[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34571-34572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13704]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0118; Notice 2]
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (KMC), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2020-2021 Kawasaki ZR900F and ZRT00K
motorcycles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. KMC filed a
noncompliance report dated November 16, 2020. KMC simultaneously
petitioned NHTSA on November 16, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces the grant of KMC's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Ulbricht, Compliance Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-4691.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: KMC has determined that certain MY 2020 2021 Kawasaki
ZR900F and ZRT00K motorcycles do not fully comply with the requirements
of paragraph S5.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and
Displays (49 CFR 571.123). KMC filed a noncompliance report dated
November 16, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. KMC simultaneously petitioned
NHTSA on November 16, 2020, 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 KMC's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 23, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 21787). 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-2020-0118.''
II. Motorcycles Involved: Approximately 2,302 MY 2020-2021 Kawasaki
ZR900F and ZRT00K motorcycles, manufactured between December 4, 2019,
and November 2, 2020, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: KMC explains the noncompliance is that the
subject motorcycles are equipped with ignition switches that use the
ISO identification symbol to identify the off position instead of the
word ``Off'' as specified in paragraph S5.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 123.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 5.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 123 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. If an item of equipment
listed in Table 3, Column 1 of FMVSS No. 123 is provided, the item and
its operational function shall be identified by (b) Wording shown in
both Column 2 and Column 4. In this case, Table 3, No. 1, shows the
Control and Display Identification Word ``Ignition'' and the
Identification at Appropriate Position of Control and Display as
``Off''.
V. Summary of KMC's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of KMC's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by KMC. KMC describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
KMC explains that the ignition switch for the affected motorcycles
is located in a pod directly in front of the operator, near the fuel
filler opening on top of the fuel tank and is operated by an ignition
key. The ignition switch is enclosed by a plastic cover that designates
each position with a corresponding symbol. KMC's petition includes
illustrations of each of these symbols. Sequentially in a clockwise
direction, the symbols represent the following positions: (1) the front
wheel of the motorcycle is locked in position when parked, (2) the
ignition is disabled, and (3) the ignition is enabled. KMC says that
the button that operates the starter motor is positioned on the
handlebar, as opposed to the standard automotive practice of having the
ignition switch operate the starter motor. A separate starting button
must be pressed after inserting the key into the switch and turning the
ignition to the ``on'' position in order to start the subject
motorcycle. KMC claims that if an operator of the subject motorcycle
only used the ignition switch, they would not be able to inadvertently
start the engine. KMC notes that the owner's manual provided with the
subject motorcycle instructs the operator to turn the ignition key to
the correct symbol in order to stop the engine and provides an
illustration of that symbol. Additionally, KMC says that the engine's
stop switch on the handlebar of the subject
[[Page 34572]]
motorcycles can also be used to turn off the motorcycle's engine.
According to KMC, the absence of the ``Off'' identification for the
ignition is not consequential to safety. KMC contends that operators of
the subject motorcycles are knowledgeable with the function, location,
and operation of the ignition switch, as well as the ignition key. KMC
believes that the location of the engine's stop switch, along with the
operator's familiarity with the engine start switch, means that the
operator is familiar with the location of the engine stop switch.
KMC concludes 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.
VI. 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.\1\ 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, including
riders, have not experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that
there will not be safety issues in the future.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
\2\ 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 have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\3\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\4\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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).
\4\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has identified that the subject motorcycles use an ISO symbol
in place of the word ``Off'' on the ignition switch. This configuration
deviates from the requirements of FMVSS No. 123, S5.2.3, which
stipulates the use of the word ``Off'' at the ignition-off position on
motorcycle ignition switches.
As detailed in the petition, the affected motorcycles are equipped
with ignition switches consistent with the control and display
identification requirements in FMVSS No. 123, except for using the ISO
symbol instead of ``Off.''
The ignition switch's clear design, as described in the Petition,
suggests ease of use, even for riders unfamiliar with these models. The
ignition-off position is one of only two switch positions, accessible
through normal key rotation, reducing the likelihood of confusion or
error in identifying the correct switch position for stopping the
engine. In the absence of a larger selection of switch positions, it
would not be possible for an operator to select another key position
except Off (labeled with the ISO symbol in this case) when the
motorcycle is running.
NHTSA concludes that KMC's noncompliance does not pose a
consequential vehicle safety concern. Notably, as required for all
motorcycles under FMVSS No. 123, the subject Kawasaki motorcycles are
equipped with an engine kill switch located on the right handlebar.
This placement allows the motorcycle operator an alternative means to
shut off the engine without moving their hand from the handgrip.
Utilizing the kill switch is a secondary safety measure, providing
operators with a quick alternative to the ignition switch for shutting
off the engine in urgent situations. Consequently, the absence of the
``Off'' label on the ignition switch should not impede the immediate
shut-down of the engine.
Given the ignition switch's two-position design and the presence of
the engine kill switch, NHTSA determines that the non-standard labeling
of the ignition switch does not significantly compromise operational
safety. The design elements of the ignition switch, combined with the
additional safety feature of the engine kill switch, ensure that the
risk associated with the non-standard labeling is effectively
mitigated, upholding the overall safety of the motorcycle operation.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that KMC has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 123 noncompliance in the affected motorcycles is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, KMC's petition is hereby granted and
KMC is consequently exempted 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 motorcycles that KMC no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve motorcycle 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 KMC 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. 2025-13704 Filed 7-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P