Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38993 

V. Summary of RTDI’s Petition: As 

background, in 1996, RTDI began to 

produce APVs. The original 

Amphibious Passenger vehicles (APVs) 

are based on military vehicles that were 

capable of operation over both land and 

water. The ‘‘Stretch’’ APVs were 

refurbished by RTDI in accordance with 

state and U.S. Coast Guard rules and 

regulations. These vehicles have 

renewed hulls that are ‘‘stretched’’ over 

the original chassis frame and original 

vehicle components that were replaced 

with modern equipment. RTDI 

manufactured the stretch APVs until 

2005, when RTDI introduced its 

‘‘Truck’’ APVs. The truck APVs are 

based on military cargo vehicles. RTDI 

has not manufactured any vehicles since 

2014. 

RTDI described the subject 

noncompliance and stated its belief that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, RTDI 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. FMVSS No. 103 specifies that 

‘‘[e]ach vehicle shall have a windshield 

defrosting and defogging system.’’ 49 

CFR 571.103, S4(a), S4.1. The purpose 

of FMVSS No. 103 is to establish 

minimum performance requirements for 

vehicle windshield defrosting and 

defogging systems in order to ensure 

that the vehicle operator is able to 

sufficiently see through the windshield. 

The APVs have features that are 

designed to achieve the same purpose as 

the standard. The APVs’ ‘‘open-air’’ 

design precludes fog from building up 

on the windshield. Fog buildup on the 

interior or exterior of a motor vehicle 

windshield occurs when water 

condenses on the windshield. For water 

to condense on a windshield, the air 

next to the windshield must be humid 

and the air’s dew point—the 

temperature to which air must be cooled 

to become saturated with water vapor— 

must be higher than the windshield’s 

temperature. In other words, humid and 

warm air must surround a cool 

windshield. Because of its open-air 

design, the APVs will not encounter any 

of the physical conditions that create fog 

buildup on the windshield. The APVs 

do not have solid glass windows in the 

passenger compartment and the rear of 

the vehicle is also open to the air. The 

side panels of the driver’s compartment 

are open on both sides of the 

windshield and the center windshield 

can be pushed outward and opened 

when needed. Because of the APVs’ 

design, the ambient air is able to 

continually circulate within the interior 

of the vehicle, creating no difference 

between the temperature or humidity of 

the air outside and inside the vehicle. In 

the unlikely event that fog did 

accumulate on the windshield, the 

APVs have windshield wipers to clear 

the surface and the vehicle operator can 

also push down the windshield for 

visibility. 

2. Frost builds up on the windshield 

of a vehicle when the temperature of 

liquid or condensation on the 

windshield decreases to the freezing 

point of water, turning the condensation 

into frost. The APVs’ lack of a defrosting 

system similarly does not present a 

safety concern. The APVs are only 

operated on a seasonal basis and not 

during the winter months in any 

location where the vehicles provide 

tours. The APVs, therefore, are not 

operated during or exposed to weather 

conditions that would expose the 

vehicles to frost or create the need to 

defrost the windshields. As above, the 

operator also has the ability to push 

down the center windshield or use the 

windshield wipers to increase visibility 

in the unlikely event of frost. 

3. From its inception, the Safety Act 

has included a provision recognizing 

that some noncompliances may pose 

little or no actual safety risk. The Safety 

Act exempts manufacturers from their 

statutory obligation to provide notice 

and remedy upon a determination by 

NHTSA that a noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d). In applying this 

recognition to particular fact situations, 

the agency considers whether the 

noncompliance gives rise to ‘‘a 

significantly greater risk than . . . in a 

compliant vehicle.’’ 69 FR 19897, 19900 

(April 14, 2000). As described above, 

the specialized design of the APVs and 

the vehicles’ pattern of use does not 

expose the vehicles to conditions that 

could create an increased safety risk 

when compared to a vehicle that has a 

windshield defrosting and defogging 

system installed. 

RTDI concluded by expressing the 

belief that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition to be 

exempted from providing notification of 

the noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that RTDI no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve vehicle distributors and dealers 

of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after RTDI notified them that the 

subject noncompliance existed. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8. 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17325 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0038; Notice 1] 

Ride the Ducks International, LLC, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Ride the Ducks International, 

LLC (RTDI), has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 1996–2014 Ride the 

Ducks International Stretch Amphibious 

passenger vehicles (APVs) do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, 

Windshield Wiping and Washing 

Systems. RTDI filed a noncompliance 

information report dated March 15, 

2017. RTDI also petitioned NHTSA on 

April 12, 2017, for a decision that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is September 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to U.S. Department of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38994 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petition is granted or 

denied, notice of the decision will also 

be published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the Internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Ride the Ducks 

International, LLC (RTDI), has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 1996–2014 Ride the Ducks 

International Stretch Amphibious 

passenger vehicles (APVs) do not fully 

comply with paragraph S4.2.2 of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping 

and Washing Systems. RTDI filed a 

noncompliance information report 

dated March 15, 2017, pursuant to 49 

CFR 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. RTDI also 

petitioned NHTSA on April 12, 2017, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of RTDI’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

105 MY 1996–2014 Ride the Ducks 

International Stretch APVs, 

manufactured between January 1, 1996, 

and December 31, 2014, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance: RTDI explained 

that the noncompliance is that the 

subject vehicles were manufactured 

without a windshield washing system, 

as required by paragraph S4.2.2 of 

FMVSS No. 104. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.2.2 of 

FMVSS No. 104 states in pertinent part: 

S4.2.2 Each multipurpose passenger 

vehicle, truck, and bus shall have a 

windshield washing system that meets the 

requirements of SAE Recommended Practice 

J942 (1965) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 571.5), except that the reference to ‘‘the 

effective wipe pattern defined in SAE J903, 

paragraph 3.1.2’’ in paragraph 3.1 of SAE 

Recommended Practice J942 (1965) shall be 

deleted and ‘‘the pattern designed by the 

manufacturer for the windshield wiping 

system on the exterior surface of the 

windshield glazing’’ shall be inserted in lieu 

thereof. 

V. Summary of RTDI’s Petition: As 

background, in 1996, RTDI began to 

produce APVs. The original 

Amphibious Passenger vehicles (APVs) 

are based on military vehicles that were 

capable of operation over both land and 

water. The ‘‘Stretch’’ APVs were 

refurbished by RTDI in accordance with 

state and U.S. Coast Guard rules and 

regulations. These vehicles have 

renewed hulls that are ‘‘stretched’’ over 

the original chassis frame and original 

vehicle components that were replaced 

with modern equipment. RTDI 

manufactured the stretch APVs until 

2005, when RTDI introduced its 

‘‘Truck’’ APVs. The truck APVs are 

based on military cargo vehicles. RTDI 

has not manufactured any vehicles since 

2014. 

RTDI described the subject 

noncompliance and stated its belief that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, RTDI 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. FMVSS No. 104 specifies, in relevant 

part, that ‘‘each . . . [vehicle] shall have a 

windshield washing system that meets the 

requirements of SAE Recommended Practice 

J942 (1965)’’ 49 CFR 571.104, S4(a), S4.2.2. 

This FMVSS is designed to ensure that when 

activated, the windshield washing system is 

capable of reaching a sufficient portion of the 

exterior surface of the windshield, as 

designed by the manufacturer. The standard 

establishes minimum performance 

requirements for the windshield wiping and 

washing systems so that the vehicle operator 

is able to sufficiently see through the 

windshield. The APVs have features installed 

that are designed to achieve the same 

purpose as the standard. If there is debris 

present on the windshield, the driver is able 

to engage the vehicle’s windshield wipers to 

clear the windshield’s exterior surface. 

Further, the windshield of the APVs have a 

unique design that allows the driver to fully 

lower and raise the windshield glass. In the 

event that the windshield wipers could not 

clear the surface of the windshield, the driver 

has the option of lowering the windshield. 

Under either option, the visibility of the 

operator would not be compromised. 

2. In the water portion of the vehicles’ 

tours, the APVs are required to have the 

windshield lowered during operation, per 

U.S. Coast Guard regulations. The Coast 

Guard has recognized that in the event of an 

accident on the water, a raised windshield 

could impede passenger egress. 

Consequently, the Coast Guard has issued 

guidance which provides that the 

windshields of APVs be ‘‘designed to fold 

down with minimal force to allow egress.’’ 

U.S. Coast Guard Navigation and Inspection 

Circular (NVIC) 1–01, inspection of 

Amphibious Passenger Carrying Vehicles, 

p.24. Further, the APV’s exteriors, including 

the windshields, are washed after each tour, 

removing any debris that may have 

accumulated during the last tour. 

3. From its inception, the Safety Act has 

included a provision recognizing that some 

noncompliances may pose little or no actual 

safety risk. The Safety Act exempts 

manufacturers from their statutory obligation 

to provide notice and remedy upon a 

determination by NHTSA that a 

noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d). In 

applying this recognition to particular fact 

situations, the agency considers whether the 

noncompliance gives rise to ‘‘a significantly 

greater risk than . . . in a compliant 

vehicle.’’ 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 

2000). As described above, the specialized 

design of the APVs and the vehicles’ pattern 

of use does not expose the vehicles to 

conditions that could create an increased 

safety risk when compared to a vehicle that 

has a windshield washing system installed. 

RTDI concluded by expressing the 

belief that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition to be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38995 

exempted from providing notification of 

the noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that RTDI no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve vehicle distributors and dealers 

of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after RTDI notified them that the 

subject noncompliance existed. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8. 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17326 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0063] 

Autocar Industries, LLC, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Autocar Industries, LLC 

(Autocar Industries), has determined 

that certain model year (MY) 2014–2018 

Autocar Xspotter trucks do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, 

Controls and Displays. Autocar 

Industries filed a noncompliance report 

dated June 12, 2017, and subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on June 19, 2017, for 

a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is September 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petition is granted or 

denied, notice of the decision will also 

be published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the Internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Autocar Industries has 

determined that certain MY 2014–2018 

Autocar Xspotter trucks do not fully 

comply with Table 2 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

101, Controls and Displays. Autocar 

Industries filed a noncompliance report 

dated June 12, 2017, pursuant to CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports, and 

petitioned NHTSA on June 19, 2017, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of their petition 

is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

30120 and does not represent any 

agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

644 MY 2014–2018 Autocar Xspotter 

trucks, manufactured between 

September 12, 2013 and August 4, 2017, 

are potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Autocar 

Industries explains that the 

noncompliance is that the Low Brake 

Air Pressure telltale for air brake 

systems displays the word ‘‘BRAKE 

PRESSURE’’ and the Canadian Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 101 

specified symbol, rather than the words 

‘‘Brake Air,’’ as specified in Table 2 of 

FMVSS No. 101. Autocar Industries 

states that the telltale is accompanied by 

an audible alert and pressure gauges. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5 of FMVSS 

No. 101 provides: ‘‘Each passenger car, 

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck 

and bus that is fitted with a control, a 

telltale, or an indicator listed in Table 

1 or Table 2 must meet the requirements 

of this standard for the location, 

identification, color, and illumination of 

that control, telltale or indicator.’’ 

Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 

provides, in pertinent part: ‘‘. . . each 

control, telltale and indicator that is 

listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 

2 must be identified by the symbol 

specified for it in column 2 or the word 

or abbreviation specified for it in 

column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2.’’ 

Table 2 appears as follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES