Fisker preliminary evaluation PE24013
Inadvertent Automatic Emergency Braking. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the automatic emergency braking on 1 model year (2023). Opened May 8, 2024, closed Jan 16, 2025 after 8 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn May 8, 2024, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE24013 to investigate reports of inadvertent activation of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system in model year (MY) 2023 Fisker Ocean vehicles manufactured by Fisker Group Inc. (Fisker). The complaints allege the activation of AEB without an apparent roadway obstruction in the vehicle’s forward path, resulting in sudden vehicle deceleration. This sudden deceleration occurs without adequate warning or input from the driver. The braking applications range from momentary, partial application resulting in rapid loss of speed to full application, which brings the vehicle to a complete stop in the travel lane. ODI sent Fisker an Information Request (IR) letter on May 20, 2024. On June 17 and 19, 2024, Fisker and its affiliates filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Fisker provided an incomplete response to the IR on July 1, 2024. Limited information pertaining to system validation and failure data was provided. Fisker subsequently requested more time to provide additional responsive files due to limited available resources. Fisker sent additional responsive files on September 9, 2024, September 17, 2024, and December 16, 2024, but Fisker’s response did not contain sufficient information for ODI to fully evaluate the alleged safety defect. Further, on December 27, 2024, the Fisker employees with whom ODI had been corresponding informed ODI that all Fisker employees were being “dismissed” as of that date. ODI therefore does not anticipate receiving any further responsive submissions such that it can fully evaluate the reports that led to this investigation. ODI performed phone interviews and sent a survey to consumers to obtain more information and validate the allegations. Additionally, ODI reviewed allegations of the alleged safety defect that were submitted to various online forums. Most of these reports were similar in nature to the reports received by ODI. Some of the reports in online forums appear to be duplicative reports that were also submitted to ODI. Based on the responses received and analysis of similar online reporting, there was no clear trend in the following factors pertaining to the allegations: reoccurrence of events (i.e., single or multiple incidents), speed immediately prior to the event, whether the event concluded in a reduction of speed or a full stop, roadway conditions, and warning immediately prior to the event. To date, between the reports provided by Fisker and complaints made directly to the agency, ODI is aware of over 20 reports alleging inadvertent AEB activation. Before the employees were dismissed, Fisker’s testing done in response to the inadvertent AEB allegations reportedly did not result in any inadvertent AEB activations. The “Manufacturer” and “Total” counts in the above table have been left blank because of a pending request for confidential treatment by Fisker that could not be timely addressed given the company’s status. This information factored into ODI’s investigation and analysis. The available information does not warrant further action at this time. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. Additionally, the Agency notes that the Vehicle Safety Act states: “A manufacturer’s filing of a petition in bankruptcy under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of title 11 does not negate the manufacturer’s duty to comply with section 30112 or sections 30115 through 30120 of this title,” which include the recall provisions of the Act. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
A Preliminary Evaluation is the first formal stage: NHTSA has decided the complaints and other information it screened are worth a closer look, and asks the manufacturer for its own data on the condition. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2024 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2024 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2024 | |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2024 | 16 files 12345678910111213141516 |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2024 | 3 files 123 |
| Memo to the investigation file | INME | 2024 | |
| Filed document | INOV | 2024 | |
| Filed document | INCV | 2024 |
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What owners had already reported
Source: complaints on file the day it openedWhen NHTSA opened this on May 8, 2024, owners had filed 267 complaints with the agency about the model years above, of which 44 named the forward collision avoidance NHTSA went on to investigate. Owner complaints are the agency’s main early signal: ODI screens them, and a Preliminary Evaluation is usually where a pattern in them ends up.
This is what the complaint file held on that date, not a claim about which reports prompted the investigation — NHTSA’s complaint records carry no investigation number, so nobody can make that link from the data alone. The opening resume linked above names the reports ODI itself cited. Complaint records on this site begin with 2016.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themA vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs PE24013 a recall?
No. A preliminary evaluation is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is PE24013 still open?
No. It closed on Jan 16, 2025 without a recall.
Which vehicles does PE24013 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 1 model year: 2023 Fisker Ocean. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.