The first day of the official National Congress proceedings ended with some considerable progress, as well as a few surprise reactions from the delegates, with one ending in a vote that overturned an entire revised section of the manual.

The Bus Body and Chassis writing committee started off the morning with a number of easily approved revisions, many a necessity since the committee was split into two sections at past conferences. The delegates were presented with an all-new voting system, which consisted of each state using a remote to vote on changes, and the final vote tally displayed on the center screen. The first disagreement came about from the substitution of a single word. In the “Crossing Control Arm” section of the standards, the replacement of “may” with “shall” would have suddenly required all states to employ the use of a crossing arm. Although the rationale from the writing committee was based on the acceptance of such a policy by a number of states, those opposing the measure quickly took to the microphones to speak their minds.

“This would force them to create a double standard,” said Oregon State Director Steve Huillet, explaining that children are already taught the 10 to 15 foot danger zone and that the inclusion of a crossing arm would minimize that area. “Also, the snow and ice build-up would freeze them to the bumper and the buses would be out of service.”

Delegates from Minnesota, Colorado, Utah and Kansas agreed with the sentiment, with Larry Bluthardt of the Kansas State Department of Education using data from the 2005 Loading and Unloading Survey to prove his point.

“In 2005, seven children died at the rear wheels and zero died at the front of the bus,” stated Bluthardt.

The measure was defeated with a 35 to 11 vote, but it was the only revision not passed during the Bus Body and Chassis committee’s session. The Specially Equipped School Bus Specifications committee saw a similar response, with only a few revisions voted down. But, unlike previous committees, the School Bus Inspection committee presented its revisions as an all inclusive change. The new language, according to Chair Sgt. Sharron VanCampen, would have been legally supportive in a court of law and would have reduced liability when buses from one state traveled into another. If the changes were adopted, the section would then be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Transportation for review.

The committee’s submission was met with immediate opposition, with one delegate expressing his concerns that the adoption of such revisions and the inclusion of the DOT in the process might possibly lead to fines and non-compliance issues at the federal level. After an initial vote that saw a passage of the measure, a re-vote was called when one state’s voting remote malfunctioned. The measure failed in the second vote.