Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Notices 5993 

ICR describe the nature of the 

information collection and their 

expected burdens for the Charter 

Service Operations. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before February 29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. You can find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. 

Comments are Invited On: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tia 

Swain, Office of Administration, 

Management Planning Division, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue., SE, Mail Stop 

TAD–10, Washington, DC 20590 (202) 

366–0354 or tia.swain@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), sec. 2, Public Law 104–13, 109 

Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 

44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, require Federal agencies to issue 

two notices seeking public comment on 

information collection activities before 

OMB may approve paperwork packages. 

44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 

1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On November 15, 

2023, FTA published a 60-day notice 

(88 FR 78456) in the Federal Register 

soliciting comments on the ICR that the 

agency was seeking OMB approval. FTA 

received no comments after issuing this 

60-day notice. Accordingly, DOT 

announces that these information 

collection activities have been reevaluated and certified under 5 CFR 

1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for 

review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12(c). 

Before OMB decides whether to 

approve these proposed collections of 

information, it must provide 30 days for 

public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 

CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires 

OMB to approve or disapprove 

paperwork packages between 30 and 60 

days after the 30-day notice is 

published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 

1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983. 

OMB believes that the 30-day notice 

informs the regulated community to file 

relevant comments and affords the 

agency adequate time to digest public 

comments before it renders a decision. 

60 FR 44983. Therefore, respondents 

should submit their respective 

comments to OMB within 30 days of 

publication to best ensure having their 

full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 

FR 44983. 

The summaries below describe the 

nature of the information collection 

requirements (ICRs) and the expected 

burden. The requirements are being 

submitted for clearance by OMB as 

required by the PRA. 

Title: Charter Service Operations. 

OMB Control Number: 2132–0543 

Background: FTA’s Charter Service 

Regulations protects private charter 

operators from unauthorized 

competition from FTA grant recipients. 

In essence, the charter regulations were 

implemented to ensure that transit 

agencies, subsidized with Federal 

money, do not unfairly compete with 

privately owned bus companies. Under 

the charter rules, with limited 

exceptions, local transit agencies are 

restricted from operating chartered 

services. Charter service means, but 

does not include demand response 

service to individuals: 

• Transportation provided by a 

recipient at the request of a third party 

for the exclusive use of a bus or van for 

a negotiated price. The following 

features may be characteristic of charter 

service: 

Æ A third party pays the transit 

provider a negotiated price for the 

group, 

Æ Any fares charged to individual 

members of the group are collected by 

a third party, 

Æ The service is not part of the transit 

provider’s regularly scheduled service, 

or is offered for a limited period of time, 

or 

Æ A third party determines the origin 

and destination of the trip as well as 

scheduling; or 

• Transportation provided by a 

recipient to the public for events or 

functions that occur on an irregular 

basis or for a limited duration and: 

Æ A premium fare is charged that is 

greater than the usual or customary 

fixed route fare; or 

Æ The service is paid for in whole or 

in part by a third party. 

There are limited exceptions when a 

grantee may provide charter service, 

including: 

• Official government business, 

• Qualified Human Service 

Organizations (elderly, persons with 

disabilities, and low- income 

individuals), 

• When no registered charter provider 

responds to a notice sent by a recipient, 

• Leasing (must exhaust all available 

vehicles first), 

• By agreement with all registered 

charter providers, 

• Petitions to the Administrator: 

Events of regional or national 

significance, or hardship. 

Respondents: Transit Agencies and 

Private Operators. 

Estimated Annual Responses: 2,000 

respondents. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 359 

hours. 

Frequency: Annually, bi-annually, 

quarterly, and as required. 

Nadine Pembleton, 

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01794 Filed 1–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5994 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Notices 

1 Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 87 FR 14325 (March 24, 2022). 

2 General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 83 FR 

7847 (February 22, 2018). 

3 General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 66 FR 32871 (June 18, 2001). 

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.’’ 

• 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.’’ 

• 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2024 / Notices 5995 

4Cf. 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). 

5See 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). 

6See 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’’). 

7See 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. 

8See Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 87 FR 14325 (March 24, 2022), 

9 83 FR 7847 (February 22, 2018). 

10See General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 32871 (June 18, 2001). 

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.’’ 

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

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 factdependent, 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 noncompliance 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. 

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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Beneficial 

Ownership Information Requests 

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES