Notice2025-24010
ElectraMeccanica Vehicles Corp., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 30, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
ElectraMeccanica Vehicles Corp., (EMV) determined that certain model year (MY) 2018 ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds). EMV filed a noncompliance report dated July 30, 2019. EMV subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 12, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of EMV's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 246 (Tuesday, December 30, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61218-61220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-24010]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0080; Notice 2]
ElectraMeccanica Vehicles Corp., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: ElectraMeccanica Vehicles Corp., (EMV) determined that certain
model year (MY) 2018 ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire
Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More
Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds). EMV filed a noncompliance report
dated July 30, 2019. EMV subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 12,
2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant
of EMV's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
EMV has determined that certain MY 2018 and MY 2019
ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/
Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) (49
CFR 571.120). EMV filed a noncompliance report dated July 30, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. EMV subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 12, 2019, 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 EMV's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period on September 20, 2019, in the Federal Register
(84 FR 49621). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log on to the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0080.''
II. Motorcycles Involved
Approximately 20 MY 2018 ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles,
manufactured between March 1, 2018, and June 28, 2019, were reported by
the manufacturer.
III. Noncompliance
EMV explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
are equipped with rims that are missing the manufacturer's name,
trademark, or symbol marking as required by paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS
No. 120.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each rim or, at the option of the
manufacturer in the case of a single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be
marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this paragraph, in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high,
impressed to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to
a height of not less than 0.125 millimeters. The information listed in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph shall appear on the
weather side. In the case of rims of multi-piece construction, the
information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph
shall appear on the rim base and the
[[Page 61219]]
information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall
also appear on each other part of the rim. (d) A designation that
identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol.
V. Summary of EMV's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of EMV's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
EMV and do not reflect the views of the Agency. In its petition, EMV
describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, EMV offers the following reasoning:
1. EMV states that the absence of the manufacturer name, trademark,
or symbol does not have any effect on the operation, performance, or
safety of the affected vehicles. In support of this argument, EMV
points out that the manufacturer name, trademark, or symbol is not
required to be marked on rims for use on passenger cars in accordance
with FMVSS No. 110. EMV acknowledges that the marking is helpful for
traceability in the event of the future discovery of a wheel defect.
However, EMV states that the absence of the marking on the affected
rims does not inhibit traceability because EMV has only a single supply
source for the pertinent rim style. EMV notes that the affected rims do
contain other markings, such as the date of manufacture, heat treatment
lot, and all other markings required as per FMVSS No. 120, paragraph
S5.2, providing for sufficient traceability of any given rim. EMV also
relays that it is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with the absence of the rim manufacturer name,
trademark, or symbol marking.
2. EMV states the granting of its petition for inconsequential
noncompliance would be consistent with previous NHTSA decisions
regarding FMVSS No. 120 and FMVSS No. 110 (for vehicles other than
passenger cars) requirements for rim markings. In support of its
petition EMV cites the granting of inconsequential noncompliance
petitions for both the incorrect marking of the rim size in 2017 \1\
and the absence of required rim markings in 2008.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance (Docket No.
NHTSA-2016-0137; Notice 2), 82 FR 196, October 12, 2017 (82 FR
47599).
\2\ See Nissan North America, Inc.; Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-
27073; Notice 2), 72 FR 83, July 16, 2008 (72 FR 23889).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EMV also states that all affected MY 2018 and MY 2019 vehicles
under its control in, or destined for, the United States have been or
are in the process of being brought into compliance with the FMVSS No.
120 manufacturer marking requirements. EMV adds that it has also
ensured that all required markings will be present on rims used for
future production.
EMV concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety and contends 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's Analysis
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.\3\ 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.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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).
\4\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant
who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\ The Safety
Act is preventive, and manufacturers cannot and should not wait for
deaths or injuries to occur in their vehicles before they carry out a
recall.\7\ Indeed, the very purpose of a recall is to protect
individuals from risk.\8\ NHTSA has evaluated the merits of EMV's
petition and is granting the petitioner's request for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 49
U.S.C. 30120. The Agency considered the following prior to making this
determination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMV states in its petition and noncompliance report that the
noncompliance is that a subset of MY 18 SOLOs equipped with silver rims
with 12 spokes are missing the required marking of the manufacturer's
name, trademark, or symbol and therefore do not comply with the
requirements of paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120. EMV explains that a
miscommunication between EMV and the rim manufacturer resulted in the
absence of the manufacturer marking required for motorcycles in
accordance with FMVSS No. 120 S5.2(d). EMV confirms that four of the
affected MY18 SOLOs shipped to the U.S. between November 2018 and July
2019 equipped with the affected rims have been sold to consumers, and
that all other affected MY18 and MY19 vehicles in the U.S. have been or
are in the process of being brought into compliance with the marking
requirement. EMV states that no remedy or reimbursement program is
planned for the affected vehicles.
[[Page 61220]]
EMV explains it has only one source for supply of the pertinent rim
style and that the absence of the manufacturer name, trademark, or
symbol marking will therefore not inhibit traceability of the affected
rims. It further states that other markings present, such as the date
of manufacture and all other required rim markings from paragraph S5.2,
(including some not required, such as ``heat treatment lot''), provide
for sufficient traceability of any given rim.
Given the nature of the vehicle, the markings present on the rim,
and the rim's unique design, it appears most likely that if a consumer
encountered a problem with the rim, including finding a proper
replacement, they could contact the vehicle manufacturer for further
assistance or, if seeking a replacement, replace the rim based on the
correct tire rim size present on the side of the rim. The
aforementioned facts support a conclusion that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, as all other information
markings as required by FMVSS No. 120 are correctly marked.
NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that EMV has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 120 noncompliance at
issue is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, EMV's
petition is hereby granted and EMV is consequently exempt from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that EMV no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of 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 EMV 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. 2025-24010 Filed 12-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 30, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.