Upon pushing start/stop button, CR-V won't start. It's at random times the issue happens. Battery was replaced in the last 6 months. 9/23. Still having issues. Replaced the actual start/stop push button in the cabin. Still having issues. After taking CR-V to Honda dealership, they were able to reproduce the issue and it was dete…
Read full complaint
Upon pushing start/stop button, CR-V won't start. It's at random times the issue happens. Battery was replaced in the last 6 months. 9/23. Still having issues. Replaced the actual start/stop push button in the cabin. Still having issues. After taking CR-V to Honda dealership, they were able to reproduce the issue and it was determined the starter needs replaced. This SUV has only 77k miles. If you would like more proof as to why this issue for the 2015 needs to have a recall, I would gladly guide you over to the Honda CR-V owner's club and provide numerous posts of people who have replaced their starter specifically in a 2015 with mileage under 80k. A current coworker is experiencing the same issue on his 2015 CR-V EX as well, also in the 70k mileage range. If the reason couldn't be more obvious as to why this is a safety issue, starter failure would leave people stranded.
NHTSA ODI #11601804
Mileage unknown · Jun 4, 2024
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
For the very first time I've noticed that my car won't start in a normal way. It was a couple of months ago. It was driving fine back then. Two weeks ago, not only my car won't start many lights came on including the engine service light. I took my car to Columbia Honda dealership; they only tested my battery and told me the b…
Read full complaint
For the very first time I've noticed that my car won't start in a normal way. It was a couple of months ago. It was driving fine back then. Two weeks ago, not only my car won't start many lights came on including the engine service light. I took my car to Columbia Honda dealership; they only tested my battery and told me the battery was fine. So, they let me go. On [XXX] my car experienced the same symptoms but this time besides all these lights that came on, my car was not accelerating, just started stalling, therefore I had to take it to the closest shop which is Custom complete automotive that is 0.5 miles away from me. At first, they weren't able to identify the issue, but they found a service bulletin issued by Honda on March 18 , 2016,(please find it attached to my email) according to which there were multiple complaints from the Honda customers about the same issues that are connected to each other. Those are: crank sensor malfunction, O-ring, Intake manifold gasket A, Engine Wire Harness. Based on this Bulletin, Custom complete automotive manager Kyle recommended that all those parts needed to be replaced but the repair cost is enormous so I've decided only on the crank sensor to be replaced so that I can proceed with further repairs while be able to drive my car (I've attached the Invoice from Custom automotive for the crankshaft sensor including their labor work and diagnostics). Last night same symptoms appeared (car won't start and was stalling) and I took it to Honda service again. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11592370
50,000 miles · May 29, 2024
Electrical System
The contact owns a 2015 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while operating the vehicle, the vehicle would randomly go into "Accessory Mode". During the failure, the vehicle could not be turned off or shifted into gear. The gear shifter was not functional, and the battery had to be disconnected to turn the vehicle off. The vehic…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2015 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while operating the vehicle, the vehicle would randomly go into "Accessory Mode". During the failure, the vehicle could not be turned off or shifted into gear. The gear shifter was not functional, and the battery had to be disconnected to turn the vehicle off. The vehicle was towed to the local dealer on several occasions and the computer, battery, remote starter, and starter were replaced; however, the failures persisted. The cause of the failure was not yet determined, and the vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 50,000.
NHTSA ODI #11591208
Mileage unknown · Feb 10, 2024
Electrical System
The starter button must be pressed multiple times to start the vehicle. Have had an attempted repaired twice and problem persists. I understand there is a recall for this problem in other countries.
NHTSA ODI #11571188
Mileage unknown · Nov 18, 2023
Electrical SystemEngine
We’ve noticed over the pass several weeks starting the engine issues. After fully turning the key to start, the vehicle wouldn’t engage. The dashboard lights up but the car do not start. At first it would start in the second attempt but recently it takes up to (3) attempts before it starts
NHTSA ODI #11555764
Mileage unknown · Nov 1, 2023
Electrical System
I have a 2015 Honda CRV and approximately 18-24 months ago the battery went dead and I took it to the Honda dealer. They checked the battery and said it was fine. I thought perhaps I left my lights on. A short time later, the battery went dead again. I took it back to the same dealer (February 19, 2022) and they gave me a new…
Read full complaint
I have a 2015 Honda CRV and approximately 18-24 months ago the battery went dead and I took it to the Honda dealer. They checked the battery and said it was fine. I thought perhaps I left my lights on. A short time later, the battery went dead again. I took it back to the same dealer (February 19, 2022) and they gave me a new battery. A short time later, the battery went dead yet again. I returned to the dealer (August 1, 2022) and they gave me a second battery. A short time later, it went dead again. I returned to the dealer (October 26, 2022), insisting to them it couldn't be the battery - there must be something else wrong. They completed a parasitic draw procedure, charged $939.67 and claimed to have fixed it. A short time later, the battery went dead yet again. I returned to the dealer (November 16, 2022) and the service manager told me there was nothing more they could do, they already spent countless time on this issue and that I just needed to drive the car more. On October 13, 2023, the battery went dead yet again. This time, I contacted Honda Customer Service and was assigned a case manager who proceeded to tell me that I needed to go back to the dealer and obtain a diagnosis before they could help me. On October 31, 2023, I contacted the service manager at the dealer who told me he was going to charge me by the hour and that the diagnosis may take many hours to determine. There is clearly a defect with this car! There is a class action lawsuit pending which includes many, many prior complaints made to NHTSA on this issue. I am not motivated to continue to pay a dealer to fix an issue that apparently should have been solved by a product recall.
NHTSA ODI #11553109
Mileage unknown · Sep 20, 2023
Electrical System
Doors lock and unlock by themselves all the time
NHTSA ODI #11545703
Mileage unknown · Jun 7, 2023
Electrical System
5/28/2023: Vehicle won’t start, AAA called and towed it to repair facility where they claimed they fixed the issue (battery replacement) 6/01/2023: Vehicle traveling WB SR520, where all dashboard warning lights started illuminating. At the same time, steering wheel locks up and infotainment screen shuts off. Was able to get veh…
Read full complaint
5/28/2023: Vehicle won’t start, AAA called and towed it to repair facility where they claimed they fixed the issue (battery replacement) 6/01/2023: Vehicle traveling WB SR520, where all dashboard warning lights started illuminating. At the same time, steering wheel locks up and infotainment screen shuts off. Was able to get vehicle off the freeway and onto the shoulder of a nearby exit ramp where it eventually died. Called AAA again and had it towed back to the repair facility once again, where this time, the alternator failed.
NHTSA ODI #11525924
Mileage unknown · Apr 9, 2023
Electrical SystemUnknown Or Other
My vehicle has had multiple parasitic battery events where the battery has been completely drained overnight. I have replaced the battery six times since May of 2022. I took my vehicle to my auto repair shop and they checked every fuse in the vehicle and could not find the problem. The shop called the Honda Dealer service cen…
Read full complaint
My vehicle has had multiple parasitic battery events where the battery has been completely drained overnight. I have replaced the battery six times since May of 2022. I took my vehicle to my auto repair shop and they checked every fuse in the vehicle and could not find the problem. The shop called the Honda Dealer service center to get advice on what the problem might be and the dealer was unable to provide any recommended solution. I suspect the problem has something to do with a faulty automatic door lock/unlock system. When I approach the vehicle with my key fob, the vehicle will unlock the doors without me touching the door handle. When I get out of the car and push the button on the door handle to lock the doors it does lock, however as I walk away from the car, the doors unlock without me touching the door handle or any part of the car.
NHTSA ODI #11516180
Mileage unknown · Dec 15, 2022
Electrical System
There is a current active class action lawsuit against Honda motors regarding the battery draining issue in Honda CRV'S. The case is in the United States District Court southern district of Iowa central division. Case # [XXX]. The lawsuit mentions Honda CRV'S dating back to 2017. My wife owns a 2015 Honda CRV that has the same e…
Read full complaint
There is a current active class action lawsuit against Honda motors regarding the battery draining issue in Honda CRV'S. The case is in the United States District Court southern district of Iowa central division. Case # [XXX]. The lawsuit mentions Honda CRV'S dating back to 2017. My wife owns a 2015 Honda CRV that has the same exact battery draining issue. Her CRV was recalled in 2018 for a software update that was supposed to correct the issue but it didn't. Since 2018 my wife and I have had to replace the battery 3 times in 4 years. On November 16th, 2022 we replaced the battery with a new one and just 19 days later that brand new battery was dead. This Honda battery draining defect obviously goes further back than 2017. Honda dealerships along with Honda motors are aware of this problem and doing absolutely nothing about this. INFORMATION Redacted PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain 2013-2023 Honda Accord, Civic Coupe, Civic Sedan, Civic Hatchback, Civic Type R, CR-V, HR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey, Acura ILX, MDX, MDX Hybrid, RDX, RLX, TLX, 2019-2022 Honda Insight, Passport, 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid, 2018-2019 Honda Clarity PHEV, Fit, and 2015-2020 Honda Accord Hybrid, Pilot, Acura NSX vehicles. The fuel pump inside the fuel tank may fail.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Fuel pump failure can cause an engine stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will replace the fuel pump module, free of charge. Owner letters were mailed September 6, 2024. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's numbers for this recall are KGC and KGD. This recall is an expansion of NHTSA recall numbers 21V-215 and 20V-314.
Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain 2015-2016 Honda CR-V vehicles that recently received a replacement engine. The replacement engine may have been built with the wrong pistons, potentially affecting the engine's performance.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: The reduced performance may result in an engine stall, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the engines and replace the incorrect components, as necessary, free of charge. The recall began June 20, 2017. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's number for this recall is KF6.
American Honda Motor Co. (Honda) is recalling certain model year 2014 Accord L4 vehicles manufactured July 29, 2014, to July 31, 2014, 2015 Accord L4 vehicles manufactured August 14, 2014, to January 30, 2015, and 2015 CR-V vehicles manufactured September 9, 2014, to February 6, 2015. The affected vehicles may have been assembled with improperly torqued connecting rod bolts, which can cause the engine to lose power or leak oil.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Loss of engine power may result in a vehicle stall, increasing the risk of a crash. If the engine leaks oil in the proximity of hot engine or exhaust components, there is an increased risk of a fire.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will replace the engine short block, free of charge. The recall began on March 27, 2015. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's number for this recall is JP2 (for Accord models) and JP3 (for CR-V models).
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
2
EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA19001 · Electrical Overstress
Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.