements DIGEST: This bill requires charter bus drivers to instruct passengers on exit location and operation, requires all charter buses to be equipped with specified emergency equipment by July 1, 2017, and requires all buses manufactured after July 1, 2017, and used for charter transportation in California to be equipped with a secondary door. ANALYSIS: Existing law requires charter-party carriers of passengers to be permitted by the California Public Utilities Commission. This bill: 1) Requires charter bus drivers to instruct passengers on exit location and operation and encourage seatbelt use at the outset of every trip, and provide the same content in writing. 2) Requires all charter buses to be equipped with: a) burn resistant materials in their passenger compartments b) emergency lighting systems that run on an independent power source SB 247 (Lara) PageB of? c) reflective emergency signage d) windows that "can be easily opened and remain open during an emergency" e) event data recording systems triggered by sudden deceleration or braking 3) Requires the CHP to adopt standards for these new features by July 1, 2017. 4) Requires all buses manufactured after July 1, 2017, and used for charter transportation in California to be equipped with a secondary door. COMMENTS: 1) Background - Orland accident. In April 2014, a FedEx tractor-trailer traveling on I-5 near Orland, California drifted across the grassy median separating the north and southbound lanes and collided with a charter bus carrying a group of Los Angeles-area high school students travelling to Humboldt State University for a campus tour. Diesel from one of the truck's fuel tanks sprayed into the front of the bus on impact, and friction from the crash ignited it, causing a fire in the passenger compartment. The drivers of both vehicles were killed, along with eight passengers - seven of whom died from asphyxiation or burns rather than their impact-related injuries. Though the accident was caused by the truck, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also examined factors related to the features and operation of the bus that may have contributed to the death toll. NTSB then made several recommendations to federal agencies charged with regulating highway vehicle design and charter bus transportation, which those agencies can choose to adopt or not. The recommendations referenced in its report on the Orland crash were directed to the National Highway and Transportation System Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which as of this writing have declined to impose additional regulations on charter buses. This bill proposes to adopt these SB 247 (Lara) PageC of? recommendations - discussed below - as state law. 2) What's covered; what's not. This bill deals with carriers engaged in charter bus transportation. Charter bus transportation is defined as the use of a vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons travelling together under a single contract for a fixed fee. This definition excludes school buses and public transit buses. 3) State jurisdiction. Federal law imposes some restrictions on California's jurisdiction over vehicles. The California Bus Association (CBA) notes that states are preempted from regulating vehicle design. However, Legislative Counsel has found that states may exercise "safety regulatory authority" over motor vehicles<1>, and believes the provisions of this bill are within California's jurisdiction. 4) Concerns. The bus industry has raised concerns about the bill, noting that the bus and its passengers were the victims of a collision with a truck that crossed the median. CBA quotes the NTSB report as identifying a "sudden and catastrophic rupture" of the truck fuel tank, which sprayed diesel fuel onto and into the bus. They believe that public safety would be better enhanced by requiring truck fuel tank safety cages and pursuing bus equipment requirements through changes in federal law rather than California law. Ideally, the merit of imposing safety equipment requirements would be assessed by comparing the risk to the public of fires in buses against the cost and effectiveness of the proposed safety equipment. Unfortunately, such information is difficult to obtain, though some data is available. 5) Passenger safety briefings. Unlike commercial airlines, charter bus companies are not required to provide safety information to passengers at the outset of each trip. The charter bus company involved in the Orland accident had prepared a safety video for passengers; however, the driver did not show it at the outset of this particular trip. This may have affected crash survivability: Although the bus was equipped with seatbelts, many passengers were not wearing them at the time of the accident, and several sustained serious or fatal injuries after being thrown from their seats. Bus passengers also reported having difficulty -------------------------- <1> 49 U.S. Code Section 14501 SB 247 (Lara) PageD of? operating the emergency window exits. Both the availability of seatbelts and window exit operation would have been covered in the safety briefing had it been shown. The NTSB report recommends that charter bus operators be required to provide pre-trip safety briefings, written safety materials, and information on seatbelts particularly. 6) Fire frequency. The CBA knows of no other instances of fires in buses in the past year. They point to what they believe is an exemplary safety record of buses, particularly when considered in the context of passenger miles travelled. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has searched media articles for other instances of deaths from an inability to exit a burning bus, and they could find none. Though not specific to fires, the CHP has found that there have been between two and seven fatal tour bus collisions (not necessarily fire-related) annually in California since 2010. Except for 2014, the year of the Orland fire, the number of tour bus fatalities has been less than four annually during that same period. 7) Equipment costs and effectiveness. The cost of installing the various safety equipment is unknown, though the CBA believes it will be expensive both in terms of direct costs and the opportunity cost of taking a bus out of service for retrofitting. The different specific requirements of the bill appear to have widely varying costs. While signage and emergency lighting may not be too expensive, retrofitting an event data recorder and windows that remain open could well be. The CBA notes that materials used in buses must already comply with federal flammability standards, and that most modern buses use materials which comply with the standards for airplanes, which have the strictest standards for inflammability. Therefore, the requirement for burn-resistant material may be unnecessary. (The committee has requested cost information from the CBA, which is pending.) The effectiveness of the various safety equipment requirements is hard to assess, though it seems clear that open, latchable windows, additional lighting, and visible signage would have saved lives. 8) Emergency exit improvements. In the Orland accident, the truck collided with the front of the bus and disabled its only door. Emergency exits through the windows and roof were unfamiliar to passengers and difficult to locate and SB 247 (Lara) PageE of? use, especially as dark smoke obscured operating instructions. These exits were 7 and 12 feet from the ground, respectively - higher than the 6 feet above which aircraft must be equipped with slides for passenger evacuation - and passengers had to hold the very heavy windows open in order to keep them from shutting as they escaped. This bill requires that buses manufactured after July 1, 2017, be equipped with a secondary door, as recommended by the NTSB; retrofit of existing buses is not required. Secondary doors are currently in use in some buses. (The committee has requested cost information from the CBA, which is pending.) Both second doors and propping mechanisms for window exits are currently required on all European buses. There is precedent for state law to require improvements in the ability of passengers to exit vehicles. In an unfortunately analogous circumstance, in 2013 a limousine caught fire on the San Mateo bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area, killing several passengers who were trapped inside. The Legislature responded by requiring that limousines have additional exits. Related Legislation: SB 109 (Corbett, Chapter 752, Statutes of 2013) - requires all modified, or "stretch," limousines to have at least two rear doors and two push-out exit windows. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, January 6, 2016.) SUPPORT: None received OPPOSITION: None received SB 247 (Lara) PageF of? -- END --