[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