[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20043-20044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10053]



[[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