Marathon Petroleum Company’s Salt Lake City Refinery in Salt Lake City on Jan. 3, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
A coalition of public health and environmental groups filed a suit Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s recent finding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate climate-warming greenhouse gases.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump announced last week the administration was finalizing a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared the agency could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicle emissions, because climate change posed a danger to human health.
The 17 groups who jointly filed the suit Wednesday include the American Public Health Association, Clean Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council.
‘Required by law to protect us’
Their two-page filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not detail any of the groups’ legal arguments against the repeal, but lawyers and officials for the groups said the EPA was legally bound, under the Clean Air Act, to protect people from greenhouse gas emissions.
“They are required by law to protect us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, said on a video call with reporters. “And that includes greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.”
The law requires challenges to new nationwide agency actions on emissions to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.
In an email, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency had reviewed the endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act and related court decisions, including “robust analysis” of recent Supreme Court decisions. The agency concluded it did not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
“Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be,” Hirsch said.
“In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it,” she continued. “EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress, including under the CAA. Congress never intended to give EPA authority to impose GHG regulations for cars and trucks.”
Emissions are pollutants, opponents say
But the groups said the EPA’s reasoning ignored that the agency has long regulated emissions as part of its mandate to protect clear air. The omission of the term “greenhouse gases” in the Clean Air Act is “a manufactured problem” by opponents of regulation, Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said.
“The Clean Air Act was intended to cover air pollutants, full stop. Air pollutants include greenhouse gases,” she said. “This argument that Congress needs to do something different to be able to regulate greenhouse gases… it’s just a way to avoid the issue and avoid regulation.”
The matter is “settled law,” the groups said, as federal courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.
A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case established that the Clean Air Act “was unambiguous” in authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at NRDC, said.
That decision led to the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding two years later, during President Barack Obama’s first year in office.
Attorneys general likely to weigh in
Wednesday’s challenge will likely be consolidated with other challenges, including those from “blue-state attorneys general,” Hankins said.
In the announcement last week, Trump said the endangerment finding, and the tailpipe emissions standards that relied on it, had dragged down the automotive sector and the broader economy nationwide.
The administration has said the move will save Americans more than $1 trillion by reducing regulations.
The repeal’s opponents, though, said Wednesday that projection ignored more than $100 billion in additional costs American drivers would see if fuel efficiency standards are relaxed or the enormous public health costs from worsened air quality and increased climate risks.
Marathon Petroleum Company’s Salt Lake City Refinery in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his top environmental policy officer finalized a move Thursday to undo an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that laid the foundation for federal rules governing emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
At a White House event, Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said they were officially rolling back the “endangerment finding” that labeled greenhouse gases a threat to public health and provided a framework for the EPA to regulate emissions.
The 2009 finding, established under President Barack Obama, called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks.
Such regulations created a challenge for automakers and other industries, which dragged down the entire economy, according to Trump, administration officials and allies in Congress.
Democrats and their allies in environmental and climate activism, though, consider the measure a crucial tool to address climate change and protect human health.
Undoing the finding will remove the economy-wide uncertainty, Trump argued.
“That is why, effective immediately, we are repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond,” he said Thursday.
Affordability argument
In its initial notice last year that it would repeal the endangerment finding, the EPA said it did not have the authority to regulate vehicle emissions.
With household costs, including transportation, expected to be a major theme in the fall’s midterm campaigns to determine control of Congress, members of both parties have framed it as an economic issue.
“This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Tuesday’s press briefing.
Some Democrats and climate activists argue the rollback will hurt the country’s nascent renewable energy sector, driving up the cost of home heating, electricity and other common expenses.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., issued a lengthy joint statement slamming the announcement.
“The Trump EPA has fully abandoned its duty to protect the American people from greenhouse gas pollution and climate change. This shameful abdication — an economic, moral, and political failure — will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being. It ignores scientific fact and common-sense observations to serve big political donors,” the senators said.
“This sham decision initially relied on a now thoroughly disgraced and abandoned ‘report’ by known climate deniers. Zeldin stuck to this charade anyway, undaunted by half a century of actual evidence, showing the fix was in from the beginning,” they continued.
Money and fossil fuels
The move outraged Democrats and climate activists when Zeldin first proposed it last summer. Climate activists say undoing the finding undercuts the federal government’s ability to address an issue critical to the United States and the entire world.
In a Tuesday floor speech, Schumer blasted the rollback as a giveaway to fossil fuel companies, leaders of which contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.
“Remember: In the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money,” Schumer said. “That devil’s bargain is now coming true. I never thought it would be this way in America, in this bald disgusting way that so hurts people’s health, but there it is.”
Democratic attorneys general and environmental groups are likely to sue over the rollback.
At least one lawsuit, from the Environmental Defense Fund, was promised Thursday afternoon.
“EDF will challenge this decision in court, where evidence matters, and keep working with everyone who wants to build a better, safer and more prosperous future,” Fred Krupp, EDF president, said in a statement Thursday.
Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, said last year he would “consider all options if EPA continues down this cynical path.”
“This bill is not coming from left field… This is something we've been talking about," Rep. Shannon Zimmerman said about his data center regulation bill. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
The Assembly passed a Republican bill Tuesday to implement state regulations on data centers being built in Wisconsin. Democratic lawmakers said the measure wouldn’t effectively hold companies accountable, hold down electric rates for Wisconsinites or protect the environment.
Data center development is booming in Wisconsin. Microsoft this week proposed adding 15 data centers to a project in Mount Pleasant. Some projects in development has triggered pushback from area residents. According to datacentermap.com, there are at least 40 data centers currently in the state and more in development. Local governments, including in Madison, where the city council became the first in the state to pass a one-year moratorium on approvals for data center projects, are considering their roles in regulating or pushing forward projects.
AB 840, coauthored by Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) and Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood), establishing regulations of data centers, passed 53-44. Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) joined Democrats voting against the bill, while Rep. Steve Doyle and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) voted with Republicans in favor of the bill.
“This bill balances the strategic and economic benefits of AI and data centers to the state while balancing concerns that ratepayers may have over energy, and that some may have over environmental implications,” Zimmerman said at a press conference ahead of the floor session.
Democratic lawmakers were critical of the bill, saying it doesn’t go far enough to protect Wisconsinites.
“We need to take action to regulate data centers, but we need to get it right. Unfortunately, the GOP bill that we’re voting on today will not do what it promises,” Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) told reporters ahead of the floor session, adding that the bill process was “rushed.” The GOP bill was introduced on Jan. 9, and received a public hearing on Jan. 14.
“It will not hold corporations accountable in the way that we should, and it doesn’t protect our communities entirely from the higher energy costs that are being discussed,” Neubauer said. She asserted that Republican lawmakers “don’t actually want to regulate data centers or large corporations.”
Zimmerman said the bill is responsive to concerns from constituents.
“Hands down the concerns are concern over ratepayer protection, concern over water, concern over land, and protection of those sort of things,” Zimmerman said. “This bill is not coming from left field… This is something we’ve been talking about.”
Whether the bill becomes law is up in the air. It must pass the Senate and be signed by Gov. Tony Evers, who has expressed some skepticism about it.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback said on Jan. 14 that “the one thing environmentalists, labor, utilities, and data center companies can all agree on right now is how bad Republican lawmakers’ data center bill is.”
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said he didn’t know why Evers “would ever consider vetoing this bill, especially considering the fact that it is really based on what the citizens have said.”
“I don’t think being on the side of not wanting data center regulation is anywhere near the middle, so we have been very thoughtful in what we put forward,” Vos said.
The Republican bill includes a number of requirements including having the Public Service Commission (PSC) ensure that no costs related to construction of electric infrastructure for data centers are allocated to other customers and requiring that any renewable energy facilities that are primarily serving a data center must be located within the data center site. Democratic lawmakers said the requirement would stifle the development of renewable energy in Wisconsin and expansion of the state’s energy portfolio.
“Their limits on renewable energy would come at a significant cost to consumers and are clearly a continuation of the GOP’s ongoing allegiance with the fossil fuel industry,” Neubauer said.
“Their limits on renewable energy would come at a significant cost to consumers and are clearly a continuation of the GOP’s ongoing allegiance with the fossil fuel industry,” Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).
Zimmerman said, however, that requiring renewable sources on site would ensure that a local community is benefiting from jobs that are created.
Under the bill, water used for cooling purposes in a data center is required to be contained in a “closed-loop cooling system,” or “or any other system that uses an amount of water equal to or less than the amount that a closed-loop cooling system would use.” A closed-loop cooling system uses a fixed amount of water to keep data centers cool.
An amendment to the bill states that the requirements will only apply to large data centers that begin operating or undergo construction after the bill takes effect.
Data center operators also will be required to submit annual reports to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the total amount of water used in a year. An amendment to the bill also says that data center developers should as much as possible encourage hiring of Wisconsin residents.
“This bill is not a reaction to any of those data centers acting in various ways. This is just smart legislation to make sure we have the rules of the road going forward,” Zimmerman said.
The bill also says no one can operate a large data center unless they file a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of fulfilling any required reclamation with the DNR.
An amendment to the bill also clarifies that if the permit granted for the construction of a large data center expires before the center is finished, then the owner must notify the DNR and local government. It requires that if it isn’t finished by the date then the owner must work to restore the land as much as possible.
Zimmerman said the provision gives flexibility to local governments for recourse in the case a project is abandoned.
According to the Wisconsin Lobbying website, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Wisconsin Inc. registered in favor of the bill. There are several more groups registered against the bill, including Wisconsin Conservation Voters and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Electrician Local Unions.
Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) and Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), have proposed their own legislation to regulate data centers. That bill, AB 722, would place data centers in their own class of “very large customers” to ensure that everyday ratepayers don’t bear the costs of data centers’ energy demands. It would also take steps to regulate data centers and encourage renewable energy use. Lawmakers introduced the bill as an amendment during the floor session, but Republican lawmakers voted it down.
Stroud said the GOP bill is a “concept of an idea.”
“There’s nothing in the bill that the PSC could actually implement to do the job it says it’s going to do,” Stroud said.
Stroud said her proposal, while “not perfect,” would “get us as close as possible to the central goal of protecting the public by controlling costs, creating transparency and making sure that we’re keeping as much value in our communities as possible.”
Under the Democratic bill, data center companies would be required to pay an annual fee to the Department of Administration (DOA); revenue which would go towards renewable energy programs. It would also have companies submit quarterly reports to the PSC on the amount of energy being used by data centers as well as information on the source of the energy. Water utilities would also need to publicly report when a single customer will account for more than 25% of the total water usage in the district.
The bill would require that companies pay workers at construction sites the prevailing wage rate or if the employee is a union member, then the rate in the worker’s collective bargaining agreement — whichever rate is higher. It also says that to qualify for sales tax exemptions available to data centers under current law, companies would need to meet labor requirements and source 70% of their energy from renewable sources.
Vos said that the Democratic bill will “have very little impact on the average person unless you’re a union activist or someone who wants renewable energy everywhere.”
A young woman asks AI companion ChatGPT for help this month in New York City. States are pushing to prevent the use of artificially intelligent chatbots in mental health to try to protect vulnerable users. (Photo by Shalina Chatlani/Stateline)
Editor’s note: If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.
States are passing laws to prevent artificially intelligent chatbots, such as ChatGPT, from being able to offer mental health advice to young users, following a trend of people harming themselves after seeking therapy from the AI programs.
Chatbots might be able to offer resources, direct users to mental health practitioners or suggest coping strategies. But many mental health experts say that’s a fine line to walk, as vulnerable users in dire situations require care from a professional, someone who must adhere to laws and regulations around their practice.
“I have met some of the families who have really tragically lost their children following interactions that their kids had with chatbots that were designed, in some cases, to be extremely deceptive, if not manipulative, in encouraging kids to end their lives,” said Mitch Prinstein, senior science adviser at the American Psychological Association and an expert on technology and children’s mental health.
“So in such egregious situations, it’s clear that something’s not working right, and we need at least some guardrails to help in situations like that,” he said.
While chatbots have been around for decades, AI technology has become so sophisticated that users may feel like they’re talking to a human. The chatbots don’t have the capacity to offer true empathy or mental health advice like a licensed psychologist would, and they are by design agreeable — a potentially dangerous model for someone with suicidal ideations. Several young people have died by suicide following interactions with chatbots.
States have enacted a variety of laws to regulate the types of interactions chatbots can have with users. Illinois and Nevada have completely banned the use of AI for behavioral health. New York and Utah passed laws requiring chatbots to explicitly tell users that they are not human. New York’s law also directs chatbots to detect instances of potential self-harm and refer the user to crisis hotlines and other interventions.
More laws may be coming. California and Pennsylvania are among the states that might consider legislation to regulate AI therapy.
President Donald Trump has criticized state-by-state regulation of AI, saying it stymies innovation. In December, he signed an executive order that aims to support the United States’ “global AI dominance” by overriding state artificial intelligence laws and establishing a national framework.
Still, states are moving ahead. Before Trump’s executive order, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis last month proposed a “Citizen Bill of Rights For Artificial Intelligence” that, among many other things, would prohibit AI from being used for “licensed” therapy or mental health counseling and provide parental controls for minors who may be exposed to it.
“The rise of AI is the most significant economic and cultural shift occurring at the moment; denying the people the ability to channel these technologies in a productive way via self-government constitutes federal government overreach and lets technology companies run wild,” DeSantis wrote on social media platform X in November.
‘A false sense of intimacy’
At a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last September, some parents shared their stories about their children’s deaths after ongoing interactions with an artificially intelligent chatbot.
Sewell Setzer III was 14 years old when he died by suicide in 2024 after becoming obsessed with a chatbot.
“Instead of preparing for high school milestones, Sewell spent his last months being manipulated and sexually groomed by chatbots designed by an AI company to seem human, to gain trust, and to keep children like him endlessly engaged by supplanting the actual human relationships in his life,” his mother, Megan Garcia, said during the hearing.
Another parent, Matthew Raine, testified about his son Adam, who died by suicide at age16 after talking for months with ChatGPT, a program owned by the company OpenAI.
“We’re convinced that Adam’s death was avoidable, and because we believe thousands of other teens who are using OpenAI could be in similar danger right now,” Raine said.
Prinstein, of the American Psychological Association, said that kids are especially vulnerable when it comes to AI chatbots.
“By agreeing with everything that kids say, it develops a false sense of intimacy and trust. That’s really concerning, because kids in particular are developing their brains. That approach is going to be unfairly attractive to kids in a way that may make them unable to use reason, judgment and restraints in the way that adults would likely use when interacting with a chatbot.”
The Federal Trade Commission in September launched an inquiry into seven companies making these AI-powered chatbots, questioning what efforts are in place to protect children.
“AI chatbots can effectively mimic human characteristics, emotions, and intentions, and generally are designed to communicate like a friend or confidant, which may prompt some users, especially children and teens, to trust and form relationships with chatbots,” the FTC said in its order.
Companies such as OpenAI have responded by saying that they are working with mental health experts to make their products safer and to limit chances of self-harm among its users.
“Working with mental health experts who have real-world clinical experience, we’ve taught the model to better recognize distress, de-escalate conversations, and guide people toward professional care when appropriate,” the company wrote in a statement last October.
Legislative efforts
With action at the federal level in limbo, efforts to regulate AI chatbots at the state level have had limited success.
Dr. John “Nick” Shumate, a psychiatrist at the Harvard University Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and his colleagues reviewed legislation to regulate mental health-related artificial intelligence systems across all states between January 2022 and May 2025.
The review found 143 bills directly or indirectly related to AI and mental health regulation. As of May 2025, 11 states had enacted 20 laws that researchers found were meaningful, direct and explicit in the ways they attempted to regulate mental health interactions.
They concluded that legislative efforts tended to fall into four different buckets: professional oversight, harm prevention, patient autonomy and data governance.
“You saw safety laws for chatbots and companion AIs, especially around self-harm and suicide response,” Shumate said in an interview.
New York enacted one such law last year that requires AI chatbots to remind users every three hours that it is not a human. The law also requires the chatbot to detect the potential of self-harm.
“There’s no denying that in this country, we’re in a mental health crisis,” New York Democratic state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, the law’s sponsor, said in an interview. “But the solution shouldn’t be to replace human support from licensed professionals with untrained AI chatbots that can leak sensitive information and can lead to broad outcomes.”
In Virginia, Democratic Del. Michelle Maldonado is preparing legislation for this year’s session that would put limits on what chatbots can communicate to users in a therapeutic setting.
“The federal level has been slow to pass things, slow to even create legislative language around things. So we have had no choice but to fill in that gap,” said Maldonado, a former technology lawyer.
She noted that states have passed privacy laws and restrictions on nonconsensual intimate images, licensing requirements and disclosure agreements.
New York Democratic state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, who sponsored a law regulating AI transparency, said he’s seen the growing influence of AI companies at the state level.
And that is concerning to him, he said, as states try to take on AI companies for issues ranging from mental health to misinformation and beyond.
“They are hiring former staffers to become public affairs officers. They are hiring lobbyists who know legislators to kind of get in with them. They’re hosting events, you know, by the Capitol, at political conferences, to try to build goodwill,” Gounardes said.
“These are the wealthiest, richest, biggest companies in the world,” he said. “And so we have to really not let up our guard for a moment against that type of concentrated power, money and influence.”
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
A hemp plant at a Cottage Grove farm. Hemp, used for industrial purposes and now grown legally in Wisconsin, is made from a variety of the cannabis plant that is low in THC, the active ingredient that is responsible for the intoxicating effect of marijuana. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
Wisconsin lawmakers are backing competing visions for the future of hemp in the state. One proposal, (SB 682), was discussed during a Thursday meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue. The bill would create a regulatory structure for hemp-derived cannabis products which would preserve the state’s hemp industry despite a federal ban set to take effect in November. Without state-level intervention, or the federal government choosing to reverse course, hemp growers and distributors fear that Wisconsin’s $700 million industry and about 3,500 jobs will disappear.
Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), chair of the Agriculture and Revenue Committee presented the bipartisan hemp bill to his committee, which he authored with bipartisan support. Testin’s legislation would define hemp as cannabis plants with no more than 0.3% of delta-9 THC (or the maximum concentration allowable under federal law up to 1%, whichever is greater) and define “hemp-derived cannabinoids” as any such compound extracted from the hemp plant. THC concentrations would be determined using specific high-performance testing methods.
Wisconsinites would need to be at least 21 years old to purchase hemp-derived cannabinoid products under the bill, which mandates that products undergo independent lab testing to ensure that they contain the amount and type of cannabinoids described on the product’s label. This practice, known as truth-in labeling, is something the hemp industry has called for in recent years.
Products could not be sold under the bill without labeling including contact information for the manufacturer or brand owner, serving sizes per container of product, ingredient lists including allergens, potency labeled in milligrams, and any necessary warnings. Under the bill, hemp-derived products could not contain more than 10 milligrams of THC in a single serving.
Testin said Thursday that globally, the industrial hemp market was valued at roughly $11 billion in 2025, and is expected to reach $48 billion by 2032. “Despite its wide availability, the regulation of [hemp-derived cannabinoid] products is essentially non-existent, leaving a patchwork of different approaches taken by states across the country,” he said.
In Wisconsin, such products “are generally recognized as legal but unregulated,” Testin said. “There are no state laws that restrict the sale to minors, regulate the potency or content of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], or establish labeling or packaging requirements.” Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee and other states have moved to enact their own regulations, Testin said. “Regulations are needed to eliminate the current uncertainty regarding the status of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], provide stability and certainty for businesses looking to enter this segment of the economy, and enact public safety regulations.”
Both Testin and Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) have worked on hemp laws for Wisconsin since the federal Farm Bill passed in 2018. “I’ve actually grown hemp,” said Kurtz, recalling that in 2019 “it was kind of a wide open market.” People that Kurtz and others called “bad actors” throughout the hearing also rode the hemp wave, seeing it as a “get rich quick scheme.” Kurtz said that today, the hemp industry is filled with people who want to do the right thing, but that “bad actors” have persisted.
Kurtz said SB 682 is designed to ensure that Wisconsinites “get the very best product, and they know what they’re getting.” He stressed that “if we do nothing, then hemp is going to be illegal at the federal level…but it will still be legal here in the state of Wisconsin. So I think it would behoove us to work together, get a good compromise, a good common sense piece of legislation to make sure that we — in my humble opinion — protect our constituents, but also protect an industry that I think is needed.”
Although hemp would be illegal at the federal level, a state-level industry could still operate similarly to the way some states have fully legal recreational or legalized cannabis programs, largely because the federal government has not cracked down on those industries.
Testin added that “regardless of anyone’s thoughts as it relates to cannabis and cannabinoids, it’s here. And obviously we have a lot of different approaches as to how to best move forward.” He repeatedly took aim at the “stupidity” of what he described as “our overlords” in Washington D.C., but also criticized other hemp-related bills being pushed in Wisconsin. Whereas some Republicans are seeking to ban hemp products outright, others have differing ideas about how a legal industry should be regulated.
A bill introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), SB 681, would require that manufacturers and distributors of hemp-derived cannabinoid products have permits. Products would be sold under a three-tier system, and would be regulated similarly to alcohol under the Division of Alcohol Beverages, a component of the Department of Revenue, which would be renamed to the Division of Intoxicating Products.
Although both Testin and Wimberger’s bills have gained bipartisan support, Testin described Wimberger’s bill as “the dead bill” and “deader than dead.” Testin argued that SB 681 would over-regulate the hemp industry, and even lead to a monopolization effect where a small number of entities could control who gets hemp permits, shape an otherwise competitive market, and operate in a “good ol’ boys club” manner.
Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) highlighted the divide among state Republicans over hemp and cannabis products, stressing that Democrats are not the ones holding up legalization and regulation.
The committee room was filled with people from across the hemp industry who listened to the conversation. When lawmakers questioned how to ensure that children do not acquire intoxicating hemp products, distributors and manufacturers pointed to age-verification software even for online sales, which require a photograph and image of a driver’s license to approve an order. There was also discussion about how to prevent products from being marketed to children using cartoon-like advertising and appealing candy wrappers.
Some veterans testified, describing how hemp helped them alleviate pain, kick addictive pain killers, soothed PTSD symptoms, and calmed the body for sleep. Other testimony centered on the danger involved in crossing state lines to Michigan or Illinois to acquire cannabis to treat various medical conditions. Hemp farmers stressed that they need to know now how they will be affected by a looming federal ban as they decide when or whether to plant their crops in the spring.
Much of the public testimony was supportive of Testin’s bill, though some speakers said that it needed to be amended to protect farmers and growers, and also expand the kinds of products it would cover including drinks and gummies.
“Yes, we are now in a scenario where there are intoxicating hemp products,” said Testin. “But just no different than anything like beer, wine, or alcohol, we need to have some sensible regulations put in place, which this bill aims to do just that.”
As for “concerns about getting baked or getting high from these products,” Testin added, “it’s no different than those individuals who go out and consume too many old fashioneds at fish fry on a Friday night, or have too many beers. It’s about personal choice and responsibility, but at the same time making sure that we have some regulations put in place.”
The hemp industry deserves to “thrive and grow,” Testin said, while the public deserves protection and to know “that this stuff isn’t falling into the hands of people it shouldn’t be in, like kids.”
The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) sent an email to members providing an update on the 17th National Congress on School Transportation’s (NCST) National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures Manual (NSTSP), which was already updated over the summer to fix the inadvertent omission of the new alternative transportation section.
The online version was removed from the National Congress on School Transportation website as of Sept. 19, pending the update. On Sept. 29, the updated NCST was republished to include the alternative transportation section.
However, on Tuesday, NASDPTS said two other updates were made to the book, including pages 61-78 and page 377. Details on the specific updates were not provided. NASDPTS said the NSTSP “is designed to be a living document, meaning it can be updated at any time if necessary.”
Ronna Weber, executive director of NASDPTS, clarified that changes include “grammatical, formatting or inconsistency related to the Congress approved items … .”
“Proposed changes [are] often reviewed and updates are issued from the various committees as needed. However, the NSTSP itself is not officially revised until each Congress votes on the proposed changes,” she added. “Additionally, there is an interim process, which could be employed, should it be necessary between congresses. This process is very rarely used, but it exists should action be needed prior to the next Congress.”
The decision on whether to hold the NCST every five or three years has yet to be made, but following last May’s NCST, delegates provided input on suggestions.
The electronic version has been updated to reflect the two updates, and the electronic version of the book is now dated December 2025. Each updated section is also saved as a separate link, should readers want to print the updated sections only.
“Future updates, should they be necessary, will also be handled in this manner, but communications will not necessarily be sent so please check the page periodically and refresh your link as needed,” NASDPTS said in a statement.
President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order as, left to right, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks look on in the Oval Office of the White House on Dec. 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that aims to preempt states from enacting rules governing artificial intelligence, a major departure from the typical federalist structure of American government that Trump said was necessary because of the issue’s high stakes.
In an early evening signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump said the order would position the United States to win a competition with China to dominate the burgeoning AI industry. Coordinating policy among 50 different states would put the U.S. at a disadvantage, Trump said, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.
“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”
The order creates a task force to monitor state laws on AI and to challenge them in court, and directs the Commerce secretary to complete a review of state laws within three months.
David Sacks, the chair of a White House board on technology, said there were more than 1,000 pending AI bills in state legislatures.
White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the Oval Office event that the order would “ensure that AI can operate within a single national framework in this country, as opposed to being subject to state level regulation that could potentially cripple the industry.”
“The big picture is that we’re taking steps to ensure that AI operates under a single national standard so that we can reap the benefits that will come from it.”
The order, a major assertion of presidential power over state governments and Congress, is likely to see court challenges, including from environmental groups that oppose AI expansion because of the energy resources the technology requires.
“Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to undermine states’ and local communities’ efforts to protect themselves from the unchecked spread of AI, which is driving a wave of dangerous data center development,” Mitch Jones, the chief of policy and litigation at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said in a statement.
“We’ll be following the administration’s attempts to implement this farcical order, and we’ll fight it in Congress, in the states, in the courts, and with communities across this country.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an administrative stay pending further legal review of an interim final rule announced by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in September to limit the ability of non-domiciled workers to obtain commercial driver’s licenses.
The Nov. 10 ruling on a case filed by a DACA recipient and an asylum seeker, who were blocked from getting non-domiciled CDLs, allows states to continue issuing the licenses as well as commercial learner’s permits (CLPs). Duffy responded Friday by announcing an emergency action to “drastically restrict” the eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs. The U.S. Department of Transportation also clarified states subject to a corrective action plan from the FMCSA must continue to adhere to the final rule.
A nationwide audit by FMCSA of these non-domiciled commercial drivers uncovered systemic non-compliance by several states, “the worst and most egregious” in California. FMCSA said 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs in the state were improperly issued. The agency ordered California as well as Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Washington to immediately pause the issuance of the non-domiciled CDLs, identify all non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations and revoke and reissue all noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs if they comply with the new federal regulations.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is among the organizations supporting the FMCSA interim rule while the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees are in favor of last week’s court stay.
Some school districts and school bus companies in search of drivers may need to look even harder after a federal rule outlaws the issuing of CDLs to non-U.S. citizens.
Many U.S. states are pausing or suspending the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) in response to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s Sept. 26 announcement of an emergency action to drastically restrict who is eligible for a non-domiciled commercial learner’s permits (CLPs) and CDLs.
Editor’s — This article has been updated to include more comments from states that responded to questions the initial publication. STN will provide further updates as more states respond.
According to the announcement, the rule — effective immediately — comes in response to an ongoing nationwide audit by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and “a recent series of horrific, fatal crashes caused by non-domiciled drivers.”
The rule impacts nearly 200,000 current non-domiciled CDL holders and 20,000 CLP holders. FMCSA estimates about 6,000 drivers will qualify for non-domiciled credentials annually under the new restrictions.
It was unknown at this report how many of those are school bus drivers.
Duffy’s announcement indicates the audit uncovered “a catastrophic pattern of states issuing licenses illegally to foreign drivers, as well as the fact that even if the current regulatory framework is followed, it can fail.
“The confluence of these two factors has created an imminent hazard on America’s roadways that must be fixed,” a press release states.
Moving forward, non-citizens are ineligible for a non-domiciled CDL unless they meet a much stricter set of rules, including obtaining an employment-based visa and undergoing a mandatory federal immigration status check using the SAVE system.
SAVE is an online service for registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies to verify immigration status and naturalized/acquired U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.
“What our team has discovered should disturb and anger every American,” said Duffy, noting that CDLs are being issued to “dangerous foreign drivers – oftentimes illegally. This is a direct threat to the safety of every family on the road, and I won’t stand for it,” he continued.
FMCSA’s nationwide audit of non-domiciled CDLs uncovered systemic non-compliance across several states, the announcement noted, adding “the worst and most egregious in California. Due to weak oversight, insufficient training and programming errors, the agency found a large number of non-domiciled CDLs were issued to ineligible drivers and those whose licenses were valid long after their lawful presence in the U.S. expired.”
The audit indicates more than 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs reviewed in California were improperly issued. U.S. DOT cited one case in which the state issued a driver from Brazil a CDL with endorsements to drive a passenger bus and a school bus that remained valid for months after his legal presence in the country expired.
As a result, Duffy also announced direct enforcement action against California, indicating the state must immediately pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, identify all unexpired non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations, and revoke and reissue all noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs if they comply with the new federal requirements.
Duffy gave California 30 days to come into compliance or FMCSA will withhold federal highway funds, starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.
Jonathan Groveman, an information officer with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, told School Transportation News the agency is currently reviewing the federal government’s issued guidance within the federal government’s 30-day period.
Duffy indicated FMCSA’s findings are in addition to at least five fatal crashes occurring since January involving non-domiciled CDL holders, prompting what it calls Duffy’s urgent action to “combat the direct threat to national security and the hazard to public safety.”
Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington were also identified as states with licensing patterns not consistent with federal regulations.
The action limits individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to foreign individuals in lawful status in the U.S. in certain employment-based, non-immigrant categories, certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and individuals domiciled in a state that is prohibited from issuing CLPs or CDLs because FMCSA has decertified the state’s CDL program.
It also requires:
• Non-citizen applicants — except for lawful permanent residents — to provide an unexpired foreign passport and an unexpired Form I-94/94A (Arrival/Departure Record) indicating one of the specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories, specifically H2-B, H2-A, and E-2 visas, at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and upgrade action de-fined in the regulation.
• State drivers licensing agencies (SDLA) to query the SAVE system, which is administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of provided documents and information.
• SDLAs retain copies of the application documents for at least two years.
• The expiration date for any non-domiciled CLP or CDL to match the expiration date of the Form I-94/94A or to expire in one year, whichever is sooner.
• The applicant to be present in person at each renewal.
• An SDLA to downgrade the non-domiciled CLP or CDL if the state becomes aware that the holder is no longer eligible to hold a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
STN reached out to all 50 state agencies that issue CDLs, with several state websites announcing changes.
The Colorado DMV provided a statement to STN that effective Sept. 29 it paused all commercial drivers issuances and renewals of term-limited or non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs.
A spokesperson for the Georgia Department of Driver Services told STN the state is complying with the new federal ruling by only issuing CDLs to permanent residents that have acceptable visas.
In New Mexico, the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) announced it also paused its issuance and renewal of CDLs and CLPs to certain non-domiciled foreign individuals as of Sept. 29 to comply with the emergency interim final rules issued by the FMCSA.
The MVD statement reads that the agency’s pause in CDL and CPL issuance and renewal affects foreign nationals relying on an employment zuthorization card to substantiate their authorization to work in the U.S. and it will continue to issue CDLs and CLPs to foreign nationals who present a foreign passport with an approved I-94 Arrival/Departure record.
“New Mexico law complies with all federal requirements for the issuance of CDLs and CLPs to non-domiciled individuals,” according to the statement. “Currently, 204 CDLs and CLPs have been issued to non-domiciled individuals in New Mexico. 2
Legislation introduced in 2022 on behalf of MVD added requirements for issuances of CDLs and CLPs to foreign nationals who demonstrate lawful status in the U.S. Individuals who seek a new or renewed non-domiciled CDL or CLP based on an employment authorization card will not be able to complete their transaction through MVD or its partner offices at this time.’
Regarding school bus drivers, Megan Gleason, public information officer for the New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue, noted, “There is a specific endorsement — an S (school bus) endorsement — on commercial driver’s licenses that authorizes drivers to operate a school bus transporting students to and from school or school-sponsored activities.
“When applied to a commercial learner’s permit, the endorsement serves solely for testing purposes, permitting the driver to complete the required skills examination to qualify for the endorsement on their commercial driver’s license,” she said.
Current data on active and total endorsements in New Mexico, indicates there are four active non-domicile CDLs, a total of eight non-domicile CDLs since 2022, one active non-domicile CLPs, and a total of nine CLPs since 2022.
Gleason said the same requirement for a foreign passport with an I-94 for an H2/H2A/E2 visa remains for those drivers at the time of renewal.
A Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson told STN all currently issued CDLs, including those to school bus drivers with appropriate endorsements, will remain valid and only the issuance of new CDLs and commercial learners permits, or CLPs, has been halted.
An additional statement from the agency, which issues CDLs and CLPs in Texas, noted that non-citizens include refugees, asylum seekers, and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
“Customers with a pending issuance will not be allowed to continue any written or skills testing until the services for non-domicile CDL/CLP are reinstated” DPS added.
Other states changes include:
• The Arizona Department of Transportation said in a statement, “it is aware of the new federal guidelines and has instituted them for all new CDL issuances as well as renewals, which includes those seeking CDLs with passenger and school bus endorsements. There are approximately 125,000 CDLs in Arizona, and of those 800 are non-domiciled CDLs.” Though information related to school bus drivers was not known.
• Indiana noted its Bureau of Motor Vehicles has ceased processing all applications for non-domiciled CDL/CLPs, including applications for new, amended, duplicated, transferred, renewed, or upgraded non-domiciled CDL/CLPs. Affected non-domiciled CDL/CLP customers may submit an application at a BMV license branch to apply for or downgrade to a non-CDL driver’s license should they so choose.
• Maryland paused the issuance of all non-domiciled commercial driver products until further notice. This includes issuance, transfers, updates, replacements, duplicates, and renewals of both non-domiciled CLPs and non-domiciled CDLs, adding ‘we apologize for the inconvenience.’
• Massachusetts also apologetically indicated it has paused the issuance of all non-domiciled commercial driver credentials until further notice, including issuance, transfers, updates, replacements, duplicates, and renewals of both non-domiciled CLPs and non-domiciled CDLs.
• Missouri suspended all new, renewal and duplicate nondomiciled CDL and CLP issuance until further notice, including a suspension of knowledge and skills testing for any in-state or out-of-state test applicant who would be restricted to a non-domiciled CDL or CLP.
• Oregon DMV is no longer issuing limited-term (non-domiciled) CDLs and CLPs until further notice.
• Utah has paused issuing non-domiciled CDLs.
• The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Office of Public Affairs issued a statement. “Due to the recent interim final rule issued by the FMCSA, like many states across the country, WisDOT Division of Motor Vehicles has paused its non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs issuance program to ensure compliance with the interim final rule. Wisconsin already had many of the new rule’s regulations in place. As we work to resolve any remaining issues, we will communicate the status of our program to impacted individuals on our website and at our DMV service centers.”
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed an emergency action to continue enforcing engine emissions regulations because it says federal government efforts to undo them could result in the sale of vehicles that are not certified to any standard.
As California’s lawsuit continues against the Trump administration, challenging the presidential executive order in January directing federal agencies to terminate state emissions waivers and a resulting revocation of those waivers through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) signed into law in June, CARB said it wants to provide regulatory certainty and flexibility to manufacturers. For school buses and trucks, manufacturers could meet the Omnibus Low-NOx regulation adopted in 2020 or the previous regulation that met the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency levels set in 2010. The CRA this spring revoked three waivers, one of which allowed CARB to set a new level of 0.05 g/bhp-hr of NOx.
The public had five business days from Monday’s announcement to weigh in on CARB’s intent to enact its Emergency Vehicle Emissions Regulations by filing comments with the state’s Office of Administrative Law.
The emergency regulations do not address the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which the CRA also revoked an EPA waiver for.
“The amendments would confirm that, until a court resolves the uncertainty created by the federal government’s actions, certain antecedent regulations (displaced by Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus) remain operative (as previously adopted) with the caveat that CARB may enforce Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus, to the extent permitted by law, in the event a court of law holds invalid the resolution purporting to disapprove those waivers,” the proposal reads.
In other words, manufacturers would be able to continue certifying engines under either the earlier-adopted emissions standards or the more stringent standards.
CARB noted that most engine and vehicle manufacturers have already planned on or achieved compliance with the more stringent emissions requirements. But CARB also warned that manufacturers choosing to certify to previous emissions levels assume the risk of having engines out of compliance with regulations, should current legal cases brought against the Trump administration go in California’s favor.
Cummins spokeswoman Drew Blair told School Transportation News that it was premature to respond in detail to CARB’s proposal, as it was not final. But she added Cummins is following the issue closely.
“Cummins is focused on delivering products with the power and performance our customers need to get their jobs done, while also meeting emissions requirements,” she commented. “We also will continue to advocate for national standards to bring clarity to our business and customers and ensure efficient and affordable products are available to power their needs.”
Earlier this month, a group of vehicle manufacturers led by Daimler Truck North America, the parent company to Thomas Built Buses, filed a suit against CARB, claiming the agency would need to re-enact previous legislation before it could enforce earlier emissions regulations.
“In the event the vehicle manufacturer’s claims were deemed correct … then CARB must take immediate action to maintain a stable vehicle market in the state and prevent the sale of vehicles into the state that would not be certified to either set of standards …,” CARB writes. “… Otherwise, in light of these unprecedented circumstances, there may remain questions — for the first time since CARB’s program began decades ago — as to whether any California standard is in effect.”
A Daimler Truck spokesperson said Wednesday the company could not comment on CARB’s proposal.
International, the parent to IC Bus, signed onto the Daimler Truck lawsuit. An International spokesman declined comment because the litigation is ongoing.
Meanwhile, CARB said Tuesday 23 percent of new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales in 2024 were zero emissions, more than double the minimum statewide requirement. The data is based on 30,026 zero-emission trucks, buses and vans reported to CARB by manufacturers. School buses are included in the reporting.
It was the fourth year in a row that ZEV sales increased. More than 57,000 ZEVs have been sold in California since 2021.
While the immediate future remains uncertain on federal emissions regulations and funding, school bus OEMs say they are prepared with varied solutions going forward to meet the needs of every customer, no matter the fuel or where they operate.
That was the key takeaway from a July 13 panel at STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada. The OEM representatives on stage were Francisco Lagunas, general manager of North America Bus for Cummins; Jim Crowcroft, general sales manager for Thomas Built Buses; Katie Stok, product marketing and commercial readiness for IC Bus; Frank Girardot, the PR, marketing and government relations leader at RIDE; and Brad Beauchamp, EV product segment leader for Blue Bird. The session attempted to provide some clarity to the ever-changing funding and fuel landscape.
“The only certainty is that everything is so uncertain,” Lagunas punctuated during the “The Engines & Emissions Pathway Forward” session, facilitated by School Transportation News Editor-in-Chief Ryan Gray.
Lagunas added that Cummins is seeing an increased demand in diesel, confirming that the new B6.7 octane engine will be available in January. Though, he noted that investments in electric batteries and drive systems have not slowed down. Accelera, the zero-emissions division of Cummins, is a member of a joint venture with Daimler Truck North America and Paccar to create a U.S.-based battery cell manufacturer, Amplify Cell Technologies.
Crowcroft agreed, adding that one year has made a huge difference in industry focus. Several of the same panelists sat on a similar panel last year at STN EXPO, where he said EV was the focus of the industry.
“Now, it’s been a complete 180 [degree turn] this year,” he shared, adding that the industry has spent too much time talking about EVs and not enough time talking about the other offerings.
This year has been about being diverse, being nimble and ready to adapt to change when necessary. “What is the most practical plan?” he asked, noting that diesel technology has advanced and EV fatigue is setting in.
He shared that Thomas is not telling customers what fuel or energy type to use but instead empowering them to choose what works best for their fleets. Noting the Trump administration’s relaxation of a federal push for zero-emission vehicles, Crowcroft said there has been a sigh of relief from customers for not feeling like they have to purchase electric school buses.
He noted that with all the changes and technologies, it puts more pressure on the OEMs to keep up. He said Thomas is committed to investing in quality, citing that ahead of the 2027 GHG Phase 3 regulations targeting lower NOx (the EPA currently has it on hold pending a proposal to remove GHG regulations), school districts might want to pre-buy within the next 12 months to avoid cost increases tied to the new technology.
Beauchamp said Blue Bird has always focused on a fuel-agnostic path for its customers, and the company plans on continuing with propane being a low emission source. While he said Blue Bird had yet to see EV order cancellations as of last month, he anticipates those orders will flatten. Regardless, Blue Bird is committed to EV, noting an $80 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy last year (and double that amount in company matching funds) to build a new Type D electric school bus plant.
He noted that while the supply chain has improved coming out of COVID-19, “We’re not out of the words on it, yet,” he said.
Stok noted that the industry conversation should not be about low costs but having a supplier that delivers good quality on time. She noted that, like the other OEMs, EV is still very much part of the IC Bus product portfolio, as is diesel. However, she said the change in federal regulations will usher in changing order preferences across the industry, noting that IC is reintroducing its own gasoline school bus with the upcoming Cummins engine.
For the remainder of 2025, she said IC Bus is on track to have the highest production output from its Tulsa, Oklahoma plant. Communication is key right now, she added, and the manufacturer is working with its dealer network to listen to the customers and continue to improve.
Meanwhile, Girardot said it’s too early to predict what the future holds but BYD electric school bus company RIDE believes it holds a promise to furthering the deployment of EVs and enhancing the capabilities of vehicle to grid technology. He noted that V2G holds value and is something that communities need to consider. He highlighted success stories of V2G, such as in the Oakland Unified School District in California.
Girardot added that technician training on electric school buses is a must.
Additionally, RIDE announced a range extension on its blade battery, which took home the Best Green Technology, as judged by attendees at the STN EXPO West Trade Show Innovation Awards. Girardot added RIDE, too, received a competitive grant to expand its manufacturing facility.
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.”
From left: Denise Donaldson, the editor and publisher of Safe Ride News Publications, and Sue Shutrump, at the time the supervisor of OT/PT services for Trumbull County Educational Service Center in Ohio, discuss the importance of CSRS during STN EXPO Reno on July 14, 2024. (Photo courtesy of Vincent Rios Creative.)
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.
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.”
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.
Login
