Arif Khokar wrote:

> But, since automakers follow an "honor system" of sorts with regards to
> FMVSS compliance, could they not technically get away with equipping
> their vehicles with ECE specification headlamps from the factory as long
> as they never reported it?

Y'mean have "DOT" and the other US-required markings on headlamps that actually only comply with ECE regulations? Yes, automakers can get/are getting/have got away with it.

> Even if someone does rat them out, they
> could always file a petition of inconsequential noncompliance and point
> to the lack of a pile of dead bodies as evidence that ECE headlamps
> should be allowed.

Not quite. Remember what happened to GM a couple years ago: '99 through '04 Buick Century owners complained they couldn't see overhead road signs with their low beam headlamps. NHTSA tested some brand-new Century headlamps and found that they produced just under the minimum required uplight for overhead signs. GM petitioned for inconsequential noncompliance, stating -- correctly -- that with a few days' service (actually, a few HOURS' service is enough), the headlamps develop enough surface haze to throw plentiful light on overhead signs. GM also stated -- correctly -- that Transport Canada had tested these same headlamps and found no noncompliance. They could also have stated that the test voltage used by NHTSA and Transport Canada, 12.8v, is unrealistically low given GM's voltage regulator setpoints of between 14.5 and 15.2 volts, but they didn't argue that angle.

NHTSA denied the petition. GM was forced to do a corrective action (or some other such diplomatic term for "recall") on '99-up Buick Centuries. Thing is, the marginal-compliance situation arose because the Century was kept in production long after it was originally slated for discontinuation, and the headlamp tooling was thoroughly worn out, so making new headlamps would've entailed relatively enormous expenditure. So, GM persuaded NHTSA to allow the recall to be complied with by replacing the low beam bulbs with something of a mysterious special replacement made by Sylvania, a "9006HP" (GM P/N 89024715). This bulb is not sold in retail outlets; I suspect it is nothing more than a specially-marked and GM-certified 9006XV Xtravision bulb.

Now, take a step back and think about this for a moment: NHTSA makes a great deal of noise about how critical it is for all replacement bulbs to perform virtually identically in order to assure initial and ongoing headlamp compliance...but then GM comes along with a nonstandard bulb as a questionable fix to a questionable problem, and NHTSA says "OK". When these special 9006HP bulbs burn out, the owner's going to replace them with whatever 9006 can be had in the local parts store, and it's probably going to be the regular kind removed in the recall campaign. OK...so...do we have a noncompliant headlamp, or don't we?

Now take another step back and think about *this* for a moment: the Century was the subject of overhead sign light concerns. Its Pontiac analogue the Grand Pricks had garbageful Guide 9007 headlamps (streaks and spots and massive upward stray) but its now-departed Oldsmobile analogue the Alero had very nice Carello 9005/9006 units. The reflector low beam on those has a relatively sharp cutoff with a "Z-beam" shape. Not quite ECE, but still much more tightly focused than one tends to see from GM family cars. And markedly less overhead sign light from those lamps than from the affected Century lamps. Or, to put it less diplomatically: The Buick Century is named after the median age of its buyers/owners, and they claim they can't see overhead signs, and the problem is the *headlamps*?

Brent P wrote:

> These sort of things are
> done using what I have called 'claybrookian logic' after the carter era
> appointee. If someone wants to change an ass-backwards US regulation you
> need to show a pile of bodies from the current regulation and it is
> assumed that your change will produce a pile of bodies because current US
> regulation is considered best in the world by default.

Right. And absence of evidence is considered evidence of absence, while evidence of absence is considered absence of evidence. The whole system is designed to protect the US market's home-field advantage, and is based on chest-thumping ("we're right and the stupid rest of the world is wrong!") and elaborate handwaving designed to distract from what's really going on: the highest bidder wins his regulation. Take a look at the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which shut down the "grey market": It was put on the books as a result of purchased lobbying by US subsidiaries of European carmakers, and their dealers, who were upset at their usurious markups being circumvented by private importers. There was not one scrap nor shred of evidence that privately-imported European-spec vehicles were involved with collisions, injuries or fatalities to any greater degree than US-spec vehicles, nor was there any evidence that they were safer -- there was no evidence at all having to do with safety, but this Act was promulgated based on high-minded notions of highway safety and protecting Americans' wellbeing against the menace of non-spec vehicles. Likewise, there are scores of provisions contained in the various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are simply _different_ to analogous provisions in the rest-of-world ECE regulations. Not necessarily better, not necessarily worse, usually more or less equal, but DIFFERENT. We live in a time when "Tariff" is a dirty word (thank you, MBAs); it's considered backwards and unseemly to have overt trade restrictions, so we hide them within technical regulations. So sorry, we'd love for you to come and sell your cars here, but they don't meet our unique safety regulations. Too bad, so sad, bye-bye.

Canada pretty much gets dragged along for whatever drunken ride NHTSA decides to take. There are a lot of very smart, very capable, very knowledgeable Canadian regulators at Transport Canada, who would love to fix the deficiencies in US regulations for the Canadian market, but are prevented. This example from the Canadian lighting regulator: "Look, red rear turn signals are stupid. They're deficient. Everybody knows amber ones are better. But if I try to legislate for amber rear turn signals, we will get hauled into Free Trade Court by the automakers, and they'll demand we show them the pile of dead bodies from red turn signals." A few years ago, Transport Canada was looking at allowing ECE-spec whole vehicles and equipment (beyond already-permitted headlamps) into Canada. Not enacting any new prohibitions, mind you, just *allowing* ECE specs. The notion passed all the safety analyses, but automakers howled: "You can't do this! It'll screw up our parts distribution calculations, and when we make a car for the German market, we want it to stay in Germany! We need the different North American regulations to limit our liability to the vehicles we choose to offer here!". And the US NHTSA also howled: "You can't do this! If you do, we'll be the only ones in the world doing something different!"

And the punchline is that evidence suggests NHTSA is doing a rotten job. The Wikipedia article is pretty good, and is based on a very solid data source (Dr. Leonard Evans, www.scienceservingsociety.com): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHTSA

-- Daniel Stern