Industry Advisor

Finally, A Line in the Sand

Harry Baergen was previously the Regulation Enforcement Officer for Transport Canada. Currently, he acts as the Compliance Review Program (CRP) Coordinator for NMEDA.

If you have any questions about the contents of this article, or about the NMEDA CRP, contact Harry Baergen at 778.888.2210.

Articles published here by

the Compliance Review Program (CRP) are often about a particular problem, question, situation and/or solution that arose from a NMEDA member, or members,

in the field. The CRP issues these articles with the hope that they might edify other NMEDA members who could be confronted with similar situations. The most recent problem is not new, but it is one that arises from time to time between CRP and the adaptive manufacturing industry. Lately, the CRP is again beleaguered with some certification packages from NMEDA manufacturers that contain test reports showing aged and high mileage test vehicles. This makes it extremely difficult for the CRP to post a company’s vehicle models on the NMEDA website as “certified” when the test vehicles used to certify the company’s new vehicle production are questionable.

By Harry Baergen – Autoregs Consulting

NMEDA CRP COORDINATOR

The CRP has cautioned manufacturers about this problem in past Circuit Breaker issues and has actually noticed some improvement in the industry regarding test vehicles. However, there are still some companies that are not only testing used vehicles, but are taking it to the extreme. In these cases, where CRP is presented with a certification package showing aged and high mileage test vehicles, CRP has to communicate back and forth with the company in an effort to get justification or rational to demonstrate that the old test vehicles are like new and can still represent new vehicle production. To do this, the company has to provide CRP with maintenance records, warranty claims, Carfax, records of all the parts that impossible. Even if new vehicle test data could be obtained from the OEM, Transport Canada (TC), or NHTSA for the exact same model, it can only be new vehicle data and can only be compared to the test results of one particular used (unmodified) vehicle, because every used vehicle is different depending on its life history. Just the replacement of certain parts, such as engine mounts, fuel system parts, brake parts or airbags, could make the used vehicle perform differently, better or worse, in a dynamic certification test, for example. Even if the used vehicle were to perform better in a dynamic test, due to replacement parts, it is still not a representation of new vehicle production. Also, there is the fact to consider that the government

An old vehicle is a unique vehicle and can only represent itself.”

“have been replaced in the vehicle, rust analysis, etc. This requires time and expense for the company and CRP, causing frustration for both. For a company to present any other type of analysis, such as crash comparison analysis, to show that old vehicles perform the same as new ones in a dynamic test is virtually compliance test data cannot be used to compare any vehicle, because the government, to avoid discrepancies, conducts its compliance testing at lower targets than the standard requires. The OEM, on the other hand, carries out certification testing at slightly higher targets, to allow for slight variables in production, but OEM

data is very difficult to obtain. Even if the data were available, it would only apply to un-modified vehicles and to comparing new vehicle crash performance to one old vehicle. A comparison crash test that would mean anything at all would have to be conducted with one new structurally modified vehicle and a range of used structurally modified vehicles of exactly the same conversion, sourced from different parts of the country. Even this would be an exercise in futility, because it would only be an indication of used vehicle test performance in general and the used vehicles still could not represent the new vehicle fleet. An old vehicle is a unique vehicle and can only represent itself. Once that old vehicle is crash tested, it no longer exists.

It is feasible that a normally driven two-year old non-accidented, nonrusted, vehicle with under 40,000 miles on the odometer could be considered like new and still serve as a test vehicle to represent new production. Correspondingly, NMEDA member alterers of new vehicles that also modify slightly used vehicles have a screening program that allows them to consider the “like new” vehicles to fall under the umbrella of the test vehicles that were used to represent new vehicle production. that could affect test outcome. This also depends on the nature of the test. For example, a slightly used vehicle could be used for seat testing if the floor and surrounding structure is like new, but a vehicle chosen to verify standards that require crash testing, such as F/CMVSS 301 or 208, should be new—or at least like new Although, the alterer/modifier cannot certify the used vehicles with a certification label, because the vehicles have been titled after first retail sale. However, the alterer/ modifier can utilize the exemptions provided under CFR 49 Part 595, but only for the titled vehicles.

...the first principle to remember is that prototype test vehicles must represent NEW vehicle production .”

“

Considering age and condition in choosing a test vehicle is covered to some extent in a 2013 Winter Circuit Breaker article, Volume 20, Issue 4, “How Old Can a Test Vehicle Be?” The article advocates that the first principle to remember is that prototype test vehicles must represent NEW vehicle production. They do NOT represent used vehicles that have been retailed. A test vehicle must be exactly the same as the ensuing production vehicles that it represents, including engine type, and all production vehicles must stay the same as the test prototype. As mentioned, a slightly used vehicle is sometimes used for testing, but only if it is in new condition with no changes, damage or maintenance with no replacement parts. If the test vehicle is a used one, extensive analysis will have to accompany the test reports to demonstrate that the vehicle is in new condition with no design differences and that all the equipment, such as air bags, air bag sensors, fuel system parts, engine or transmission mounts, etc., are not worn or replaced. Further, the test vehicle should not be damaged in a way that could affect the applicable test and a flood-damaged vehicle should never be used for certification testing, with the possible exception of static component testing.

As mentioned, if the surrounding structure of the seat and restraint system, for example, in a lowmileage older test vehicle is still

exactly the same design as the new vehicles it is intended to represent and if the surrounding structure is still in new condition, theoretically, static testing in a used vehicle should work. The challenge is to incorporate this description in the test report, so a third party who is not present at the test—and/or the compliance engineering staff of the manufacturing company who is not present at the test—can determine compliance. Again, for dynamic testing, such as crash testing, new vehicles should be used to represent the fleet. When TC or NHTSA conducts follow-up testing to verify a manufacturer’s compliance it will always use new vehicles for the test. Although, federal law in Canada or the U.S. does not specify the age or mileage of a test vehicle, it does require that certification testing represents new vehicle production. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated in the test report that the test vehicle is of the same configuration, structure, and in the same condition as a new vehicle, there is no exact rule to the contrary.

The major OEM companies also test only new products, but the OEM has control over test vehicles by deleting costly equipment and options from the test vehicles and by testing “bare bones” prototypes or bodies in white. The OEM also has an army of engineers and huge databases to know exactly what to test. However, in the second stage (altering) industry, costs can also be defrayed. Costs can be mitigated by using good vehicle sections from otherwise wrecked vehicles or by testing somewhat used vehicles where possible or by strategically to cap age and mileage is that many companies would default to the cap instead of testing newer vehicles. For example, if the cap for test vehicles was two years old and 40,000 miles on the odometer companies might tend to use that as a benchmark and have less tendency to test newer vehicles. However, considering the lesser of two evils, NMEDA, after much discussion, is making it a rule to cap the age of test vehicles at two years old and 40,000 miles, for CRP review. Therefore, going forward, CRP will expect manufacturers to test relatively new vehicles to represent new vehicle production and will NOT performing various tests on the same vehicle. Albeit, this requires placing more emphasis on the test report. The information in the test report must be sufficient and descriptive, because it is the test reports that are used to demonstrate compliance in the second stage industry, whether it be for company compliance engineers, CRP, governments, litigation, funding agencies, OEM audits, or consumers. The CRP fully understands that testing older vehicles saves money in the short run and that this is important for a small manufacturer, but there is a limit to what CRP can accept. It is difficult to “draw that line in the sand” of how old a test vehicle can

...CRP will expect manufacturers to test relatively new vehicles to represent new vehicle production and will NOT accept test vehicles for CRP review that are older than two years from date of manufacturer on the SOC label, with a maximum odometer reading of 40,000 miles (64,374 Km).”

“

be. An older higher mileage vehicle could be in better condition with less replacement parts than a newer lower mileage vehicle. Just driving a vehicle to the test lab would accumulate mileage on a new vehicle, or a dealer demonstrator would also have some mileage on the odometer. It is not necessary for a government to cap age and mileage of a test vehicle, because it is easy for a government to arbitrarily reject a company’s test report in an audit situation if the test vehicles are considered to be too old. The other reason for reluctance accept test vehicles for CRP review that are older than two years from date of manufacture on the SOC label, with a maximum odometer reading of 40,000 miles (64,374 Km). Although, NMEDA and other experts consider this age and mileage would be stretching it, CRP hopes that manufacturers and alterers will still test newer vehicles. As always, CRP strongly advises companies to proactively contact CRP with any questions about choosing test vehicles.

July 24-28, 2020 2020 ADED ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITS SAVE THE DATE!