|
|---|
|
Polaris Group of America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Eileen Sullivan Date: 30 January 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Motorcycles, Safety
Topic: Indian |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5993-5995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01736]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0058; Notice 2]
Polaris Group of America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial 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 the denial of
Polaris's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Safety Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366-5304.
[[Page 5994]]
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.
Notice of receipt of Polaris's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 3, 2023, in the Federal Register (88 FR
42814). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2022-0058.''
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 stop lamp illumination without the
application of the service brakes or by a device designed to retard the
motion of the vehicle during certain riding conditions when a loss of
wheel contact with the ground occurs.
IV. Rule Requirements
Stop lamps are lamps that give 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 or 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 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
[[Page 5995]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\5\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\6\ Further, because each inconsequential
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\6\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris did not elaborate on the sensitivity of the lamp activation
but did indicate that it can occur while going over a large bump like
on railroad tracks and rumble strips. The Agency believes that the stop
lamp illuminating for 500 milliseconds will be noticeable to other road
users and going over a large bump on the road like railroad tracks or
rumble strips is not an uncommon occurrence for motorists. Activation
of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or
slowing will create confusion for the driver following the noncompliant
vehicle as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing
the following driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle
inappropriately. This is consistent with a decision on a petition by
Daimler Trucks North America, and in response to a request for
interpretation from General Motors.\7\ NHTSA continues to adhere to the
position that inappropriate and misleading activation of stop lamps is
consequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Daimler Trucks North America, Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 85 FR 67812 (Oct. 26,
2020); Letter from F. Seales, Jr., NHTSA, to C. Terry, GM (May 26,
2000), https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21281.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris cited three separate Agency decisions to past petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance in its petition. The Agency does not find
any of these past decisions to be relevant to the subject petition.
Each decision is addressed below:
First, the Daimler Trucks North America petition granted by the
Agency involved the automatic illumination of the stop lamps when the
low air pressure warning indicator light illuminates, which is an event
that will occur once and will need to be resolved by the operator
before continuing operation of the vehicle.\8\ The affected vehicle is
taken out of service until the brake system can be repaired, which
distinguishes that decision from the subject petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 14325 (March 24,
2022),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the General Motors, LLC (GM) petition concerns the
activation of parking lamps which distinguishes it from the subject
petition because parking lamps and stop lamps serve completely
different functions.\9\ Furthermore, other factors distinguish the two
petitions including that the non-compliance in the GM petition only
occurs during the daytime when parking lamps are generally not in use,
requires a fairly high degree of unlikely user intervention for the
non-compliance to occur, and the non-compliance will correct itself
during operation. NHTSA believes that the noncompliance at issue here
has the potential to occur more frequently because large bumps,
railroad tracks, and rumble strips are obstacles found on roads
throughout the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 83 FR 7847 (February 22, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third decision notice which was cited, which is also in
response to a GM petition, involved the brief activation of the center
high-mounted stop lamp (``CHMSL'') when the hazard warning lamp switch
was depressed to its limit of travel.\10\ The Agency has previously
concluded that this brief illumination of the CHMSL upon activation of
the hazard warning signal did ``not provide a conflicting message'' and
``would not confuse the intended general message.'' In contrast,
noticeable activation of the stop lamps in the manner described in
Polaris's petition would send a conflicting or confusing message since
the vehicle appears to be braking when it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 32871 (June 18,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Polaris
has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Polaris's petition is hereby denied and Polaris is consequently
obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-01736 Filed 1-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P