[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63413-63416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31266]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3150]
General Motors Corporation; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
General Motors Corporation (GM) determined that certain of its 1996
J/L/N model cars fail to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR
571.101, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101,
``Controls and Displays,'' and filed an appropriate report pursuant to
49 CFR Part 573 ``Defect and Noncompliance Information Reports.'' GM
also applied to be exempted from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the
basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published on March 7,
1997, and an opportunity afforded for comment (62 FR 10618). This
document denies the application.
The report submitted by GM states that the company has built cars
in which some interior lights may come on while the car is moving, for
a period that may last as long as half an hour. The only way the driver
can turn them off is to remove the fuse because the light switch will
not extinguish them. This is a noncompliance with S5.3.5 of FMVSS No.
101, which requires that sources of illumination forward of a
transverse vertical plane 4.35 inches rearward of the manikin ``H''
point, with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, that
are not used for controls and displays, are not a telltale, and are
capable of being illuminated while a vehicle is in motion, have either
(1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to
provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that
is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient
roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off.
GM's description of the non-compliance follows
``Vehicles involved: Certain of these 1996 makes and models
(with estimated number of cars): Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac
Sunfire (J cars) coupes and convertibles from start of production to
January 16, 1996 (115,351 cars); Pontiac Grand Am, Oldsmobile
Achieva, and Buick Skylark (N cars) from start of production to
October 31, 1995 (74,902 cars); and Chevrolet Corsica and Chevrolet
Beretta (L cars) from start of production to November 13, 1995
(61,738 cars).
Noncompliance: ``These vehicles are equipped with interior
lights that illuminate when a door is opened or when the driver
activates a switch. Power to the lights is turned on and off by a
control module, rather than by direct action of the door or light
switches. One of the parts in the control module is a field effect
transistor (FET).
Because of manufacturing variances in the FETs, the condition of
the FET in some modules, in combination with the programming of the
module, can cause a situation where the module will not turn on the
lights when the door is opened. Five minutes later, there is a fifty
percent chance that the lights will turn on. If that does not
happen, there is an increasing chance at ten, fifteen, twenty,
twenty-five, and thirty minutes that the lights will turn on. If the
lights are turned on at one of those five minute increments, they
will then remain on for up to thirty minutes, unless the fuse is
removed to cut power to the module. Moving the light switch or
ignition to ``off'' will not cause the module to turn off the
lights.
In August 1995, GM found a 1996 N car in which the interior
lights failed to turn on when a door was opened. In September, GM
determined the cause of the problem and its supplier of FETs began
inspecting 10% of them. In October, GM started its own screening of
all incoming FETs. In January 1996, GM learned of and began
investigating the potential for the lights to come on and stay on.
Even in the affected cars, this condition is intermittent. The
incidence is higher during cold weather and in vehicles with
interior light configurations that place a higher load on the
circuit.
This table identifies the lights in these vehicles that are
forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inches rearward of the
mannequin ``H'' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving
position:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map lights in
Chassis Body type and options Dome lamp rearview mirror Footwell lamps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J........................... Coupe.......................... X ............... ...............
Coupe and GT w/sunroof......... ............... X ...............
N........................... Convertible.................... ............... X ...............
Base trim ............................... ............... X
[[Page 63414]]
Uplevel trim X.............................. ............... X
With sunroof ............................... X X
L........................... All............................ ............... ............... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on GM's examination of cars and modules, no more than 9.5%
of the vehicles with modules built before 100% inspection of FETs
began have a FET that could lead to this problem.
Field experience indicates the actual incidence is much lower.
Within the total estimated population of 251,991 cars that are
potentially affected, GM has paid for replacement of the modules in
just under one percent (2,464) under warranty (through October 31,
1996). For cars with modules made after the 100% inspection of FETs
began, the rate is about 0.5%. Because the module performs several
functions, there are other unrelated malfunctions that could lead to
replacement of the module and, absent the FET problem, the rate of
warranty replacements for cars of comparable age is 0.3%. Therefore
the rates attributable to the FET estimated to be approximately 0.7
and 0.2% respectively.
GM has received no reports of accidents or injuries related to
this condition.
To help assess the magnitude of the interior light during
nighttime driving, GM measured the luminance values (light on
windshield surface) from the driver's eye position in representative
vehicles, with the exterior lights on (low beam) and with the
interior lights both off and on. The test setup is shown in
Attachment B.
The measurements were made in a darkened laboratory with a flat
black surface ten feet ahead of the cars. A white paper target was
placed on the windshield, so that the total light impinging on the
windshield was measured, not just what was reflected from the glass
surface. The instrument panel illumination was at the maximum
setting. A Minolta Luminance Meter, Model LS-1200 (range: 0.001 to
299900 cd/m(2), was used.
These values are in foot-lamberts and are the average of two
readings for each car:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Interior
Car lights off lights on
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J coupe with sunroof.................... .03 .16
N coupe with sunroof.................... .03 .16
J convertible........................... .05 .12
N with base trim........................ .05 .23
J coupe................................. .03 .21
N with uplevel trim..................... .04 .38
L....................................... .07 .14
Average................................. .04 .20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment C shows the range of luminance levels for human
vision and the zones of photopic, mesopic, and scotopic vision.
Adaptation occurs when the luminance changes from one zone to
another. The levels with the interior lights both off and on within
the mesopic (``rod and cone'') zone.'' [Attachments B and C are on
file with the application in NHTSA's Docket Room.]
GM supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance with
the following.
``1. Driving in total darkness, with no lights from other
vehicles, no street lighting, and no light from buildings is the
worst case, but it is also infrequent. Daylight is half of the day,
but only 18.3% of vehicle trips and 20.2% of vehicle miles occur
from 7:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. (From 1990 NPTS Databook,
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, vol. II, figure 5.27).
Based on 1993 data from the Federal Highway Administration, 1.045
billion of the annual 1.623 billion passenger car miles traveled
were on ``urban'' roads, streets, and highways (from Highway
Statistics 1993, Table VM-1).
2. As measured in GM's test, the change in luminance level that
a driver would experience is small and, significantly, does not
cross one of the adaptation boundaries.
3. Glare is an undesirable, but inevitable feature of night-time
driving and drivers can successfully adapt to it. A recent report
for NHTSA by Jan Theeuwes and John Alferdinck, The Relationship
Between Discomfort Glare and Driving Behavior, DOT HS 808 452
(1996), shows that adaptation includes driving more slowly and
investing more effort. Major sources of glare include the lights of
other vehicles, street lights, and lights on building, parking lots,
signs, and billboards adjoining streets and highways. The headlights
of a nearby vehicle can easily be many times brighter than any of
these interior lights.
4. On some of these cars, the only affected lights are in the
footwells, below the instrument panel. While they are in the area
covered by the standard, they are not in the driver's forward field
of view and, as a matter of common sense, are less likely to be a
source of troublesome glare. On other cars, map lights mounted in
the rearview mirror assembly are involved. These lights point
downward and are also much less likely to be a source of troublesome
glare.
5. This condition cannot occur in 90.5% of the cars. Field data
shows that the actual incidence is much lower.
6. Many drivers will be alerted to the presence of a problem
because they will notice that the interior lights are not on when
they enter their cars. Because the absence of interior lights when
entering the cars at night is an inconvenience, drivers will be
likely to return the cars to dealers for repair. Many cars are
likely to be repaired before the driver experiences illumination of
the interior lights during night-time driving.
7. GM has received no reports associating this condition with
any kind of an accident or injury.
To reach the worst case condition, several low probability
events have to coincide--the car has to be one of the 9.5%
potentially affected, the car has to be driven at night, the
illumination from external sources must be unusually low, and the
condition must manifest itself. Further, even if this series of
unlikely events occurs, data indicate the driver should be able to
successfully adapt to the increased light, as he/she does on a
regular basis to other sources of light. Therefore, because the
expected coincidence of these events is extremely low and the
effects on the driver are minimal; this condition is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.''
No comments were received on the application.
The purpose of S5.3.5 is to ensure the accessibility and visibility
of motor vehicle controls and displays and to facilitate their
selection under daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce
the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention
from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls. The
operator of a GM vehicle that is noncompliant with FMVSS No. 101 in the
manner described is likely to be confronted
[[Page 63415]]
unexpectedly with activation of the interior lamps while the vehicle is
in motion. This would be likely to divert the driver's attention from
the driving task. It would also create a level of interior glare for up
to 30 minutes that would not otherwise occur. Compliance with S5.3.5
should remove interior glare from the driver's forward field of view.
GM conducted tests to compare the light on the windshield surface
with the interior lights on and off. These tests were performed in a
darkened laboratory with a black surface 10 feet ahead of the test
vehicle. This is a simulation of the worst-case scenario for the
increased glare, as there would be no other light sources from
buildings, other cars, or street lamps. The contrast between the
relatively dark surroundings and the interior lights would provide the
most glare discomfort. GM found that when the interior lights were
turned on, the luminance values ranged from two to over nine times
greater (an average of five times greater) than when the interior
lights were turned off. In the agency's opinion, this is excessive
glare for many low-light driving scenarios and is the type of situation
NHTSA sought to preclude with S5.3.5.
To justify granting its application, GM sought to persuade the
agency that the likelihood of the noncompliance occurring is, in fact,
small. For the noncompliance to happen, it argued that the vehicle must
be one of the 9.5 percent that is affected, that it must be driven at
night, that the light from external sources must be ``unusually low,''
and that the condition must manifest itself. In GM's view, the
probability of this series of events occurring is low.
NHTSA disagrees with this rationale, in part because it does not
believe that the light from external sources must be ``unusually low''
for there to be an effect. NHTSA staff conducted a few informal tests
using their own vehicles. Uniformly, when these individuals turned on
the interior dome and map lights during night time driving, they found
the light to be an impairment to their vision. These tests were
conducted in relatively unlit areas as well as areas with some ambient
light from street lamps and buildings. In all cases, the impediment to
vision was significant. Further, to determine whether the conclusions
made performing the informal tests would also be reached with the
subject vehicles, agency staff examined a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier. The
vehicle was examined in a garage with moderate ambient light. This
examination reinforced the agency's view that the noncompliance is
detrimental to safety. The dome light and the two map lights
(integrated with the dome light) not only created distracting
reflections in the windshield, but also on the side windows and the
interior rear view mirror. The tests that GM conducted only considered
the light on a piece of paper attached to the windshield. This
measurement does not consider these other reflections, which are
distracting in nature. Based on NHTSA's judgment, the noncompliance
could hinder vision in areas with ambient light that is more than
``unusually low.'' NHTSA has concluded that a safety problem could
occur as a result of the noncompliance in areas with higher glare from
exterior light sources.
GM also believes that even if the interior lights turn on, the
driver will be able to adapt successfully to the glare created,
specifically arguing that the change in luminance level is small and
does not cross one of the ``adaptation boundaries.'' Attachment C of
GM's petition contains a table showing three consecutive ranges of
luminance values: photopic, mesopic, and scotopic. GM states that
visual adaptation must occur when the luminance values go from one
level to the next. It therefore asserts that, because the luminance
values attained in its tests are all within the mesopic level, there
will be an insignificant effect on the driver's vision.
NHTSA disagrees with this rationale as well. When comparing the
luminance values a driver would experience with the interior lights
both off and on, GM found a maximum increase of 900 percent with the
lights on, with an average increase of 500 percent. While the range of
the luminance values may remain within one of the adaptation levels, it
is NHTSA's judgment that increasing the interior light in a vehicle by
nine times will have a significant effect on the driver's vision. With
such a large increase in glare, it could be difficult to operate a
vehicle at night. This situation could be further exacerbated if an
inexperienced or elderly driver were operating the vehicle.
Inexperienced drivers may not yet be familiar with adapting to
commonly-encountered glare, and the elderly may have lost their ability
to cope with it effectively.
Finally, GM states that glare, although undesirable, is inevitable
and drivers can successfully adapt to it. It cites in support a study
by Jan Theeuwes and John Alferdinck, The Relationship Between
Discomfort Glare and Driving Behavior, DOT HS 808 452 (1996). However,
the authors of the study analyzed the effects of glare from sources
such as other vehicles, building, signs, et al, on driving habits, and
concluded that, to adapt to glare, drivers went more slowly and
invested more effort. A study which is more on point was conducted by
the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) in
1985 (UMTRI-85-31). This study measured the effects of various vehicle
interior lighting systems on driver sight distance at night, and found
that turning on the interior lighting systems of a vehicle could reduce
forward sight distance by as much as 20 percent. Further, the effect
was much more pronounced for rearward visibility, though the test data
obtained couldn't be translated into rearward visibility distance.
UMTRI did conclude that objects behind the test subjects, when viewed
in the rearview mirror, are much more likely not to be visible when the
interior lights are illuminated. This study shows that drivers will not
completely adapt to the increased light created by interior lights
during nighttime driving.
GM also stated that oncoming headlamps can be ``many times brighter
than any of these interior lights.'' NHTSA agrees that, to adapt to the
glare, the drivers would naturally go more slowly and invest more
effort in the task of driving because their vision is impaired.
However, the agency sees inconsistencies when comparing the adaptation
to the interior lights of the subject vehicles and to the external
light sources mentioned in the study. The external light sources such
as those from oncoming cars and street lights are inevitable because
they provide necessary illumination of surroundings. A driver must
learn to adapt to these forms of glare because they are very common.
Conversely, the interior light illumination during night driving is not
common. Since it is not the practice of drivers to drive at night with
their interior lights on, it is unlikely that the driver of one of GM's
noncompliant vehicles has ever had to cope with such a situation.
Further, the nature of external light sources is that they are fairly
transient. Because a vehicle is moving, the external glare is usually
not constant, but a light source within the vehicle would provide
constant internal glare, and up to 30 minutes of it.
In summary, NHTSA does not agree with GM's argument that the
noncompliance reflects a rare problem that will create insignificant
problems should it arise. Of the approximately 20,000 vehicles that
have not yet been repaired, some will inevitably suffer this
noncompliance at night. Moreover, NHTSA believes that this
noncompliance has the potential to create an unsafe situation which is
[[Page 63416]]
consequential to motor vehicle safety even in conditions where there
are external light sources.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, GM has not met its
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein described is
inconsequential to safety and its application is denied.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: November 21, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-31266 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
