Ride the Ducks International, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Ride the Ducks
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
16 August 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38992-38993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0035; 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. 103, Windshield Defrosting
and Defogging 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 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 S4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 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 defrosting
and defogging system, as required by paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 103.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 103 states in pertinent
part:
S4.1 Each vehicle shall have a windshield defrosting and
defogging system
[[Page 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