Technology to prohibit speeding is nothing new to school buses. While a federal proposal to require speed limiting devices on heavy-duty vehicles was recently scuttled, states and local governments continue to push for their use.

Where does the school bus industry stand with theses devices? Do they really increase safety?

Several manufacturers think so. Speed limiters, also known as intelligent speed assistance (ISA) technology, gained traction about three years ago in New York City. The devices were first placed on a variety of 50 government fleet vehicles but not school buses. However, the project has since been expanded three times, and currently speed limiters are now installed on 700 vehicles operating across the five boroughs, 50 of which are school buses powered by both diesel and electric.

Magtec Products provides advanced the ISA, which company names SafeSpeed, on vehicles in New York City. Gary Catapano, Magtec’s chief strategy and safety advisor, has extensive firsthand school bus safety experience. He oversaw transportation companies operating in the New York area as the senior vice president of safety for First Student as well as First Transit and Greyhound from October 2004 through October 2017.

“I’m really passionate about school bus safety and what school busses do every single day in North America. It’s a pretty incredible mission, moving all those children safely and securely, and by and large, they do a great job making that happen,” he said. “But speeding is one of those problems that affects not only the school bus industry, but every type of transport out there. … [I]t’s the leading cause of fatal injuries and crashes. Typically, from year to year, anywhere from 29 to 33 percent of all fatal crashes have speeding as a causal factor.”

He said when he left First Student, he started to work with Magtec because he had piloted the technology and saw how it could make fleets safer.

“Speed is at the center of our roadway safety problems in North America, and when you slow people down, you end up being able to avoid collisions,” Catapano said, adding that slowing down allows for more follow distance between vehicles and more time to conduct defensive driving maneuvers. School bus drivers have more time to react to other hazards on the roadway as well as actions of other motorists.

“So, not only does that eliminate speed related crashes but allows you to drive more defensively and help avoid non speeding related crashes,” Catapano added.

He noted that having ISA on school buses, especially those traveling in neighborhoods with children and bicyclists present, is critical to safety. Even traveling a few miles over the speed limit increases both crash risk and severity.

New York City vehicles have traveled over 5 million miles using Magtec’s SafeSpeed across a variety of vehicles and departments. Catapano noted that NYC is a challenging environment to operate vehicles due to its urban landscape, high skyscrapers and roadways with various speed limits.

The technology became a part of the city’s Transition to Safety plan. The report “NYC School Bus Fleet: Improving Road Safety Through Technologies and Training” published in January 2024 stated that the ISA system provides a warning (visual, haptic or a combination) to a driver that the target speed is exceeded.

After installing the technology on school buses, the report states “preliminary results on the first nine-bus pilot indicate that installing ISA on school buses decreased excessive speeding (11-plus mph above the speed limit) from 4.21 percent to 0.03 percent of overall driving time, representing a 99.29 percent decrease in excessive speeding time. These initial findings suggest that ISA is a feasible intervention to decrease speeding behaviors in school bus drivers.”

Catapano explained that NYC chose to enforce a speed limit that was above the posted limit by 11 miles per hour and matched the settings of the 2,000 speed cameras that are in placed around the city. Many NYC streets have a speed limit of 25 mph, putting the maximum speed a vehicle could travel at 36 mph. He noted the SafeSpeed device keeps track of the posted speed limits wherever the vehicle is traveling, regardless of if it’s on a highway or residential street.

Meanwhile, the 2025 NYC Safe Fleet Transition Plan, prepared by the Volpe National Transportation Center for the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), said ISA resulted in a 64 percent relative decrease in the amount of time that drivers exceeded the speed limit by at least 11 mph.

“With sufficient evidence that ISA is effective at reducing severe speeding, the technology has been recategorized from “exploratory” to a Tier 2 “best practice” technology,” the report states. It adds that the city plans to install ISA in an additional 1,600 fleet vehicles, which would be the largest single deployment of active ISA in the U.S.

In addition to safety, Catapano said the speed limiters are also saving fleets anywhere from 3 to 5 percent on fuel consumption. Plus, he said speeding results in tailgating, which leads to having to use the brakes more often, resulting in higher maintenance costs for parts replacement.

He added the technology is relatively affordable and easy to install—typically taking around one hour per bus.

---

Related: Office of State Superintendent of Education Launches New Parent Portal for Student Transportation Services in D.C.
Related: New York State of Charge
Related: GPS Technology Targets School Bus Speeding

---

Beyond speed regulation, the Magtec SafeSpeed system also offers remote vehicle shutdown capabilities, which can be used in emergency situations, such as when a bus driver is impaired or a vehicle is hijacked. Originally developed for military and high-value cargo protection, this security feature allows school districts to safely immobilize a vehicle from their dispatch office.

“Whether it’s an impairment issue, a medical emergency, or even a security threat, this technology gives districts a way to take control and protect both passengers and the public,” Catapano added, noting that no additional device is required.

Another Success Story

New York City’s adoption of ISA systems is already inspiring interest from other school districts, some with as many as 1,200 buses already equipped with the technology, Catapano noted. Yet adoption remains slow nationwide.

“Truthfully, the technology is very inexpensive and it’s readily available now,” Catapano said. “The real question is, why aren’t more districts using it?”

At least one more big city is. A new pilot program in Washington, D.C., featuring speed-limiting technology developed by LifeSafer, is making waves in the effort to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities on the road. The program also centers around ISA technology that automatically prevents vehicles from exceeding the speed limit.

LifeSafer has a three-decades-long mission of preventing road deaths, starting with ignition interlock systems. But four years ago, the company pivoted toward broader applications of safety tech.

“I started asking, how else can we save lives?” said Michael Travars, president and general manager of LifeSafer.

That question led to the development of an ISA technology, a system already proven in large commercial fleets but largely untapped in the public sector—especially in school transportation.

The turning point came when Travars connected with Rick Burke, D.C.’s traffic safety officer, during a conversation about the city’s Vision Zero goal for eliminating traffic crash fatalities. That led to a pilot installation of ISA devices in 10 school vehicles used for the city’s School Connect program, which provides equitable transportation for students transferring between schools.

The pilot program launched in January and was designed to run for three months, focusing on school buses operating throughout the city at varying times and locations. After just 30 days, feedback from school bus drivers was overwhelmingly positive.

“The drivers loved it,” Travars relayed. “One of them told me, ‘I know my vehicle will go the speed limit, so I can pay attention to the kids.’ That’s the whole point.”

---

Related: Ins, Outs of Routing Software Discussed at STN EXPO Reno
Related: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Universal Service Fund for E-Rate
Related: C-V2X Technology Promises School Bus Time, Cost Savings

---

He said the technology is purposefully non-distracting and once installed—typically a 30-minute process—the system silently enforces preset speed thresholds. Using real-time data from mapping sources like HERE, Google and Waze, the system automatically calibrates to local speed limits. It never hits the brakes for the drivers but simply prevents further acceleration.

The goal, Travars said, is safe, seamless compliance. And if drivers need to override the limiter in an emergency, a manual override button provides temporary acceleration for a fixed time, after which the limiter resumes.

With the D.C. pilot now past its initial phase, LifeSafer is working closely with city officials to expand ISA technology across more school vehicles. At the same time, the company is actively speaking with other cities and districts interested in launching their own programs. And while cost is always a concern for school systems, LifeSafer is committed to flexibility.

“We’re being adaptive during this early adoption period,” added Travars. “We want to see proof of safety, and we’re happy to work with districts to make that happen.”

Feds Have a Different Opinion?

Meanwhile, despite positive feedback from NYC, D.C. and others, the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration withdrew a proposal to require ISA on heavy-duty vehicles.

The proposal would have required heavy vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds to be equipped with speed-limiting devices, initially set to a speed—likely between 60 and 68 miles per hour—that was to be determined in the final rule.

It dates back to the Obama administration’s original proposal that trucks with a gross weight of more than 26,000 pounds be equipped with a speed-limiting device to keep them under 65 mph. The proposed rule was withdrawn during the first Trump administration, only to be revived and advanced in 2022 by the Biden administration.

However, FMCSA and NHTSA withdrew the rule once again earlier this year. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the device is not only an inconvenience but a hazard for drivers who are forced to go slower than the flow of traffic. Reasons for the withdrawal include policy and safety concerns as well as continued data gaps that create considerable uncertainty about the estimated costs, benefits and other impacts.

Bus & Motorcoach News reported that the American Trucking Associations, United Motorcoach Association other industry advocates embraced the proposed rule, including large trucking firms, Coach USA and many four-wheel truck drivers.

The opposition centered on the hazards of speed differentials, increased crashes, traffic backups, driver fatigue and increased pressure on a dwindling driver pool for relief drivers, as many routes were previously accomplished without exceeding the driving hours of service.

The post Not So Fast: Technology Eyes Speed Reduction in School Buses appeared first on School Transportation News.

As Carscoops recently revealed, 181 recalls were issued in the United States for rear-view camera problems, and it seems as though a new car is impacted by such a problem every other week. Earlier this year, Polestar issued two camera-related recalls of its own and as it turns out, one of the campaigns may not have actually fixed the fault.

According to a recall query opened by the NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation, Polestar first recalled 2021-2024 Polestar 2 models last year for rear-view cameras that may not engage when reverse is selected. Polestar’s fix was a software update in the infotainment display to free up enough memory for the camera’s image to be displayed.

Read: Brand That Thinks We Don’t Need Rear Windows Is Now Drowning In Reversing Camera Issues

However, the company’s solution wasn’t effective, and in April this year, it issued another recall for the Polestar 2, impacting a total of 27,816 vehicles. In this case, Polestar said a software update would ensure a high-speed signal connection between the Parking Assist Camera and infotainment display would always be maintained, rather than toggling on and off by request.

It seems that this second update wasn’t enough to address the issue. The NHTSA says that on June 21, it started to receive complaints from owners whose vehicles have been updated as part of the latest recall, but continue to experience rear-view camera issues. In July, the ODI spoke with Polestar, who confirmed that the over-the-air software remedy indeed failed to correct the issue.

The 2 isn’t the only Polestar model impacted by rear-view camera troubles. In May, the carmaker announced that the 2025 Polestar 3 is also facing similar issues and doesn’t display the camera image when the SUV is placed in reverse. At the time, the company did not specify if the 3’s fault was caused by the same issues as the 2, but said it would develop an over-the-air update to remedy it.

Before they even reached customers, a small batch of Polestar 3s had to go back to the shop — again. Nineteen vehicles that were already reworked during production are now being recalled due to an issue introduced during that very process. The problem at hand isn’t a tiny one either.

The panoramic glass roof on these SUVs could detach while driving, which would be an alarming sight for anyone on the road behind them.

Read: Polestar 4 Pricing Is Out And So Is The Rear Window

According to Polestar, the 3s in question needed a paint rework during production. During that process, technicians used masking tape, and the automaker is worried that it wasn’t removed correctly. In cases where some is left behind, the glass and body structure might not adhere properly. Ironic in this case that additional tape might make two things not stick so well.

What to Watch For

That all said, Polestar does provide some insight for owners who might wonder if they own one of the affected cars. Beyond simply searching for their VIN through the NHTSA or their local dealer, owners can look for warning signs. These include water leaking into the cabin, an unsuspected increase in cabin noise, and errors with various electrical systems.

Oh, and there’s one more thing. Polestar points out that it’s possible that the roof could “separate from the vehicle.” Notably, it adds that this is an unlikely possibility and that it would probably include high speeds, a bumpy road, and somewhat dramatic acceleration or deceleration. All and all, it seems like this is a relatively small issue and one that very few owners will have to deal with.

Next Steps for Owners

Those affected can expect Polestar to remove any masking tape around the panoramic roof and replace the roof itself. Polestar 3 owners with a build date after December 3, 2024, don’t have to worry about this, as the manufacturer has mended the issue after that. The automaker will send out owner notification letters no later than August 18.

Tesla is no stranger to recalls in the United States, but more often than not, its vehicles can be fixed with a simple over-the-air software update. However, that’s not the case with their latest recall, which will require owners to return their cars to a store or service center to be fixed. Making things worse for Tesla is the fact that the recall is for the brand-new 2026 Model Y and Model 3.

A safety report reveals that one or more fasteners joining the seat back to the seat base may not have been torqued correctly during assembly. Owners of vehicles with the defect may now have a loose or rattling seat. Unsurprisingly, the NHTSA and Tesla have determined this poses a safety risk in the event of a crash, prompting a recall.

Read: Tesla Starts 2025 With Recall For 240,000 EVs, Some May Need New Computers

Fortunately for Tesla, the recall only impacts 48 vehicles in the United States, of which just 2.1% are estimated to contain the defect. Cars being recalled include 30 Tesla Model Ys built between April 3, 2025, and May 7, 2025, as well as 18 Model 3s manufactured from Apr 3, 2025, to April 16, 2025.

The NHTSA recall reveals the fault could affect either the driver or front passenger seat, or both. Tesla became aware of an issue on May 12 after it received a customer complaint. It was quickly determined that 2 of the 4 fasteners used to secure the seat back to the seat bottom on the driver’s seat were completely missing.

Tesla claims to have pinpointed the root cause of the issue. It states that on April 2, 2025, a production change at the factory made it possible to manually advance the seat assembly from the backup manual assembly station without the system having to verify that the fasteners were present or torqued correctly.

Owners impacted by the recall will be notified on August 16. Dealers have been instructed to inspect the seat assemblies and, if necessary, replace any missing or incorrectly tightened fasteners.

Update: While Volvo hasn’t specified the exact number of cars affected, they did send us a statement confirming that “the software remedy has been rolled out to compatible cars via over-the-air update and is also available through retailer workshops.” The spokesperson further added, “We are asking customers who have not yet had the corrective software installed in their cars to avoid selecting ‘B’ mode or One Pedal Drive while driving.”

Regenerative braking is a vital technology for EVs and PHEVs. Without it, they’d have a significantly lower range. The entire driving experience would be different since it enables B-mode and one-pedal driving. Now, 11,469 Volvo owners are finding out what that’s like to live with. The automaker just issued a warning to stop driving with either of those modes until it sorts out a braking issue.

The new recall, number 25V392000, includes several models from 2020-2026, including the S60, V60, S90, XC60, XC90, XC40, EX40, EC40, and C40. Those running software 3.5.14 might have issues with their brake control module. Specifically, they might experience a loss of braking functionality. While that sounds bad, there are two sides to this story.

More: Ford Pulls Mustang Mach-E From Sale Over Dangerous Door Lock Flaw

According to Volvo, the issue seems to only pop up after “coasting downhill for at least 1 minute and 40 seconds.” It would be rare to do that on the vast majority of roads. One would likely be descending a mountain or dropping into a valley on a long highway.

But the big issue is what happens if it does occur. The automaker warns, “If the situation occurs, pressing the brake pedal may remove braking functionality entirely.” Clearly, that’s about the worst possible scenario.

Notably, Volvo didn’t provide a chronology report to explain how it heard about this situation, what it did in the aftermath, and how it decided to conduct a recall. Because of that, we’re missing a lot of vital information about how this all came about.

The NHTSA does require Volvo to produce that report, but it simply isn’t available yet. We do know that Volvo plans to fix all of these cars via a software update over the air. It’ll notify owners by August 6, and dealers already know about the situation.

Interestingly, this recall might actually be a bit bigger than 11,469 units. In a different piece of paperwork filed with the NHTSA, Volvo says that the recall includes 14,014 cars. We’ve reached out to the NHTSA to see why the figures are different. We’ll report back here if we learn the cause of that difference. 

The owners of 2025 Rivian R1T and R1S models in the US may start being confused with BMW drivers after it was revealed that some of the brand’s EVs may have faulty turn signals. This problem has forced the automaker to issue a recall in the United States for almost 28,000 vehicles.

According to Rivian, the issue lies in one or both of the front turn signals failing to light up or flash as they should, which, unsurprisingly, isn’t exactly up to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The culprit? Turn signals sourced from Myotek in Farmington Hills, Michigan, which may have been improperly manufactured.

Read: VW’s Future EVs Might Run On A Platform It Didn’t Even Build

It’s unclear what may have been done wrong during the manufacturing of the turn signals, but they could suffer some kind of “internal failure.” If one or both of the turn signals stop working, a message will be displayed on the instrument cluster. The remaining turn signals will also start blinking twice as fast as they should, and the turn signal sound will accelerate.

A total of 27,882 vehicles are involved in the recall. These consist of R1S models manufactured between April 29, 2024, and May 13, 2025, as well as R1Ts that were built from July 10, 2024, to May 13, 2025. Rivian says it stopped using the suspect front turn signals on May 13.

An investigation into the problem was initiated in February before Rivian decided a recall was necessary at the start of June. It isn’t aware of any accident or injuries caused by the fault, but it could prove to be a nuisance for both owners and other motorists.

Owners will be notified of the recall starting July 25, and dealerships will inspect the affected vehicles, replacing the turn signals if needed.

It’s the sort of issue that’s unlikely to cause major headaches, but one that’s definitely irritating enough to warrant a fix. Let’s just hope it doesn’t turn into a flash of trouble.

New legislation affecting future school bus safety across Illinois could add pressure to already constrained school transportation budgets.

Senate Bill 191, passed by the Illinois General Assembly last month, requires all new school buses manufactured after July 1, 2031, be equipped with three-point seat belts. The bill does not require school bus drivers or aides to ensure students wear the occupant restraint systems or to provide training on their usage.

The legislation now sits on Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s desk. Under Illinois law, he has 60 calendar days to act. If no action is taken within that time frame, the bill automatically becomes law. This process is outlined in the Illinois Constitution and ensures that a passed bill cannot be blocked through executive inaction—a notable contrast to the federal system.

It is doubtful Pritzker veto the bill and force a three-fifths vote in both chambers to override. It passed unanimously in the House and secure three-times more yes votes than no votes in the Senate.

That is due in part to pushing back the original compliance date three years from Jan. 1, 2028.

Supporters say the measure improves student safety and aligns school buses with modern standards. Critics warn that installing seatbelts will increase costs for school districts already struggling to meet current demand, potentially reducing the number of students they can transport.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says adding three-point seatbelts to school buses can cost between $5,500 and $7,500 per bus depending on size, while other research estimates the cost to exceed $10,000.

---

Related: Illinois Bill Advances to Require Lap/Shoulder Seatbelts on New School Buses
Related: Updated: NAPT Issues New Position on School Bus Seatbelts
Related: Illinois School Bus Driver Finds Teen Wandering Alone
Related: New Incentives in Place to Keep Illinois School Bus Drivers Working During Holidays

The post School Bus Seatbelt Law Appears Imminent in Illinois appeared first on School Transportation News.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus child safety restraint systems tied to updates made to FMVSS 213.

NHTSA proposed on May 30 amendments to Child Restraint System Standards FMVSS 213, FMVSS 213a and FMVSS 213b to exempt school bus child safety restraint systems from the requirement to comply with side-impact protection requirements defined in FMVSS 213a. Charlie Vits, a child passenger safety technician and consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said during STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada, that NHTSA issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus CSRS, allowing for the continued use of the safety restraints designed for school buses.

On July 2, NHTSA stated that it “recognizes that because the date on which the comment period closes is the same as the compliance date for FMVSS No. 213a, it will not be possible to publish a final rule prior to the current compliance date. NHTSA is concerned that the regulatory uncertainty likely to arise for the period of time in between the June 30 compliance date and any published final rule will lead to a decrease in overall levels of CRS safety as fewer CRS options are available for the public,” it stated.

It noted that in the public interest, NHTSA is exercising its discretion to temporarily pause enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a for CRSs produced on or after June 30, 2025, and until the date of publication of any rule finalizing the May 30 proposal.

“NHTSA emphasizes, however, that under 49 U.S.C. 30115(a), a manufacturer may not certify to a standard if, in exercising reasonable care, the manufacturer has reason to know that the certification is false or misleading in a material respect. As such, even while the enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a is paused, if a manufacturer continues to certify to the standard, the manufacturer must have a good faith basis that the CRS meets the standard,” NHTSA added.

Meanwhile, in addition to delaying the side-impact protection compliance date for all other child restraint systems from June 30, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2026, the proposal provides that the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction 12-month-old (CRABI)-12MO test dummy will not be used to test forward-facing CRSs.

NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems” and FMVSS No. 213b, child restraint systems: Mandatory applicability beginning Dec. 5, 2026,” to exclude school bus CRSs from the requirements and to provide attachments for connection to the vehicle’s LATCH child restraint anchorage system. These anchorages are only required in school buses that are 10,000 pounds GVWR and less.

Vits, a child passenger safety technician and a consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said NHTSA has always been supportive of school bus child restraint systems since the 2003 introduction of IMMI’s SafeGuard STAR as well as the Besi Pro Tech and HSM PCR.

As currently designed for school transportation, NHTSA wants to assure their continued future availability and use, Vits said, adding the purpose of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on the Federal Register last week is to remove three important but non-applicable regulatory details impacting their design and function.

“Unless these detailed requirements are removed from FMVSS 213, 213a and 213b as currently written, the production of these school bus child restraints will most likely cease on June 30, 2025, when the three requirements are to become effective,” he said.

These child restraint systems will no longer be compliant with the federal child restraint standards unless they are redesigned and constructed as a more costly and less usable product, Vits added.

Denise Donaldson, a certified passenger safety instructor and editor and publisher of Safe Ride News, noted the recent proposals are essentially housekeeping in nature.

“The more exciting development occurred in 2023, when NHTSA issued a final rule to create a product category specifically for school bus child restraint systems,” she explained. “Although these products were previously considered compliant with FMVSS 213 under the category harness, the new category’s description gives manufacturers greater freedom to innovate when designing products made exclusively for school bus use.”

When that rule was issued, Donaldson said incongruities with school bus CRSs remained in the regulatory text.

“Since these products install using a seatback mount, they needed to be made exempt from the standard’s requirement that car seats have a LATCH system for installation,” she added. “They should be exempt from the upcoming side-impact standard since the test in that standard replicates a passenger vehicle environment, substantially different from a school bus. These are loose ends, so the proposals are important for addressing these issues and satisfying the requests of petitioners, including manufacturers.”

Vits noted the NPRM cleans up regulatory language from current rulings that school bus child restraint systems could not meet due to the nature of their design.

Meeting the requirements would require costly redesigns resulting in a less usable school bus child restraint, he said, adding, “The intent of NHTSA is not to change anything that impacts the concept of the current school bus child restraint.”

In 2014, NHTSA first published proposed rulemaking to add side-impact crash protection to all types of child seats except harnesses, otherwise known as school bus vests, Vits said.

“IMMI commented on the NPRM that although it supported side-impact protection requirements in child restraints, school bus child restraints were similar to the excluded harnesses and not capable of meeting those requirements,” he added. “The nature of the web-based, no-shell design for these child restraints does not provide the necessary structure to meet these requirements. Therefore, school bus child restraint systems should also be excluded from meeting the side- impact protection requirements.”

NHTSA published the final ruling on side impact requirements as FMVSS 213a on June 30, 2022. But, Vits noted, NHTSA had yet to formally define school bus child restraints as a type of child restraint, so they could not exclude it from side impact requirements.

With FMVSS 213b in December 2023, NHTSA formally defined it as a type of child restraint but omitted excluding it from the requirements of FMVSS 213a. He said the oversight was to have been corrected in a to-be-published ruling last Oct. 9 but again was missed.

IMMI submitted a Petition for Rulemaking on Jan. 19 that formally requested NHTSA change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the FMVSS 213a requirements, resulting in last week’s NPRM. IMMI also found the requirement to include LATCH and tether connectors and their associated labeling remained as a requirement for school bus child restraints, Vits said.

“IMMI submitted another Petition for Rulemaking on May 19, 2025, formally requesting NHTSA to change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the LATCH connector and associated labeling requirements of FMVSS 213 and 213b,” he said, adding the change was also included in the NPRM.

---

Related: NHTSA Rulemaking at Heart of NCST Resolutions Focused on Safety
Related: What Transporters Must Know About CSRS for Preschoolers on School Buses
Related: CSRS Decisions During IEP Avoid Seclusion, Restraint Issues

---

Several other regulatory product developments impacted passenger vehicle child seat manufacturers and caused concern they would not be able to meet the FMVSS 213a effective date of June 30, 2025. In response to the petitions of these manufacturers,Vits said NHTSA published the NPRM to propose delaying the effective date of FMVSS 213a to Dec. 5, 2026, the same effective date of FMVSS 213b.

The proposals “are what is needed to set the standard’s school bus CRS category on the correct footing, allowing current CSRs models to be compliant and opening the door for future innovation,” Donaldson, who favors the proposals, pointed out.

“School bus child restraints have served the industry well for the past 22 years,” she added. “They have provided critical protection to pre-K children in numerous school bus crashes over the years. They need to continue to be available to school transportation for years to come.”

While Donaldson expressed confidence that NHTSA will make the necessary changes to FMVSS 213a and 213b, Vits commented that unless NHTSA acts immediately according to the proposed ruling, manufacturers will need to cease production.

“Although the comment period closes on June 30, NHTSA wants to hear from those in the industry as soon as possible due to the urgency to turn this NPRM into a final ruling,” he added. “They want to know that transporters of pre-K children want these school bus child restraints now and in the future.”

In providing input by June 30, Vits noted “comments should be short and simple, beginning with a statement in support of the May 30, 2025 NPRM, FR Doc. 2025-09750. Then, briefly share your positive experiences with these type of child restraints, especially if they have provided protection to any of your children in crashes.

“Express your need to have them continue in production without adding requirements to provide side impact protection and LATCH anchorage connectors.”

Public comments on docket number NHTSA–2025–0046 can be submitted electronically at the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via U.S. mail to: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Donaldson noted in creating the school bus CRS category in 2023, NHTSA clearly signaled its support of this type of child safety restraint system.

“I feel confident that a rule that finalizes these important proposals, which are necessary to make that category viable, will be forthcoming,” she added.

Ronna Weber, executive director for the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, said the National Congress on School Transportation’s Resolution No. 6, Request for Clarification on FMVSS 213a and 213b Final Rules, approved by state delegates last month underscores the industry’s commitment to safely transporting preschool and special needs children, a sizeable industry component.

The resolution noted that any regulations should continue to ensure children requiring securement based on age and weight are carried safely and securely, CRSs are attached to the seat back to ensure a secure fit for the child. It is believed approximately 310,000 to 335,000 CRSs designed for school buses are on the road today.

NHTSA also published a total of 16 NPRMs on May 30, most of which are considered deregulatory by cleaning up obsolete ruling text related to requirements for vehicles produced more than 10 years ago. Rules pertaining to school buses include: FMVSS 207: Seating Systems, FMVSS 210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS 222: School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

As no new requirements are being added, there is little merit in commenting on them, commented Charlie Vits, a certified passenger safety technician and consultant to IMMI.

Donaldson said those in the school transportation sector should be assured that their school-bus-only CSRS and any that they purchase while the NPRM is going through the rulemaking process continue to be safe and legal.

“These regulatory changes will not necessitate though would allow future redesign of these products,” she said. “However, another aspect of the 2023 final rule that applies to any forward-facing child restraint, including school-bus-only CSRS, requires labels and instructions to state a minimum child weight for riding forward facing of 26.5 pounds.

“The compliance deadline for this requirement is June 30, 2025. For school-bus-only CSRS, this means that a rider must be at least 26.5 pounds, which is slightly higher than the pre-rule-change minimum weight of 25 pounds for most models.”

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include the letter of non-compliance. Taylor Ekbatani contributed to this report. 

The post Update: NHTSA Seeks Fix to Child Safety Restraint Standard Affecting School Buses appeared first on School Transportation News.

Besides thanking the various individuals involved in putting together the 17th National Congress on School Transportation last month in Des Moines, Iowa, and providing copies of the proceedings to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other organizations, resolutions focused on increased safety and data keeping.

The most time-sensitive resolution is No. 6, which requests clarification on FMVSS 213a and 213b final rules related to the performance and use of child safety restraint systems (CSRS). NCST submitted the resolution to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration immediately. It notes that the school transportation industry takes great pride in providing the safest form of transportation available and that preschool and special needs transportation are a sizable component of the industry.

The resolution states the importance of further engaging NHTSA “to ensure children requiring securement based on age and weight are carried safely and securely, child safety restraint systems are attached to the seatback to ensure a secure fit for the child. It is believed that there are approximately 310,000 to 335,000 [child safety restraint systems] specifically designed for school buses on the road.”

NHTSA is currently accepting comments for a notice of proposed rulemaking initiated as a result of the final rules for FMVSS 213a and 213b that would exempt CSRS from side-impact protection requirements and lower anchorage attachment requirements (due to being designed for school buses specifically). The NPRM also states that the CRABI-12MO test dummy is no longer being used to test forward-facing CSRS for side impact, and that labels on school bus CRSs will also be updated to reflect their installation method, versus referencing vehicle belts or child restraint anchorage systems.

The NPRM also seeks to delay the implementation of FMVSS 213a and 213b to Dec. 5, 2026 from June 30, 2025, giving more time to manufacturers to test and certify their products.

---

Submit a Federal Register public comment on Docket NHTSA-2025-0046 by June 30.

---

Resolution 1 expressed appreciation to Patrick McManamon for serving as NCST Chair from 2015 to 2024. He stepped down as chair earlier this year citing professional and personal reasons.

 

Resolution 3 recognized the following individuals for serving as on-site officials and for their dedication and service to NCST.

 

– Mike LaRocco, conference chair

– Charlie Hood, on-site chair

– Susan Miller, on-site coordinator

– Lori Wille, editor

– Laura Meade, parliamentarian

– Rene Dawson & Reginald White, timekeepers

– Samantha Kobussen, National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures artwork

– Zander Press, printer

– Ronna Weber and NASDPTS leadership for “making the Congress a success in the manner it was organized and concluded.”

However, the NCST resolution asks NHTSA if CSRS specifically designed for school buses — such as the IMMI Star, BESI ProTech, and HSM Portable Child Restraint — are exempt from the side-impact requirements under FMVSS 213a, as of the effective date of June 30. If they are not exempt, NCST questioned if devices manufactured prior to June 30 will remain permissible for continued use beyond the implementation deadline. The resolution also asks, in the event the specified CSRS are not exempt and in consideration of maintaining a high standard of safety, what alternative CSRS models or types would be deemed acceptable for continued use on school buses.

The resolution seeks clarification from NHTSA if it will be issuing any additional guidance or initiating rulemaking specifically addressing the use and approval of CSRSs for school bus applications prior to the June 30 effective date. It also asks NHTSA if it will be updating the curriculum for the Child Passenger Safety on School Buses training courses to reflect the forthcoming changes, particularly those involving add-on school bus securement systems.

“The NCST respectfully urges NHTSA to provide a formal response and guidance at the earliest possible opportunity, mindful of the June, 30, 2025 implementation date to support informed decision-making, training readiness, and procurement planning by school transportation providers nationwide,” the resolution states.

NHTSA mandates transportation equipment design and safety performance requirements but does not regulate use. States establish requirements for each type of CSRS based on a child’s age and weight as well as the vehicle. NHTSA did publish Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses, which essentially recommends using CSRS for the appropriate weight and height of children and following CSRS manufacturer installation instructions. That guideline, which is not binding for states, came out in February 1999 and no updates have been made since.

Additionally, the NHTSA-sponsored Child Passenger Safety on School Buses, taught at TSD Conference, is also best-practice guidance and not a regulation. It was already updated in 2023 by the National Safety Council. The organization develops and maintains the curriculum. The NHTSA website also includes a School Bus Safety page that links to more information on the eight-hour, hands-on securement training.

Meanwhile, Resolution 2 referenced a March 2024 School Transportation News article that identified a student passenger reporting challenge that indicates school bus ridership is disappearing. The Editor’s Take column by Ryan Gray noted that the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration indicates the number of students transported nationwide by the yellow school bus is about one-third less than the figure used by the industry.

The resolution recognizes the need to develop a standardized reporting system for collecting school bus ridership data and “requests the interim steering committee of the 18th NCST to appoint a focus group to research and develop recommendations for standardization of data collection relative to ridership on school bus and make periodic reports to the Interim Committee.”

Data collection for the 2024 survey is expected to be completed this fall.

Resolution 5 “encourages transportation professionals to plan bus stops that are not in proximity to known registered sexual offenders when made aware, when possible. Training programs should be provided to all transportation personnel on recognizing and reporting suspected or known human trafficking.”

The resolution states that the NCST is aware of the safety concerns associated with sexual predators and offenders as well as human trafficking, noting an increase these crimes occurring across the U.S.

All NCST resolution proposals presented to the state delegations passed.

---

Related: Invest in Child Safety Restraint Training Today, Reap Benefits Tomorrow
Related: NHTSA Denial of Built-in School Bus Booster Seats Won’t Impact Industry
Related: Legalities of Transporting Students with Special Needs Focus of Day 3

The post NHTSA Rulemaking at Heart of NCST Resolutions Focused on Safety appeared first on School Transportation News.