Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, shown here during oral arguments in January, wrote for four justices that laws empowering the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution. (Screenshot/WisEye)

State laws that let a 10-member committee of the Legislature override regulations are unconstitutional, a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling hands the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers a victory in an ongoing battle with the Legislature’s Republican leaders.

It also affirms that the state Legislature cannot renew its attempt to block regulations against conversion therapy for LGBTQ people, and appears to clear the way for an update of Wisconsin’s building code that was suspended nearly two years ago.

The ruling finds five statutes, granting power to the Legislature’s committee that reviews and periodically suspends administrative rules, violate the Wisconsin Constitution.

Taken together, wrote Chief Justice Jill Karofsky for the four justices making up the Court’s liberal wing, the statutes give the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules the power to effectively change state laws without going through the full legislative process.

“The ability of a ten-person committee to halt or interrupt the passage of a rule, which would ordinarily be required to be presented to the governor as a bill [to block the rule], is simply incompatible with Articles IV and V of the Wisconsin Constitution,” Karofsky wrote.

The Court’s three conservative justices took issue with the majority opinion, asserting that rulemaking itself involves legislative power and that Tuesday’s ruling improperly constrains the Legislature as the elected representatives of the people.

‘Legislative veto’ lawsuit 

The decision is the second to come from a lawsuit Evers filed in the fall of 2023, Evers v. Marklein, accusing the Republican leaders of the Legislature of exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto” hampering the lawful powers of the executive branch to make administrative rules.

The Evers administration argued that five statutes granting JCRAR the power to review, object to and block rules before or after they are promulgated violate the state Constitution. Those include a law enacted in December 2018, after Evers was elected governor but before he took office, that allows the committee to lodge “indefinite” objections blocking a rule.

The Court majority agreed with the administration’s argument.

The Wisconsin Constitution requires that for a law to be enacted, it must pass both the Assembly and the Senate and then be presented to the governor to be signed or vetoed.

“By permitting JCRAR to exercise discretion over which approved rules may be promulgated and which may not, the statute empowers JCRAR to take action that alters the legal rights and duties of persons outside of the legislative branch” without going through the lawmaking process, Karofsky wrote.

The indefinite objection “prevents the agency from promulgating a rule unless the Legislature passes a bill enacting the rule,” she wrote. “Said another way, legislative inertia after an indefinite objection could permanently stop the promulgation of a rule.”

Evers, lawmakers, advocates praise Court’s ruling on regulations

The law allowing the committee to pause a rule for 30 days before it is promulgated “essentially allows JCRAR to capture control of agency rulemaking authority from the executive branch during the 30-day pause period,” Karofksy wrote.

The pause, which can be extended to 30 days “operates as a ‘pocket veto,’” she wrote. “Even if such an interruption is relatively brief, the constitution does not contemplate temporary violations of its provisions.”

Similarly, after the rule has been promulgated, JCRAR’s power to suspend it multiple times “means that even after promulgation, JCRAR could suspend a rule repeatedly in perpetuity with no other checks in place,” the chief justice wrote.

Clearing way for conversion therapy ban, new building code

In overturning the five statutes, the Court majority also revoked two earlier rulings that had affirmed some of JCRAR’s powers — one from 1992, upholding the committee’s temporary suspension of a rule, and the other from 2020, endorsing the power to suspend a rule multiple times.

Evers’ suit focused on two rules that JCRAR blocked, both produced under the umbrella of the state Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS).

One rule prohibited therapists from using discredited conversion therapy to try to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ people. It was adopted by the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board.

“When the Board created new professional conduct rules banning conversion therapy, it exercised its statutory authority,” Karofksy wrote. “But when JCRAR objected to the rule it effectively blocked the Board’s authority” under Wisconsin law “to govern the professional conduct of its licensees.”

The conversion therapy rule was suspended in January 2023, but reinstated after the Legislature concluded its work for the 2023-24 session.

With “the multiple suspension provision,” however, Karofsky wrote, “JCRAR has the authority to suspend this rule again, in perpetuity.”

Another rule updated the state commercial building code to international standards set in 2021.

“The goal of these chapters is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public,” Karofsky wrote. JCRAR’s indefinite suspension of the code in 2023  “prevented DSPS from completing its statutory rulemaking duties,” she wrote.

Conservative justices object

Justice Brian Hagedorn, one of three members of the Court’s conservative wing, wrote an opinion that concurred with the majority on narrow grounds but dissented on finding the five laws at issue unconstitutional.

The JCRAR indefinite objection to the building code rule is unconstitutional under a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, Hagedorn wrote.

He argued that the conversion therapy rule is now outside the Court’s purview, however.

“This ethical rule is already in effect; it is no longer suspended,” Hagedorn wrote. “Since a ruling on JCRAR’s actions with respect to this rule would have no legal effect, this claim is moot, and we have nothing further to decide.”

Hagedorn criticized the decision’s far-reaching findings that whole statutes were unconstitutional, however. He said it also failed to grapple with arguments about the constitutional status of regulation by executive branch agencies.

“The effect of the majority’s decision is to greenlight executive alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process while prohibiting legislative alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process,” Hagedorn wrote.

Former Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley published separate sharply worded dissents.

Ziegler wrote that the majority ruling was the outcome of “this court’s misguided quest to restructure and unbalance our state government, culminating in even more power and control being allocated to the executive branch.”

“The legislature has delegated executive branch agencies broad rulemaking authority with the understanding that it will be able to oversee administrative rulemaking through JCRAR,” Ziegler wrote. “The majority now pulls the rug out from under the legislature…”

Bradley, invoking lyrics from Bruce Springsteen’s song “Badlands” in which the singer says “a king ain’t satisfied ‘til he rules everything,” charged that the majority “lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked.”

Her dissent offered a full-throated attack on the administrative state and executive branch regulatory authority.

“The majority invokes the Wisconsin Constitution to take power from the People’s elected representatives in the legislature and bestow it on the executive branch, empowering unelected bureaucrats to rule over the People,” Bradley wrote.

2025-07-08_SCOWI_Evers v Marklein – JCRAR

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, shown here in a June 17, 2025, committee hearing, proposed paring down the moratorium on state-based AI laws included in the budget bill, but the provision still proved unpopular. On Monday, Blackburn cosponsored an amendment to remove the measure. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

A moratorium on state-based artificial intelligence laws was struck from the “Big Beautiful Bill” Monday night in a 99-1 vote in the U.S. Senate, after getting less and less popular with state and federal lawmakers, state officials and advocacy groups since it was introduced in May.

The moratorium had evolved in the seven weeks since it was introduced into the megabill. At an early May Senate Commerce Committee session, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said it was in his plans to create “a regulatory sandbox for AI” that would prevent state overregulation and promote the United States’ AI industry.

GOP senators initially proposed a 10-year ban on all state laws relating to artificial intelligence, saying the federal government should be the only legislative body to regulate the technology. Over several hearings, congressional members and expert witnesses debated the level of involvement the federal government should take in regulating AI. They discussed state’s rights, safety concerns for the technology and how other governmental bodies, like the European Union, are regulating AI.

Over the weekend, Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Cruz developed a pared down version of the moratorium that proposed a five-year ban, and made exceptions for some laws with specific aims such as protecting children or limiting deepfake technologies. Changes over the weekend also tied state’s ability to collect federal funding to expand broadband access to their willingness to nullify their existing AI laws.

Monday night, an amendment to remove the moratorium from the budget bill — cosponsored by Blackburn and Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat — was passed 99-1.

“The Senate came together tonight to say that we can’t just run over good state consumer protection laws,” Cantwell said in a statement. “States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on Artificial Intelligence that accelerates U.S. leadership in AI while still protecting consumers.” 

The “overwhelming” vote reflects how unpopular unregulated AI is among voters and legislators in both parties, said Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of the tech policy organization, Center for Democracy and Technology, in a statement.

“Americans deserve sensible guardrails as AI develops, and if Congress isn’t prepared to step up to the plate, it shouldn’t prevent states from addressing the challenge,” Reeve Givens said. “We hope that after such a resounding rebuke, Congressional leaders understand that it’s time for them to start treating AI harms with the seriousness they deserve.”

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on May 7, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republicans cannot exempt gun silencers, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns from being classified as firearms under a federal gun regulation law from the 1930s, according to the Senate parliamentarian’s latest ruling on the “big, beautiful bill.”

The provision addressing silencers, also called suppressors, was added to the House’s version of the bill by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde. The Senate Finance Committee expanded it, adding in the other two classifications.

Also out of the bill is a sweeping private school voucher program that would have extended billions a year in tax credits to parents who move their children out of public schools.

The rulings mean those sections now will be dropped from the Senate version of the tax and spending cut measure, or rewritten in a way that meets the rules. 

Friday morning’s disclosure of the latest parliamentary ruling came as the Senate continues to struggle with the massive legislation, which GOP leaders in Congress want to pass in time for a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline for President Donald Trump’s signature.

The Senate will likely stay in session throughout the weekend and possibly into early next week to finish negotiations on provisions and release the final text, take a procedural vote, debate the bill, hold a marathon amendment voting session and then vote on final passage.

The House, which is scheduled to be in recess all next week for the holiday, is expected to return to Capitol Hill about two days after the Senate approves the bill to clear the legislation for Trump’s signature.

Gun silencer debate in House

Clyde said during floor debate in May that because silencers were included in the National Firearms Act, they were also subject to a $200 tax that he argued violates people’s Second Amendment rights.

“Under the law, they are firearms and therefore are protected by another law enacted in 1791 called the Second Amendment of our beloved Constitution,” Clyde said. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and neither shall it be taxed.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost spoke out against the House provision during floor debate, saying that during mass shootings, “silencers make it harder to identify and respond to the source of the gunshots.

“Earlier, I put forth an amendment to strip this tax cut for the gun lobby, and House Republicans wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote.”

Frost said that during 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “recovered over 400 silencers from violent crime scenes. For this reason, silencers have been highly regulated for nearly 100 years.”

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., released a statement Friday following the parliamentarian’s ruling, saying it eliminated Republicans’ “scheme to eliminate background checks, registrations and other safety measures that apply to easily-concealed firearms and gun silencers.”

“It’s no surprise that Republicans will jump at any opportunity to please the gun lobby by rolling back gun safety measures, but that kind of policy does not belong in a reconciliation bill,” Wyden wrote.

Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the committee has been going back and forth with the parliamentarian on how to rework other provisions deemed noncompliant to get them into the final bill.

A summary of the provision from Crapo’s office says it would have resulted “in the elimination of the transfer and manufacturing tax on these devices” and preempted “certain state or local licensing or registration requirements which are determined by reference to the National Firearms Act by treating anyone who acquires or possesses these rifles, shotguns, or other weapons in compliance with federal statute to be in compliance with the state or local registration or licensing requirements.”

Private school vouchers scrapped

The parliamentarian struck down the private school voucher program tucked into the Senate Finance Committee’s portion of the package, marking a significant blow to Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ school choice push.

The umbrella term “school choice” centers on alternative programs to a student’s assigned public school. Though advocates say school choice programs are necessary for parents dissatisfied with their local public schools, critics argue these efforts drain critical funds and resources from school districts.

The committee proposed $4 billion a year in tax credits beginning in 2027 for people donating to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships.

The tax credit provision mirrored a bill that GOP lawmakers — Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana along with Reps. Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Burgess Owens of Utah — reintroduced in their respective chambers earlier this year.

Immigration

Several provisions to reshape how immigrants apply for asylum were struck down by the parliamentarian Friday.

Those provisions would have required a $1,000 fee for an immigrant to apply for asylum – something that is currently free to people fleeing harm or persecution – and imposed a $5,000 fee for someone to sponsor an unaccompanied minor.

Some of the provisions would have added extra fees to immigration courts, which are already facing a historic backlog of millions of cases, for a mandatory $100 fee to continue a case.

The parliamentarian also struck out a policy that would have extended quick deportations, known as expedited removal, to immigrants arrested for a crime regardless of legal status.

Expedited removal is a deportation tool used to swiftly remove an immigrant near a U.S. border without appearing before an immigration judge. The Trump administration has already expanded its use of expedited removal to include the interior of the U.S., rather than just at borders such as Mexico and Canada.

State and local tax

Senate Republicans were still wrangling Friday afternoon over the amount of state and local taxes, or SALT, that taxpayers can deduct from their federal tax bills. House Republicans who represent high-tax blue states are pressuring their counterparts in the Senate to agree on a $40,000 deduction cap for taxpayers who earn up to $500,000 annually.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent briefly stepped out of closed-door negotiations to brief reporters, telling them a deal was “very, very close.”

The handful of House Republicans who represent blue states, including New York and California, carry a lot of leverage over final passage of the bill because of the party’s razor-thin margin in the House.

Reconciliation process

Republicans are moving their sweeping tax and spending cuts bill through Congress using a special process called budget reconciliation that comes with complex rules in the Senate.

The chamber’s parliamentarian combs through the bill, hears from Republicans and from Democrats before determining whether each provision has an impact on spending, revenue, or the debt limit.

There are several other aspects to the Byrd rule, named for former West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, including that a provision cannot have a “merely incidental” impact on the federal ledger. Reconciliation bills also cannot touch Social Security.

The parliamentarian has ruled several other provisions in the GOP mega-bill don’t comply with the guardrails for a reconciliation bill, though some committees have been able to rework certain policy changes to fit.

Republicans chose to move the bill through reconciliation because it allows them to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which typically forces bipartisan negotiations on major legislation. 

The process is time-consuming and opaque, but Republican leaders in Congress are still pushing forward with their self-imposed Fourth of July goal.

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

In a 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) authority to regulate polluters who produce hazardous substances such as PFAS through the state’s toxic spills law. 

The court’s ruling reverses the decisions of the circuit and appeals courts that could have threatened the DNR’s ability to force polluters to pay for the environmental damage they cause. For more than 40 years, the spills law has allowed the DNR to bring civil charges and enforce remediation measures against parties responsible for spills of “harmful substances.” 

The lawsuit was brought by an Oconomowoc dry cleaner and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state’s largest business lobby, after the owner of the dry cleaner, Leather Rich Inc., found PFAS on her property. 

In preparation to sell the business, Leather Rich had been participating in a voluntary DNR program to remediate contamination on its property in exchange for a certificate of liability protection from the department. During that process, the DNR determined that PFAS should be considered a “hazardous substance” under the spills law and communicated that on its website. 

If PFAS were present on a site, the DNR stated, participants in the voluntary program would only be eligible for partial liability protection. 

While conducting a site investigation through the program, Leather Rich determined three of four wells on the property exceeded Department of Health Services standards for PFAS concentration in surface or drinking water. The DNR requested that future reports from Leather Rich to the department include the amount of PFAS found on the property. Leather Rich responded by withdrawing from the program and filing suit. 

At the circuit and appeals courts, Leather Rich was successful, with judges at each level finding that the decision by the DNR to start considering PFAS a “hazardous substance” under the spills law constituted an “unpromulgated rule” and therefore was against the law. That interpretation would have required the DNR to undergo the complicated and often yearslong process of creating an administrative rule each time it determines that a substance is harmful to people or the environment.

SpillsLawDecision

In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Janet Protasiewicz and joined by the Court’s three other liberal leaning justices and conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, the Court found that the DNR spent nearly 50 years administering the spills law responding “to about 1,000 spills each year, without promulgating rules listing substances, quantities, and concentrations that it deems ‘hazardous substances.’”

Protasiewicz wrote that when the Legislature wrote the spills law, it left the definition of “hazardous substance” intentionally open-ended but required a potentially harmful substance to meet certain criteria if it would apply under the law. 

“The definition of ‘hazardous substance’ is broad and open-ended in that it potentially applies to ‘any substance or combination of substances,’” Protasiewicz wrote. “But the definition is limited in that the substance or combination of substances must satisfy one of two fact-specific criteria.” 

She wrote that the law considers “a substance or combination of substances is ‘hazardous’ if,” its quantity, concentration or characteristics may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment

Leather Rich and WMC had argued that the Legislature’s failure to include chemical thresholds in the statutory text left while including the use of terms like “significantly,” “serious,” and “substantial,” meant that the law was ambiguous and therefore any DNR determinations of what counts as hazardous must be delineated in an administrative rule. They argued that under this interpretation of statute, spilling milk or beer on the ground could constitute a toxic spill. 

Protasiewicz wrote if that were the case, “then scores of Wisconsin statutes on a wide range of subjects would be called into doubt,” and that their hypotheticals are undermined by the text of the statute. 

“It is possible for an everyday substance like milk or beer to qualify as a ‘hazardous substance,’ but only if it first satisfies [the statute’s] fact specific criteria,” she wrote. “A mug of beer or a gallon of milk spilled into Lake Michigan may not ‘pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment,’ but a 500-gallon tank of beer or milk discharged into a trout stream might well pose a substantial present hazard to the stream’s fish and environment.” 

The majority opinion also found that communications the DNR made on its website and in letters to Leather Rich counted as “guidance documents” not as rules.

Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, who once gave a speech to WMC in which she declared to the business lobby that “I am your public servant,” wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler that the majority’s interpretation of the spills law left the state vulnerable to a “tyrannical” government that could both create the rules and enforce them. 

“This case is about whether the People are entitled to know what the law requires of them before the government can subject them to the regulatory wringer,” she wrote. “The majority leaves the People at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats empowered not only to enforce the rules, but to make them. Americans have lived under this unconstitutional arrangement for decades, but now, the majority says, the bureaucrats can impose rules and penalties on the governed without advance notice, oversight, or deliberation. In doing so, the majority violates three first principles fundamental to preserving the rule of law — and liberty.” 

After the decision’s release, Democrats and environmental groups celebrated its findings as an important step to protecting Wisconsin’s residents from the harmful effects of pollution. 

“This is a historic victory for the people of Wisconsin and my administration’s fight against PFAS and other harmful contaminants that are affecting families and communities across our state,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision today means that polluters will not have free rein to discharge harmful contaminants like PFAS into our land, water, and air without reporting it or taking responsibility for helping clean up those contaminants. It’s a great day for Wisconsinites and the work to protect and preserve our state’s valuable natural resources for future generations.”

But WMC said the Court’s interpretation leaves businesses guessing what substances count as hazardous under the law. 

“The DNR refuses to tell the regulated community which substances must be reported under the Spills Law, yet threatens severe penalties for getting it wrong,” Scott Manley, WMC’s Executive Vice President of Government Relations, said in a statement. “Businesses and homeowners are left to guess what’s hazardous, and if they’re wrong, they face crushing fines and endless, costly litigation. This ruling blesses a regulatory approach that is fundamentally unfair, unworkable, and impossible to comply with.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Child passenger safety providers are urging the industry to voice support of proposed rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that addresses an oversight in updates made to FMVSS 213 that could impact the new manufacturing of child safety restraint systems for school buses.

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.

It also delays the side-impact protection compliance date for all other child restraint systems from June 30, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2026, and 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.

Charlie 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.”

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

Members of the group Initiative Urheberrecht (authors' rights initiative) demonstrate to demand regulation of artificial intelligence on June 16, 2023 in Berlin, Germany. The AI regulation later adopted by the European Union is a model for many U.S. lawmakers interested in consumer protection but a cautionary tale for others who say they're interested in robust innovation, experts say. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

The European Union’s landmark AI Act, which went into effect last year, stands as inspiration for some U.S. legislators looking to enact widespread consumer protections. Others use it as a cautionary tale warning against overregulation leading to a less competitive digital economy.

The European Union enacted its law to prevent what is currently happening in the U.S. — a patchwork of AI legislation throughout the states — said Sean Heather, senior vice president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the Chamber of Commerce during an exploratory congressional subcommittee hearing on May 21.

“America’s AI innovators risk getting squeezed between the so-called Brussels Effect of overzealous European regulation and the so-called Sacramento Effect of excessive state and local mandates,” said Adam Thierer, a Senior Fellow at think tank R Street Institute, at the hearing.

The EU’s AI Act is comprehensive, and puts regulatory responsibility on developers of AI to mitigate risk of harm by the systems. It also requires developers to provide technical documentation and training summaries of its models for review by EU officials. The U.S. adopting similar policies would kick the country out of its first-place position in the Global AI race, Thierer testified.

The “Brussels Effect,” Thierer mentioned, is the idea that the EU’s regulations will influence the global market. But not much of the world has followed suit — so far Canada, Brazil and Peru are working on similar laws, but the UK and countries like Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, and Japan have taken a less restrictive approach.

When Jeff Le, founder of tech policy consultancy 100 Mile Strategies LLC, talks to lawmakers on each side of the aisle, he said he hears that they don’t want another country’s laws deciding American rules.

“Maybe there’s a place for it in our regulatory debate,” Le said. “But I think the point here is American constituents should be overseen by American rules, and absent those rules, it’s very complicated.”

Does the EU AI act keep Europe from competing?

Critics of the AI Act say the language is overly broad, which slows down the development of AI systems as they aim to meet regulatory requirements. France and Germany rank in the top 10 global AI leaders, and China is second, according to Stanford’s AI Index, but the U.S. currently leads by a wide margin in the number of leading AI models and its AI research, experts testified before the congressional committee.

University of Houston Law Center professor Peter Salib said he believes the EU’s AI Act is a factor — but not the only one — in keeping European countries out of the top spots. First, the law has only been in effect for about nine months, which wouldn’t be long enough to make as much of an impact on Europe’s ability to participate in the global AI economy, he said.

Secondly, the EU AI act is one piece of the overall attitude about digital protection in Europe, Salib said. The General Data Protection Regulation, a law that went into effect in 2018 and gives individuals control over their personal information, follows a similar strict regulatory mindset.

“It’s part of a much longer-term trend in Europe that prioritizes things like privacy and transparency really, really highly,” Salib said. “Which is, for Europeans, good  — if that’s what they want, but it does seem to have serious costs in terms of where innovation happens.”

Stavros Gadinis, a professor at the Berkeley Center for Law and Business who has worked in the U.S. and Europe, said he thinks most of the concerns around innovation in the EU are outside the AI Act. Their tech labor market isn’t as robust as the U.S., and it can’t compete with the major financing accessible by Silicon Valley and Chinese companies, he said.

“That is what’s keeping them, more than this regulation,” Gadinis said. “That and, the law hasn’t really had the chance to have teeth yet.”

During the May 21 hearing, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called the Republican’s stance — that any AI regulation would kill tech startups and growing companies — “a false choice.”

The U.S. heavily invests in science and innovation, has founder-friendly immigration policies, has lenient bankruptcy laws and a “cultural tolerance for risk taking.” All policies the EU does not offer, Trahan said.

“It is therefore false and disingenuous to blame EU’s tech regulation for its low number of major tech firms,” Trahan said. “The story is much more complicated, but just as the EU may have something to learn from United States innovation policy, we’d be wise to study their approach to protecting consumers online.”

Self-governance

The EU’s law puts a lot of responsibility on developers of AI, and requires transparency, reporting, testing with third parties and tracking copyright. These are things that AI companies in the U.S. say they do already, Gadinis said.

“They all say that they do this to a certain extent,” he said. “But the question is, how expansive these efforts need to be, especially if you need to convince a regulator about it.”

AI companies in the U.S. currently self-govern, meaning they test their models for some of the societal and cybersecurity risks currently outlined by many lawmakers. But there’s no universal standard — what one company deems safe may be seen as risky to another, Gadinis said. Universal regulations would create a baseline for introducing new models and features, he said.

Even one company’s safety testing may look different from one year to the next. Until 2024, OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman was pro-federal AI regulation, and sat on the company’s Safety and Security Committee, which regularly evaluates OpenAI’s processes and safeguards over a 90-day period.

In September, he left the committee, and has since become vocal against federal AI legislation. OpenAI’s safety committee has since been operating as an independent entity, Time reported. The committee recently published recommendations to enhance security measures, be more transparent about OpenAI’s work and “unify the company’s safety frameworks.”

Even though Altman has changed his tune on federal regulation, the mission of OpenAI is focused on the benefits society gains from AI — “They wanted to create [artificial general intelligence] that would benefit humanity instead of destroying it,” Salib said.

AI company Anthropic, maker of chatbot Claude, was formed by former staff members of OpenAI in 2021, and focuses on responsible AI development. Google, Microsoft and Meta are other top American AI companies that have some form of self safety testing, and were recently assessed by the AI Safety Project.

The project asked experts to weigh in on the strategies each company took for risk assessment, current harms, safety frameworks, existential safety strategy, governance and accountability, and transparency and communication. Anthropic scored the highest, but all companies were lacking in their “existential safety,” or the harm AI models could cause to society if unchanged. 

Just by developing these internal policies, most AI leaders are acknowledging the need for some form of safeguards, Salib said.

“I don’t want to say there’s wide industry agreement, because some seem to have changed their tunes last summer,” Salib said. “But there’s at least a lot of evidence that this is serious and worthwhile thinking about.”

What could the U.S. gain from EU’s practices?

Salib said he believes a law like the EU AI Act in the U.S. would be too “overly comprehensive.”

Many laws addressing AI concerns now, like discrimination by algorithms or self-driving cars, could be governed by existing laws — “It’s not clear to me that we need special AI laws for these things.”

But he said that the specific, case-by-case legislation that the states have been passing have been effective in targeting harmful AI actions, and ensuring compliance from AI companies.

Gadinis said he’s not sure why Congress is opposed to the state-by-state legislative model, as most of the state laws are consumer oriented, and very specific — like deciding how a state may use AI in education, preventing discrimination in healthcare data or keeping children away from sexually explicit AI content.

“I wouldn’t consider these particularly controversial, right?” Gadinis said. “I don’t think the big AI companies would actually want to be associated with problems in that area.”

Gadinis said the EU’s AI Act originally mirrored this specific, case-by-case approach, addressing AI considerations around sexual images, minors, consumer fraud and use of consumer data. But when ChatGPT was released in 2022, EU lawmakers went back to the drawing board and added the component about large language models, systematic risk, high-risk strategies and training, which made the reach of who needed to comply much wider.

After 10 months living with the law, the European Commission said this month it is open to “simplify the implementation” to make it easier for companies to comply.

It’s unlikely the U.S. will end up with AI regulations as comprehensive as the EU, Gadinis and Salib said. President Trump’s administration has taken a deregulated approach to tech so far, and Republicans passed a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI laws in the “big, beautiful bill” heading to the Senate consideration. 

Gadinis predicts that the federal government won’t take much action at all to regulate AI, but mounting pressure from the public may result in an industry self-regulatory body. This is where he believes the EU will be most influential — they have leaned on public-private partnerships to develop a strategy.

“Most of the action is going to come either from the private sector itself — they will band together — or from what the EU is doing in getting experts together, trying to kind of come up with a sort of half industry, half government approach,” Gadinis said.

President Donald Trump signed Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that overturn U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waivers of key California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, aimed at enforcing stricter emissions and goals for selling zero-emission vehicles, and states and truck manufacturers are  rethinking their strategies.

The CRA upends plans to implement Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), which would require manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission chassis, including those for school buses by 2035. The CRA also targets Advanced Clean Cars II that would require all passenger car, truck and SUV sales be zero-emission in 2035 and the Omnibus Heavy-Duty Low NOx regulations for off-road emissions.

Trump signed the CRA on Thursday, and California announced it is suing the Trump administration over the President’s approval of “illegal resolutions aiming to undo key parts of the state’s clean vehicles program,” Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta said. 

“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues, and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process. We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters,” Newsom said.

Additionally, the weight of the future of zero-emission vehicles and clean air requirements will fall on states and OEMs. Many OEMs are taking a wait and see approach.

“Today’s votes in the Senate fly in the face of nearly 50 years of precedent. For decades, California and other states have had the authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards that exceed those at the federal level, and for good reason,” said Dan Lashof, senior fellow at World Resources Institute (WRI), when the CRA passed the Senate May 22. “These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems.”

CARB Chair Liane Randolph released a statement disapproving of the CRA waivers, noting that it is a “short-sighted political move” and a strike against the long-term goal of zero-emission vehicles.

“California profoundly disagrees with today’s unconstitutional, illegal and foolish vote attempting to undermine critical clean air protections,” she wrote. “It’s an assault on states’ rights the federal administration claims to support that puts national air quality standards out of reach and will have devastating effects for the 150 million Americans who breathe unhealthy air every day. These actions are contrary to the text of the Congressional Review Act, as recognized by the nonpartisan U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian. California will pursue every available remedy to challenge these actions and defend our right to protect the public from dangerous air pollution. Turning the clock back on both cleaner combustion engine requirements and zero-emission technology is an attack on clean air.”

Meanwhile, states that voted to adopt CARB’s regulations are postponing enforcement. Four of the 10 states that follow CARB (Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon and Vermont) have pushed back their ACT compliance timelines by a year or more.

While not a CARB-specific state, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection announced earlier this month it is extending its suspension of enforcement of its own Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program until Jan. 2, 2028.

This includes school buses and the ACT rule. Gerry Wosewick, executive director of the Pennsylvania School Bus Association, said the government agency has been working hard with partner organizations to roll back this requirement.

“This has been a legislative priority for us for quite a few years now and we have been advocating for it pretty heavily during that time,” Wosewick said. “It was actually a part of [the PSBS] legislative committee’s [strategy] plan. Since this is a regulatory issue, we have had several pieces of legislation that have been entered over multiple sessions in an effort to best address this change. Despite our lobbying efforts, we have been unsuccessful in getting any legislation through.”

With the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, MTA and others, Wosewick said there was enough pressure to address the regulation, which was key to getting it delayed.

“I oftentimes refer to it as the death by a thousand paper cuts in Pennsylvania,” he added. “While our contractors are phenomenal and find new and innovative ways to continue operations, it’s the constant small regulatory and statutory changes that keep making it more difficult to operate in the industry.”

Instead, he commented the industry should be able to work collaboratively to focus on timely emissions rollouts, as opposed to being forced to respond to regulatory drives.

---

Related: Despite Federal Funding in Peril, California State Funding for EVs Continues
Related: CARB Uses $33M in Funding to Target Other Zero-Emissions School Travel
Related: The State of Green School Buses
Related: Report Highlights Shift in Federal Policy from EVs to Conventional Fuels

---

Back at the federal level, the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House of Representatives May 22 is a comprehensive piece of legislation proposing significant changes, including scaling back the tax credits for clean energy included in the Inflation Reduction Act.

WRI noted that if the cuts in the current iteration of the bill are passed, “average Americans will see severe consequences: Businesses will face more red tape and uncertainty; it will be more difficult and costly to meet growing electricity demand; consumers will see skyrocketing electricity prices; workers will lose jobs; and local governments will encounter barriers to implementing programs that benefit their communities and save money,” it said in a statement.

The organization added that it would erase much of the $400 billion in investment and savings that clean energy tax credits have generated thus far.

“The proposed sudden elimination of the credits, which support low and no emission vehicle technologies, including the Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit (45W) and the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit (30C), will not only hinder the transition to cleaner vehicles and healthier communities but will pose immediate logistical and financial challenges to school districts, municipalities and others who have already made plans and budget decisions predicated on being able to access these credits,” WRI said. “Moreover, eliminating these credits means we are limiting consumer choice and ceding competitiveness in this growing market to China.”

The article has been updated to reflect Trump signing the CRA. 

The post Update: Congress Shifts Tide in Regulatory Demands for Clean Energy appeared first on School Transportation News.

A House committee met this week to discuss possible federal AI legislation, and debated a pending measure to preempt states from enacting their own regulations. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

In one of the first major steps in discussing widespread regulations for artificial intelligence legislation at the federal level, members of the House subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade met Wednesday to discuss the United States’ place in the global AI race.

The hearing took place amid a push from House Republicans to put a stop to state-level AI legislation for the next decade. The measure was advanced last week as a part of the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s budget reconciliation proposal, part of House Republicans “big, beautiful bill” aiming to cut hundreds of billions in government spending, including safety net programs, over the next decade.

“We’re here today to determine how Congress can support the growth of an industry that is key for American competitiveness and jobs without losing the race to write the global AI rule book,” said Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a Republican and chairman of the Innovation, Data, and Commerce subcommittee.

In a two-and-a-half hour hearing, subcommittee members discussed how to keep America’s leadership in AI, the European Union’s landmark AI Act that went into effect last year, the growing patchwork of state laws on AI and the proposed moratorium on those laws.

Support for federal guidelines or regulation around AI technologies received bipartisan support in the last congress, and the Bipartisan House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence released its research and findings in December. But many Republicans who supported these efforts in the past are changing course, arguing that a moratorium on state laws could allow Congress the time to pass a unified, federal set of guidelines.

Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, said the more than 1,000 state laws relating to AI that have been introduced this year have created urgency to pull together federal guidelines. The states currently have “creative agency” over AI regulations, he said.

“The states got out ahead of this. They feel a creative ownership over their frameworks, and they’re the ones that are preventing us from doing this now,” Obernolte said. “Which is an object lesson to us here of why we need a moratorium to prevent that from occurring.”

Critics of the moratorium questioned why legislation at the state level would prevent the creation of federal guidelines.

Rep. Kim Schrier, a Democrat from Washington, said that stripping the states’ ability to legislate AI without a federal framework first would be “Republicans’ big gift to big tech.” The moratorium on state AI laws proposes to stop any in-progress legislation and nullify existing legislation.

“This pattern of gifts and giveaways to big tech by the Trump administration, with the cooperation of Republicans in Congress, is hurting American consumers,” she said. “Instead, we should be learning from the work our state and local counterparts are doing now to deliver well-considered, robust legislation, giving American businesses the framework and resources they need to succeed while protecting consumers.”

House members opposing AI legislation often cited a lack of regulations for one of the reasons the United States currently leads the global AI marketplace. The U.S. ranks first, testified Marc Bhargava, director at global venture capital firm General Catalyst, though China follows closely behind in computing power and its AI models.

Sean Heather, senior vice president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the Chamber of Commerce, testified that legislation that too closely mirrors the European Union’s AI Act, which went into effect last summer, could bump the U.S. out of its top position. The EU’s AI Act is comprehensive, and puts regulatory responsibility on developers of AI to mitigate risk of harm by the systems. It also requires developers to provide technical documentation and training summaries.

The EU’s AI Act is one of the factors in why Europe is not a stronger player in AI, Bhargava said, but it’s not the only one. The U.S. has a history of investing in science and innovation, being founder-friendly to tech startups, and to immigrant founders, he said. 46% of Top Fortune 500 companies in 2024 were founded by immigrants, as well as 65% of top AI companies. Europe has not pursued these business-friendly policies, Bhargava said.

“The reason we’re ahead today is our startups. We have to think about how to continue to give them that edge, and giving them that edge means giving them guidelines, and not necessarily a framework, or patchwork of state regulations or over regulating,” Bhargava said. “We need to come up with that right balance.”  

AI companies in the U.S. currently self-govern, meaning they test their models for some of the societal and cybersecurity risks that many lawmakers would like to see written into law. Most investors also follow their own strategy of due-diligence, Bhargava said. At General Catalyst, they assess data sets and training models as well as the output of the models. They also ask AI companies to identify the potential downstream implications that could come from their models.

Bhargava and a handful of members on the committee said they fear that overly strong regulations, especially ones that put regulatory burden on developers like in the EU, could squash the next great tech startups before they can get their footing.

But a lack of legislation all together puts Americans in a dangerous place, said Rep. Kathy Castor, a Democrat from Florida. She cited concerns about minors’ interactions with unregulated AI, like the case of one 14-year-old from her state who took his life after forming a close relationship with a chatbot, and another 14-year-old who was engaging in sexual conversations with a Meta chatbot.

“What the heck is Congress doing?” Castor said. “What are you doing to take the cops off the beat while states have acted to protect us?”

Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, which studies the social implications of AI, said she is skeptical of allowing the industry to self-govern or for AI to grow unfettered. She said that during the hearing, members have asserted that existing agencies or general rules will protect Americans from the harms of AI.

“But if that was true, then we wouldn’t see the reckless proliferation of AI applications that are predicated on exploiting children in this way,” she said.

Though Congress is in the early stages of considering a federal framework, Bhargava said states passed their existing AI laws with “the best intentions” in mind.

“People want to protect consumers. They want to create frameworks,” he said. “And partially, it’s because the federal government has not stepped up to have a framework that we’re leaving it to the states to regulate.”

Bhargava “strongly” encouraged the members of the committee to work together on a bipartisan framework, and incorporate the findings of last year’s Bipartisan House Task Force.

“I really think that if we can turn this into policy and enact it on the federal level, rather than leaving it to the states,” Bhargava said. “It would be in the best interests of the startups that we represented.” 

Is school bus Wi-Fi letting kids get on TikTok as Sen. Ted Cruz claims, or is it a valuable way to extend the classroom and provide students with educational access?

Chris Ellison, director of transportation and fleet services at Reynolds School District in Oregon, shares high-level insights from serving as a delegate to the just-completed 17th National Congress on School Transportation. He discusses the passionate conversations and votes on emerging technology, alternative transportation, safety equipment and more.

Read more about NCST.

This episode is brought to you by Transfinder.

 

 

Stream, subscribe and download the School Transportation Nation podcast on Apple Podcasts, Deezer, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and YouTube.

The post (STN Podcast E259) Feel the Passion: Debates on Wi-Fi, Technology, Alternative Transportation & Safety appeared first on School Transportation News.

The decision to mandate video cameras and monitors on school buses to allow improved detection of students at stops, effective November 2027, dates back to a 2020 Transport Canada’s Task Force on School Bus Safety. And while the so-called perimeter visibility systems are expected to improve school bus safety, questions remain.

Patricia Turner, territory manager for school bus video manufacturer Gatekeeper-Systems, was a member of the Task Force created by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. The goal was to review safety standards and operations inside and outside school buses.

Additional members included different levels of government, manufacturers, school boards, bus operators, labor unions and safety associations.

“We all came together to discuss what could be put on school buses to assist in keeping children safer,” she said, adding that the Task Force began with bi-weekly virtual meetings that turned into monthly meetings. “We were discussing what technology is out there that can help keep children safe.”

By February 2020, the Task Force released a report, Strengthening School Bus Safety in Canada, that identified four ways to improve school bus safety: Infraction cameras, extended stop signal arms, exterior 360 cameras, and automatic emergency braking.

While the Task Force report did not recommend three-point seatbelts, it recognized “that seatbelts can provide an additional layer of safety on school buses in certain rare but severe collision scenarios,” the report states. “As such, it would be prudent to continue working through the considerations associated with seatbelt installation and use (e.g. consequences of misuse, emergency evacuations, liability) and to encourage manufacturers to develop additional occupant protection features to complement the school bus design, such as energy-absorbing side structure padding and inflatable ‘curtain’ airbags.”

Turner explained that the Task Force selected Gatekeeper as a pilot project supplier for testing perimeter visibility systems initiative in April 2021. The company installed 360 Surround Vision and Student Protector systems on school buses in British Columbia and Ontario.

Transport Canada announced Feb. 3 that, “the Government of Canada is mandating perimeter visibility systems as a new feature to improve school bus safety,” a press release states. “These systems help drivers detect children around the bus while it is stopped or traveling slowly.”

The statement continues, “This technology offers enhanced visibility beyond what mirrors alone can provide.”

Starting in November 2027, all new school buses are to be equipped with perimeter visibility systems with the option to install stop-arm infraction cameras. Canada becomes the first country to require new school buses to be fitted with cameras.

Turner explained that Gatekeeper’s 360 Surround Vision System consists of four high-definition, wide-angle external cameras mounted strategically around the school bus—front, back, left and right. These cameras capture and stitch together real-time, panoramic video, giving drivers a comprehensive, live view of the vehicle’s perimeter to eliminate blind spots. While the Transport Canada mandate does not require camera systems to include recording capability, and the cameras would only be viewable for live look-in, Gatekeeper’s system can easily be upgraded to record video footage with Gatekeeper’s Mobile Data Collector (MDC) for easy retrieval and review.

“This will be an aid to the drivers to even going around the corner, making sure that they don’t take the corner too sharply,” she explained. “And [it’s] one more tool to keep them feeling empowered to keep children safer.”

Turner added that school buses are the safest way to transport children to and from school, more so than any other means of transportation. However, she noted that personal vehicles are being equipped with upgraded technology and that same technology should be applied to school buses.

“That is because school buses are built, inside and out, to protect children, noting that while buses, particularly school buses, are among the safest modes of transportation available, there are opportunities for improved safety,” she said.

---

Related: As Camera Systems Evolve, IT Collaboration Necessary
Related: Rhode Island District Adds School Bus Video to Reduce Illegal Passing
Related: Transportation Technology Super Users Share Benefits of Working with IT Departments
Related: STN EXPO Panel Discusses Trends in School Bus Safety Technology

---

Yet questions about the requirement remain. Rich Bagdonas, vice president of business development for school bus contractor Switzer-CARTY Transportation Services, said he was “surprised” to hear the mandate when it was announced in February.

“Safety is paramount,” he said. “[Cameras are] a tool, but we can never have an over reliance on technology, because we still need to have the drivers trained very thoroughly. This is something that we will be able to add to enhance safety. But we always have to keep in mind that when we train drivers that we have to always have our eyes open on the road all the time, too. And we cannot just rely on the technology to provide the safest school ride possible.”

He explained that he doesn’t want the cameras to be a distraction to school bus drivers. For example, he fears they will watch the cameras and not the road.

He added that bus operators won’t see the full effect of the systems until September 2028. Currently, Switzer-CARTY does not have any external cameras on its buses but does have internal cameras on about 10 percent of its fleet based on customer specifications.

The company is in the process of testing external camera systems and installing a couple on school buses in anticipation of the new regulation, “just so we have a bit of a bit of an idea of what it is,” Bagdonas said.

Unlike the interior cameras and exterior stop-arm cameras that record footage, he noted the mandated systems will provide live feeds.

Camera Upkeep & Cost 

Bagdonas said there are still questions to be answered on the new regulation. For example, how much will the cameras cost to add to the buses, and what will maintenance of the systems look like, especially in the winter.

“Sometimes you get some dirt on the back of the [cameras], so we’re going to have to monitor and ensure proper maintenance of the camera systems to ensure the technology is working the way it’s intended,” he said. “And then also there’s going to be a cost component. We don’t know what that cost component is, but that cost component is going to be transferred to us in the cost of the bus, and then we’ll have to determine on how we can see about getting some compensation for this safety feature from our customers.”

All camera systems require ongoing maintenance, Turner said. She noted that while there should be a minimum annual inspection to ensure correct positioning and the connections are functional, they will also need to be cleaned, especially during winter months.

She explained that Gatekeeper’s camera systems are specifically designed and tested to perform reliably, even in harsh winter conditions. She recommended that during routine pre-trip inspections, drivers should quickly verify that camera lenses are clear of residue, snow, or dirt and clean them as needed to ensure optimal visibility.

Bagdonas said Switzer-Carty customers are aware of the new mandate and the company is engaging with stakeholders and bus operators on next steps. He added that because the mandate doesn’t take effect for another year and a half, there’s still time to work through the details.

The post Canada Becomes First Country to Mandate External School Bus Surveillance Feeds appeared first on School Transportation News.

The post Do you agree with the increasing use of non-school-bus vehicles for student transportation? appeared first on School Transportation News.