[Federal Register: April 23, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 20043-20044]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap03-103]
[[Page 20043]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12005; Notice 2]
International Truck and Engine Corp.; Denial of Application for
Inconsequential Noncompliance
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
denying a petition from International Truck and Engine Corporation
(International) of Fort Wayne, Indiana, for exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 for a
noncompliance with 49 CFR 571.104, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, ``Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.''
International applied for the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 49
U.S.C. 30120(h) and petitioned NHTSA for a decision that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. We published
a notice of receipt of the International application on April 11, 2002,
allowing for a 30-day comment period (67 FR 17757). There were no
comments submitted.
International discovered the noncompliance in 7,630 medium duty
trucks it manufactured between October 24, 2000, and October 22, 2001.
In those vehicles, if the windshield washer system is filled with water
and frozen, a fuse in the windshield washer electrical circuit can blow
when the washer system is actuated, rendering the system inoperative.
The system thus fails to meet a performance requirement in FMVSS No.
104 which, by reference to SAE Recommended Practice J942, ``Passenger
Car Windshield Washer Systems,'' requires the washer system to
withstand operation in a completely frozen state.
We are denying this petition because International has not
adequately demonstrated that the noncompliance does not increase the
risk that an operator will experience a safety problem, in this case a
non-functional washer system, that FMVSS No. 104 is intended to protect
against. In determining inconsequentiality, the agency traditionally
has considered whether a noncompliance is likely to increase the risk
that occupants will experience a safety problem that a requirement was
established to address (Cosco, Inc., Denial of Application for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408 (June 1, 1999) (NHTSA-98-
4033-2)). In the case of the noncomplying International trucks, we
believe that a vehicle operator is at increased risk of experiencing
reduced visibility as a result of a nonfunctional windshield washer
system.
Background
The pertinent performance requirement for windshield washer systems
is paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 104 which states in relevant part,
``Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus shall have a
windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE
Recommended Practice J942, November 1965.* * *'' SAE J942 includes
paragraph 3.2, System Strength, which states, ``The windshield washer
system must be capable of withstanding the loads induced when the
nozzles are blocked and tested in accordance with test procedures
established in paragraph 4.2.'' Paragraph 4.2.2(b) of SAE J942 states
the following: ``The system shall be filled with water and frozen for 4
hr. and then actuated repeatedly for a 1 minute period.''
In International's tests of the washer system in the subject
trucks, when the washer system was operated in a water-filled and
frozen condition in accordance with the requirement above, a five-
ampere rated electrical fuse blew one-quarter second after washer
switch actuation, interrupting the washer pump circuit. The system thus
failed to comply with S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 104.
Discussion
In its application for inconsequential noncompliance, International
made the following points:
[sbull] The intent of section 3.2, ``System Strength'' in SAE J942
is ``that the system should withstand the test parameters specified
without inducing permanent damage to the electrical system components
of the washer system'' such as a cracked fluid reservoir or fluid
lines, damaged spray nozzles, or overloaded activation switch, washer
pump motor, or connecting wires. International stated that those
components are effectively protected from permanent damage in the non-
complying International vehicles by the five-ampere fuse.
[sbull] The system passes all other specified J942 requirements
and, if a ten-ampere fuse is installed in the washer circuit, it passes
the ``System Strength'' requirement for operation under frozen
conditions. However, a five-ampere fuse does a better job of protecting
the system components.
[sbull] There is very little likelihood of the washer fluid
freezing in an actual operating environment because International's
recommended fluid mixture yields a freezing point of -48 degrees C (-54
degrees F).
[sbull] With a vehicle population of 19,880 comprising various
models in operation for 13 months, International has had ``no reported
field problems'' and only 16 warranty claims related to the washer
system, none of which were due to frozen fluid in the system.
In response, we would first point out that neither FMVSS 104 nor
J942 contains any limitation concerning ``permanent damage'' to the
system when subjected to the applicable test procedures. Paragraph 3.2
of J942 states only that the system ``shall be capable of withstanding
the loads induced'' when it is tested in accordance with the procedures
in section 4 of J942. We believe a blown fuse in the washer circuit
indicates that the system was unable to withstand the loads induced in
the frozen condition and is no less a failure than if the washer switch
or pump motor had been damaged. We disagree with International's
understanding of the requirement in paragraph 3.2 of SAE J942, i.e.,
that it is intended to proscribe ``permanent damage'' to the washer
system electrical components including the electric pump motor, the
actuation switch, and the connecting wires. We believe that, in order
to comply with this requirement, the washer system must remain fully
functional after being frozen.
International also stated that the washer system passes the
compliance test if a ten-ampere fuse is installed, but the system is
better protected with the five-ampere fuse. However, by this logic, it
would appear that one of the other system components besides the fuse
may be at risk of failure, which is the type of problem that FMVSS 104
test procedures are intended to guard against. On one hand, if the
five-ampere fuse is too weak, then it would appear that International
merely neglected to specify a sufficiently high fuse rating in the
design of the washer system. On the other hand, if installing a higher-
rated fuse puts other system electrical components at risk of being
overloaded, then it is evident that the system as a whole is not robust
enough to sustain frozen system operation in the required manner. The
fact that the fuse fails before one of the other circuit components
such as the pump motor or switch is not a redeeming factor with regard
to compliance. In either case, the system does not meet the performance
requirement.
With respect to availability of the washer system, we do not agree
with International's assertion that a frozen reservoir ``makes the
availability of the
[[Page 20044]]
system during vehicle operation no greater than the situation with a
blown fuse.'' If the system becomes disabled due to being frozen but
also has a blown fuse, then a vehicle operator would be left without
the use of a functioning washer system even after the system is thawed
by engine heat or by the addition of the correct fluid mixture. For
example, an operator in a harsh winter environment who attempts to
activate the washer system might find that it is frozen and wait for it
to thaw out, which it would be likely to do once the vehicle was warmed
up. In a noncomplying truck, the washer system would still be
inoperable even after thawing out. Furthermore, an operator who had
neglected to maintain the washer fluid mixture might be alerted to the
frozen condition of the fluid by the failure of the system to spray
when actuated. The operator might then be able to correct the fluid
mixture and, in a complying vehicle, continue driving with an
operational washer system.
International asserts that the freezing point of the washer system
when the recommended fluid mixture is used is so low that the system is
very unlikely to freeze under foreseeable conditions. While this may be
true, vehicles are unlikely to have exactly the recommended mixture and
could, in fact, have a diluted mixture with a higher freezing point. We
do not see any compelling reason to question whether the frozen-system
requirement in FMVSS No. 104 has a realistic basis, and International
did not provide any supporting information in that regard. Also, the
fact that the standard specifies filling and testing the system using
only water does not mean that systems filled with only water are
anticipated in the actual operating environment. As a practical matter,
it is easier to freeze the system for the purpose of a compliance test
when it contains just water instead of a mixture with a lower freezing
point.
If International believes that washer systems should be tested with
an appropriate washer fluid mixture, or that the frozen washer system
test is unreasonable because of the low likelihood of washer fluid
freezing in actual use, the company is entitled to present relevant
safety data, research, and related information to NHTSA in the form of
a petition for rulemaking to amend the current safety standard.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion, and that the
noncompliance may have an adverse effect on the safety of the subject
vehicles. Accordingly, International's application is denied and the
company must provide notification of the noncompliance as required by
49 U.S.C. 30118. Also, International must provide a free remedy for the
noncompliance to each first purchaser of an affected vehicle bought
within ten calendar years of the time notice is given, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120(g).
(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: April 17, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-10053 Filed 4-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P