The Dance of Industry Regulation

Wheelchair lift safety makes a 15-year journey to complete

By Julie Metea | Contributing Editor

With care and some difficulty, bus drivers assist wheelchair-bound students so they can arrive safely to school.

With different care and difficulty, regulators instituted two federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) aimed to help drivers and disabled passengers who use wheelchair loading equipment.

"This is really the first time a law had been created that mandated certain criteria for lift manufacturers," said Bill Hinze, vice president of marketing for lift manufacturer Ricon Corporation. "It makes the regulations a lot more binding, certainly having a much more serious set of controls on what we do and how we do it and how we interface with the vehicle manufacturers."

The difficulty was demonstrated over 15 years as the government and manufacturers grappled to make safety adjustments to wheelchair lifts, platforms and vehicles. During the collaborative process, many asked if the regulations truly added value. With rules in place manufacturers must now comply, even if they disagree with the outcome.

"I know there are injuries and incidents. I've seen it. It needed to be improved, but with all of that effort, we could have done better. We missed the boat on some things," said Chris Webre, president, Safety Systems & Controls, Inc.

Make and Brake Regulation

The two safety standards, known as FMVSS 403 and 404, aim to prevent injuries and fatalities among wheelchair-bound passengers who need a lift to get in and out of a variety of vehicles, not just school buses. Both rules, which had been extended from earlier deadlines, were effective July 1, 2005.

The rules involve an equipment standard for platform lifts and a standard for all vehicles equipped with such lifts. Most notably, the rules include additional interlock requirements, improved wheelchair retention, platform slip resistant tests and information disclosure for customers.

"The biggest benefit is the fact that now there's uniformity and standardization. This gives the disabled person an assurance that (the lift) will have certain safety features by law," said Lance Tunick, counsel for Adaptive Driving Alliance, a mobility industry association that provided guidance.

FMVSS 403 and 404 promulgated out of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which carried with it a mission to safeguard and regulate lifts.

"The ADA (specifications) weren't quite the same as a FMVSS," Ricon's Hinze explained. "The ADA really didn't have a penalty process like the FMVSS do. This really puts us in that same category."

DOT reported that from 1991 to 1995 approximately 2,800 injuries occurred while wheelchair-bound individuals were entering or exiting vehicles. Many were the result of lift malfunctions. The data encompassed a wide range of vehicles, and it didn't provide break out numbers for school buses.

DOT also warned that the potential for lift-associated injuries will increase with time. However, some manufacturers questioned - publicly and privately - the need for extensive regulation.

"It all came out of the ADA, and it really was a hodge-podge of regulations. It wasn't proven with a history of (school bus) accidents. So they fixed things that weren't broken," said Tom Turner, manager of engineering services, Blue Bird.

Bumps Along the Way

Through the rule making, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pushed equipment and vehicle manufacturers to work out details for compliance. Contention resulted on several production issues, added lift features, responsibilities and cost.

"Some manufacturers complained more than others," said William Evans, safety standards engineer, NHTSA "People asked a lot of questions, and we appreciate the feedback. We didn't want to write these in a vacuum."

Several comments focused on NHTSA's reversal of designated responsibilities for lift lighting requirements. Sparks flew when the agency, right before the effective dates, switched the burden from the lift supplier to the vehicle manufacturer. Blue Bird and Braun Corporation representatives actively petitioned different views.

"We got flooded with complaints from manufacturers warning that this could shut down plants. We needed a logistical roll out. At the 11th hour, we delayed the rules until mid-2005," said Evans.

"NHTSA was slow in responding to the petitions, and it didn't help anyone. The change was done three months before the effective date. We had already put production in place for a compliant product. It was a bad change based on bad data," said Turner, who noted that major product changes require long-lead production time.

Turner explained, as an OEM, Blue Bird needs a full-vehicle view for product changes. FMVSS 403 and 404, he added, approached lift platforms as an aftermarket application and ignored vehicle integrations, such as the chassis.

Days before the effective date, lift suppliers and vehicle manufacturers worked out the issue and shared the burden for lighting requirements.

"Everyone has a handle on it now. We made a lot of changes, and we're learning as we go along. When we look back, it should be a positive experience," said Perry DeGroot, national sales manager, Braun Corporation.

Lift manufacturers, including Braun, Maxon Lift and Ricon Corporation, redesigned products to incorporate additional requirements for interlocks, a component to prevent a vehicle from moving forward or backward while the lift is deployed. After collaboration, lift manufacturers were relieved of full responsibility for providing an interlock system. In doing so, the interlock requirement opened the door for new business at other vehicle component suppliers.

Financial Gains and Losses

The new regulations increased the consumer cost of wheelchair lifts because production and test costs increased for lift and vehicle manufacturers. However, the new interlock requirement created new business and profitability for smaller component companies.

California-based Intermotive Vehicle Controls got busier when the rule went into effect. Demand for the company's lift interlock system increased significantly since January 2005. The company added personnel and expanded production at its facility near Sacramento.

"Innovation came out of it. We designed new products for school buses and personal use vehicles. Guardian II is a new interlock designed for (FMVSS) 403. Other products were too feature-heavy, and they didn't need that much. This is budget-wise," said Marc Ellison, sales manager, Intermotive.

InPower LLC, based in Galena, Ohio, also had a chance to upgrade its interlock products as the regulations rolled out, and it brought them closer to customers.

"There was some confusion out there. Customers didn't know what the regulations meant to them (private vs. public wheelchair lifts). We helped and adapted our products to meet the specific requirements," Chuck Bennett, vice president of marketing. "With this and other awareness, interlocks have come a long way in the past five years."

But Webre of Safety Systems & Controls, Inc. said the awareness didn't go far enough. "They looked at the safety side and not the comfort benefits. Sometimes you shut down the engine for safety, and it interrupts climate control that disabled people need," he said

Despite the setback, Webre said his company had sales increases in the personal use van market.

Safety in the Long Run

With the safety rules now in effect, NHTSA reports slower correspondence on the issues. However, the agency is still working on five petitions to tweak the regulation for ease-of-use.

The next phase for NHTSA is enforcing the new regulations. The department will verify if manufacturers are compliant by conducting random crash testing. Violators could face recalls.

Source: School Transportation News, February 2006. All rights reserved.