[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42814-42815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14064]



[[Page 42814]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0058; Notice 1]


Polaris Group of America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Polaris Group of America, Inc., (Polaris), has determined that 
certain motorcycles manufactured by Indian Motorcycle Company do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Indian 
Motorcycle Company, on behalf of Polaris, filed an original 
noncompliance report dated April 13, 2022, and later amended the report 
on September 9, 2022. Polaris petitioned NHTSA on May 13, 2022, for a 
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of 
Polaris's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before August 2, 2023.

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 may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website 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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Safety Compliance 
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366-5304.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Polaris determined that certain motorcycles 
manufactured by Indian Motorcycle Company do not fully comply with 
paragraph S7.3.5 and Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).
    Indian Motorcycle Company, on behalf of Polaris, filed an original 
noncompliance report dated April 13, 2022, and amended it on September 
9, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Polaris petitioned NHTSA on May 13, 2022, 
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, pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for 
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Polaris's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Motorcycles Involved: Approximately 12,619 of the following 
motorcycles manufactured by Indian Motorcycle Company between July 10, 
2018, and April 1, 2022, were reported by the manufacturer:
     2019-2020, 2022 Indian FTR 1200,
     2019-2020, 2022 Indian FTR 1200 S,
     2020, 2022 Indian FTR 1200 Rally,
     2022 Indian FTR R Carbon,
     2020-2022 Indian Challenger,
     2020-2022 Indian Challenger Limited,
     2020-2021 Indian Challenger Dark Horse,
     2022 Challenger Elite,
     2022 Indian Challenger Dark Horse Icon,
     2022 Indian Challenger JD Limited Edition,
     2022 Indian Pursuit Limited,
     2022 Indian Pursuit Limited Premium,
     2022 Indian Pursuit Limited Premium Icon,
     2022 Indian Pursuit Premium Dark Horse,
     2022 Indian Pursuit Dark Horse Premium,
     2022 Indian Pursuit Dark Horse Premium Icon.
    III. Noncompliance: Polaris explains that the subject motorcycles 
are equipped with a specific Antilock Braking System (ABS) module that 
can cause the subject motorcycle to experience inadvertent stop lamp 
illumination without rider input during certain riding conditions when 
a loss of wheel contact with the ground occurs.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Stop lamps are lamps giving a steady light 
to the rear of a vehicle to indicate a vehicle is stopping or 
diminishing speed by braking. Paragraph S7.3.5 and Table I-c of FMVSS 
No. 108 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Stop lamps 
equipped on motorcycles must be steady burning. In addition, they must 
be activated upon application of the service brakes. The stop lamp may 
also be activated by a device designed to retard the motion of the 
vehicle.
    V. Summary of Polaris' Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Polaris' Petition,'' are the 
views and arguments provided by Polaris. They

[[Page 42815]]

have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of 
the Agency. Polaris describes the subject noncompliance and contends 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Polaris explains that the subject noncompliance occurs due to an 
inadvertent software logic error. Specifically, Polaris says the 
subject noncompliance occurs because a ``loss of wheel contact may 
result in a front and rear wheel speed differential that exceeds the 
calibration threshold within the ABS module software.'' This causes the 
ABS module to provide a signal to the ECM, which then illuminates the 
brake lights, even when there is no brake application by the motorcycle 
user.
    Polaris believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety because the brake light is illuminated for 500 
milliseconds and only occurs under certain conditions. Polaris says 
that the resulting brake light illumination is ``analogous to a rider 
tapping the brake lever or pedal to cancel cruise control, thereby 
illuminating the lights, but not meaningfully engaging the brake system 
to decelerate.'' Other than the subject noncompliance, Polaris states 
that the affected motorcycles comply with FMVSS No. 108 requirements. 
Furthermore, Polaris says it is not aware of any crashes or injuries 
related to the subject noncompliance.
    Polaris references three previous petitions NHTSA has granted ``for 
lighting requirements where a technical noncompliance exists but does 
not create an adverse effect on safety.''
     In a petition submitted by Daimler Trucks North 
America,\1\ Polaris points to the following NHTSA statement: ``when a 
vehicle with air brakes experiences a low-air event and notifies that 
driver of a brake system malfunction, NHTSA believes that the driver 
would likely respond by pulling over to the side of the road and taking 
the vehicle out of service until the brake system can be repaired.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 14325 (March 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Polaris cited a decision notice for a General Motor's 
petition for inconsequential noncompliance \2\ and stated that, ``NHTSA 
noted that a number of factors led them to the conclusion that under 
the specific circumstances described in GM's Petition would have a low 
probability of occurrence and would neither be long lasting nor likely 
to occur during a period when parking lamps are generally in use.'' 
Polaris also points to a statement in this petition where NHTSA stated, 
``when the noncompliance does occur, other lamps remain functional. The 
combination of all of the factors, specific to this case, abate the 
risk to safety.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 83 FR 7847 (February 22, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation,\3\ 
Polaris points to the following NHTSA statement, ``[e]ven if a visible 
CHMSL illumination occurs upon hazard flasher activation, it would 
almost certainly have no adverse effect on safety. However, if a CHMSL 
illuminated due to this condition when the vehicle was on the road, a 
following driver would likely see a brief single flash of the CHMSL. As 
a practical matter, the following driver might not notice this flash at 
all. Even if he or she did, there would seem to be no likelihood of 
driver confusion or inappropriate responses.'' Polaris also points to 
another statement in this petition where NHTSA stated, ``[w]e can 
foresee no negative effects on motor vehicle safety if a vehicle's 
CHMSL is briefly illuminated as described upon activation of the hazard 
warning lamps. The intended use of a hazard warning lamp and the 
momentary activation of the CHMSL do not provide a conflicting message. 
The illumination of the CHMSL is intended to signify that the vehicles 
brakes are being applied and that the vehicle might be decelerating. 
Hazard warning lamps are intended as a more general message to nearby 
drivers that extra attention should be given to the vehicle. A brief 
illumination of the CHMSL while activating the hazard warning lamps 
would not confuse the intended general message, nor would the brief 
illumination in the absence of the other brake lamps cause confusion 
that the brakes were unintentionally applied.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 66 FR 32871 (June 18, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Polaris concludes by stating its belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety 
and 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 motorcycles that Polaris 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 motorcycles under their control after 
Polaris 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)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-14064 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


