[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17105-17115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8520]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect
Petition, DP01-003
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Partial grant and partial denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the partial grant and
partial denial of a petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162,
requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the
existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The petition is
hereinafter identified as DP01-003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Squire, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone 202-493-0212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mr. James J. Johnston, President of the
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA), submitted
a petition to NHTSA by letter dated March 21, 2001, requesting that an
investigation be initiated to determine whether to issue an order
concerning safety defects in model year 1989 through 2000 Volvo heavy
trucks (subject trucks). The petition is extremely broad in that the
petitioner alleges multiple defects on more than 30 models of Volvo
trucks produced over a span of 12 model years.
The petition identified alleged deficiencies in nine areas. Those
areas were identified as: (1) Shaking and vibration in the front end;
(2) steering problems; (3) premature front tire wear; (4) wheel
alignment problems; (5) problems with axle parts, including an
overweight condition on the steering axle; (6) suspension problems; (7)
transmission and clutch problems; (8) problems with the engine,
including unintended ``racing'' or ``shutting down,'' and (9)
electrical problems.
The OOIDA petition and subsequent information forwarded to the
NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) contained complaints from
180 persons. A review of the ODI database for additional complaints
pertaining to the alleged defects on the subject trucks revealed an
additional 41 complainants. Many of the complainants cited multiple
problems with one or more subject trucks. To assist with evaluation of
the petition, ODI staff communicated directly with approximately 74
persons, including representatives of 13 fleet operations.
Review of the OOIDA and ODI data revealed that approximately 92% of
the complaints involved model year 1995 and newer subject trucks.
Eighteen complaints involved model year 1994 subject trucks, while 11
complaints involved model year 1993 and older subject trucks.
Unfortunately, many complaints failed to identify the vehicle model,
model year and/or vehicle identification number. Although this lack of
information hampered the analysis, data from these complaints were
nonetheless reviewed to the fullest extent possible.
After conducting an extensive review of the issues raised in the
petition, NHTSA has granted it with respect to the following issues:
1. Alleged steering defects on model year 1998 through 2000 VN-610,
660, and 770 series trucks regarding ``lock up,'' ``binding,'' or
``pulling'' of the
[[Page 17106]]
steering system. An investigation has been opened (PE01-041).
2. Alleged front axle component failure regarding steer axle U-
bolts on model year 1998 through 2000 VN-610, 660, and 770 series
trucks. An investigation has been opened (PE01-042). An alleged defect
with respect to the drive or rear axle U-bolts was previously under way
(EA01-011).
The allegations regarding the scope of Volvo's recall to address
front axle overweight conditions on model year 1998 through 2001 VN-
series trucks is being addressed through a Recall Audit (AQ02-018).
It is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification
and remedy of the other alleged defects as defined by the petitioner
for the subject vehicles at the conclusion of the investigation
requested in the petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate
and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the
agency's safety mission, the petition is denied with respect to the
remaining allegations. However, information obtained by the agency
during its evaluation of the petition has led it to open an
investigation with respect to alleged electrical problems potentially
leading to fires in the sleeper berth of model year 1998 through 2000
VN-610, 660, and 770 series trucks. An investigation has been opened
(PE01-040).
A description of NHTSA's analysis of the issues raised by the
petition and the reasons for its decisions are set forth in an Addendum
to this notice.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: April 1, 2002.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
DP01-003 Addendum
In March 2001, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc., (OOIDA) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to investigate numerous alleged defects on all
Volvo truck tractors manufactured between the years of 1989 and 2000.
The complaints provided in the OOIDA petition and those extracted from
the NHTSA database were often vague and provided few details to assist
with conclusively identifying an allegedly defective component. The
petition itself was extremely broad and appeared to cover almost every
system on the subject trucks.
Evaluation of the petition involved the review of information
provided by approximately 180 complaints submitted by OOIDA on behalf
of Volvo truck owners. Complaints from an additional 41 (non duplicate)
complainants contained within the NHTSA database were likewise
reviewed. Since July 1, 2001, no additional complaints have been
received through OOIDA; however, individual owners have contacted the
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) directly. ODI staff interviewed a
total of 74 individuals, including 13 fleet \1\ representatives, by
telephone. These individual contacts increased the original number of
complainants by 64 for a total of 285.\2\ Some complainants owned more
than one truck (not counted as a fleet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fleet sizes ranged from 5 to 500 vehicles. See contact sheet
in DP01-003.
\2\ Not all owners interviewed had complaints nor were they
dissatisfied with their vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition claimed that the problems spanned twelve model years,
1989 through 2000. Review of the complaints, however, revealed that
most involved recent model year (MY) trucks, MY 1994 and newer. Vehicle
model and model year could not be identified for approximately 4% of
the complaints. The table below illustrates the percent of complaints
within various vehicle model year ranges.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.002
The OOIDA petition divided the complaints into nine general
categories: Vibration (front-end); Steering; Premature front tire wear;
Wheel alignment; Axle (components and gross axle weight); Suspension;
Transmission (clutch); Engine; and Electrical. The table below
illustrates the source of each complaint alleged within each area.
[[Page 17107]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.003
Additional information regarding each complaint area is provided
below. A breakdown by vehicle model and model year is also provided for
each complaint area.
Complaint 1--Shaking and vibration through the front of the truck
(36 complaints). Although this was a recurring complaint, analysis of
the written complaints and telephone interviews failed to establish a
specific causal factor. Although ``front end'' vibration was referred
to in the OOIDA petition, interviews revealed that vibration complaints
also included the driveline and rear axles. Interviews with individual
owners illustrated that this complaint was subjective in nature and
often was dependant upon the driver's expectations. Fleet operators
tended to have fewer complaints than owner/operators and specifically
noted that they tended to adhere to regular maintenance schedules. The
majority of complaints involved tractors with integral sleeper berth
units.
A complaint of front-end vibration frequently accompanied a report
of excessive front axle weight and/or premature front axle tire wear.
There was no indication that this condition rendered the vehicle
uncontrollable or created a significant risk to safety. No further
action on this issue will be taken.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.004
[[Page 17108]]
Complaint 2--Steering deficiencies (24 complaints). Some recurring
problems with the steering system on model year 1998 and newer trucks
were alleged. The OOIDA petition alleged that Volvo trucks were prone
to steering problems and cited 45 complaints related to ``steering.''
In addition, ``excessive sway'' and ``road wander'' were terms used to
describe a steering deficiency. Unfortunately, detailed information was
lacking in many of the complaints. Analysis of the complaints revealed
a total of 24 complaints with sufficient information to indicate a
potential problem related to the steering system (this total excludes
one fleet that reported problems with multiple vehicles).\3\ In all but
two cases, the problems involved VN-model trucks. A majority of the
complaints involved the 770 model, Volvo's heaviest tractor. In
addition to the VN-models, two complaints regarding the WIA model were
received, one from a MY 1996 vehicle and one from a MY 1997 vehicle.
The complaints noted one of several symptoms, including: steering wheel
or shaft binding, steering lock-up, steering ``pull,'' and steering
gear box leak or failure. The table below provides a summary of these
complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The fleet representative stated that this occurred on
``several'' vehicles, but was unable to provide specific vehicle
information at the time of the conversation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.005
The evaluation of steering complaints also led to contact with an
engineering firm that reportedly has investigated approximately 11-12
collisions involving VN-series trucks where a steering defect is
suspected. In addition to speaking with a representative of the
engineering firm, 18 of the ``steering problem'' complainants were
contacted.
An investigation of this issue has been opened.
Complaint 3--Premature tire wear (118 complaints). This complaint
was the predominant recurring issue. Nearly all the complainants were
owner-operators, with one fleet operator reporting tire wear problems
with the steering axle tires. Most complainants generally reported
50,000 to 80,000 miles of operation before tire replacement was
necessary. Many complainants reported unusual ``cupping,''
scalloping,'' or edge wear. In a majority of cases owners blamed heavy
front-end weight for the wear. In March 2001, Volvo initiated a recall
(NHTSA #01V-093) to address the front axle weight problem. Evaluation
of the OOIDA petition failed to identify a representative number of
vehicles that had undergone repairs per recall 01V-093 to assess
whether the remedy improved tire wear. The issue of the scope of that
recall is being considered in a Recall Audit (AQ02-018). Tire wear was
cited not as a safety issue, but one of economics. Owners reported that
tire purchases tended to be one of the most costly recurring expenses
they faced.
In view of the apparent lack of a safety issue, no further action
on this issue will be taken.
[[Page 17109]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.006
Complaint 4--Wheel alignment problems (52 complaints). Although
there were a few complaints that wheel alignment could not be
maintained, few specifics were provided to indicate a probable cause.
Alignment complaints typically coincided with tire wear and front axle
weight distribution complaints. In some situations where owners
reported alignment problems, they also reported problems with axle U-
bolts. In many cases the U-bolts were found to be loose or fractured at
the time the wheel alignment was performed. In the interviews conducted
by ODI staff, only four (4) complainants reported having difficulty
keeping the vehicle ``in alignment.'' A substantial number of
complainants reported having repeated alignment procedures completed in
an attempt to correct problems with steer axle tire wear or vibration.
These complainants reported no problem with the vehicle retaining
alignment. Although complainants frequently equated poor alignment with
tire wear and ``lane drift'' or ``road wander,'' the issue of
``alignment'' did not appear to raise safety concerns. Complainants
reported having full control of their vehicles, and no crashes or
injuries were reportedly related to this issue. No further action on
this issue will be taken.
[[Page 17110]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.007
Complaint 5--Axle problems (238 complaints, total). This complaint
area was divided into two parts. One area focused solely on (A) axle
components and the other on (B) steer axle weight. The OOIDA petition
alleged that Volvo trucks were prone to failure of axle components,
thereby increasing the risk of a crash and compromising safety.
Analysis of the complaints indicated that the only axle parts subject
to alleged failures were the axle U-bolts and steer axle wheel
bearings.
(A1) Axle Component: U-Bolt (22 complaints). A review of the OOIDA
petition and NHTSA database at the time the petition was submitted
revealed a total of 10 complaints alleging defective axle U-bolts,
primarily on model year 1995 through 2000 Volvo trucks. Specific models
mentioned included the WIA and VN-series trucks. During the petition
evaluation, twelve (12) additional complainants alleging defective axle
U-bolts were identified and interviewed. These complaints all involved
the VN-series truck.
During the petition evaluation, it was observed that the occurrence
rate for failure or problem with the front axle U-bolts exceeded that
of the drive axle. Drive axle U-bolt failure is currently the subject
of an Engineering Analysis, EA01-011. The scope of this investigation
involves the drive axle U-bolt assemblies on model year 1996 through
2000 Volvo trucks.
Several complainants alleging defective U-bolts were interviewed
during the petition evaluation. Most complained of a recurrent
loosening of the U-bolts, with eventual fracturing. Statements provided
by some complainants suggested that loosening of the U-bolt is a
precursor to failure. Some complainants reported hearing a ``popping''
or ``clunking'' noise, particularly during turning maneuvers.
Subsequent inspection frequently revealed loose steer axle U-bolts. The
Volvo owner's manual guide to service recommends checking the torque of
the U-bolts at 15,000-mile intervals. Nearly all complainants reported
never experiencing loose U-bolt conditions with other vehicle makes.
U-bolt failure can lead to a displacement of the axle and increase
the potential for a crash. At least one incident of steer axle U-bolt
failure allegedly led to a crash. James Gardiner reported that while
operating at highway speed, his truck unexpectedly veered to the right,
departed the highway, and overturned. A post-collision inspection
revealed a fractured right steer axle U-bolt. Gardiner believes that
the fracturing of the U-bolt resulted in a rearward displacement of the
steer axle on the right side. He believes this caused the vehicle to
depart the highway.
Available information indicates that nearly all U-bolt complaints
and failures involve MY 1998 through 2000 VN series trucks. An
investigation of this issue with respect to those vehicles has been
opened.
(A2) Steering Axle Wheel Bearings (106 complaints). A review of the
OOIDA petition and NHTSA database at the time the petition was
submitted revealed a total of 106 complaints alleging defective steer
axle wheel bearings. The complaints involved model year 1998 through
2000 VN 610, 660, and 770 models with only one complaint outside this
range, a model year 1994 WIA.
Complainants alleging wheel bearing failure described one of
several symptoms. Symptoms included loose wheel bearings at the time of
vehicle delivery, accelerated wear, and/or complete failure leading to
the loss of a wheel. Of the 106 complaints, 103 originated with a
single fleet, so there were only four different complainants.
Even though many of the complainants contacted during the petition
evaluation did not complain of steer axle wheel bearing failure, they
did report recurrent front-end work to correct tire wear problems. Most
reported repeated procedures involving removal of the wheel and/or
retorquing of the wheel bearings.
Consultation with local Volvo service managers and technicians
failed to reveal any additional information or acknowledgement of
problems. In a worst-case scenario, the failure of a steer axle wheel
bearing can result in wheel separation and the potential for a crash.
However, no crashes, injuries, or fatalities have been reported
involving bearing failure on these Volvo trucks. Volvo trucks exhibited
no previous recalls or investigations related to this issue.
The available information does not warrant opening an investigation
of this issue at this time.
[[Page 17111]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.008
(B) Steering Axle Weight (110 complaints). The OOIDA petition
alleged that Volvo trucks were prone to an overweight condition on the
steer axle. Evaluation of the complaints revealed that with few
exceptions, this complaint typically involved the newer VN series
trucks. An overwhelming majority of the complaints involved the 770
model, Volvo's largest tractor with an integral sleeper. Complaint
review, personal interviews and field studies have revealed, however,
that model series 610 and 660 vehicles are also often operated in an
overweight condition.
A total of 110 complaints alleging an overweight condition on the
front axle were reviewed. The OOIDA petition had listed 66 individual
complaints of a steer axle overweight condition. Unfortunately, many of
the OOIDA complaints contained few specifics regarding the
interpretation of ``overweight.'' ODI contacted 47 complainants who
specifically noted that the actual axle weight exceeded the front axle
weight rating (GAWR--gross axle weight rating). These complainants
reported that the actual axle weight ranged from 12,400 to 13,500
pounds. For most vehicles the front GAWR was 12,350 pounds. A total of
17 complainants provided copies of scale tickets exhibiting an
overweight condition.
Review of the complaint documents and personal interviews with
owners revealed differing interpretations for defining an overweight
condition on the steer axle. Many owners tended to define an ideal
weight condition based upon past experience or the restrictions of
individual states. Many owner/drivers reported the desire to keep the
front axle weight below 12,000 pounds and defined an overweight
condition as any weight in excess of this number. Regarding state
highway restrictions, five states\4\ reportedly restrict the gross
front axle weight to 12,000 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ According to the 2001 edition of Transport Topics Size &
Weight Update (American Trucking Associations), the following states
restrict the gross front axle weight to 12,000 pounds--Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, and Kentucky. Some states impose
additional restrictions limiting tire gross weight to the product of
a specified number of pounds per inch of tread width.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal regulations require the manufacturer to install a label
specifying the GAWR. The GAWR should not exceed the weight rating of
the weakest individual axle component, including the tires. According
to Volvo, the GAWR is based on the component with the lowest load
capacity inclusive of the tires, wheels, suspension, brakes, and other
axle components. In most cases the GAWR is equal to the tire load
capacity. Through a review of the complaints and conversations with
owners, front axle gross weight ratings specified on the Federal label
exhibited a range between 11,620 and 12,350 pounds.
In April 2001, Nick Barber petitioned NHTSA concerning the adequacy
of Volvo's actions with respect to Recall 01V-093 \5\ (DP01-006). This
petition challenges the effectiveness and scope of recall 01V-093 and
alleges other problems with regard to establishing the weight
distribution on VN model trucks. Since filing his petition with NHTSA,
Mr. Barber has provided information on approximately 100 trucks
(including having owners contact NHTSA directly). It was through these
contacts that the overweight issue was more precisely defined. All of
the ``confirmed'' overweight cases involved VN 610, 660, and 770 model
trucks. Overweight complaints existed across all three model lines;
however, the 770 models exhibited the greatest number of complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In March 2001, Volvo initiated recall RVXX0103 (NHTSA 01V-
093), applicable to 1,577 VN model trucks, stating that ``under
certain operating conditions, the weight certification label which
contains the front GAWR information . . . does not accurately
reflect the actual front gross axle weight.'' The recall involves
trucks manufactured between 11/22/97 and 08/28/99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo states that the front axle weight should be measured with the
vehicle fully fueled and in a bobtail (no trailer) configuration.
Allowances are also made for the driver and personal cargo. Some of the
``overweight'' vehicles were weighed with trailers and/or auxiliary
equipment installed on the tractor.
Nearly all complainants reported that when the tractor is coupled
to a trailer under any load, the 5th wheel must be at the full aft
position to maintain a front axle weight less than the GAWR. Some
drivers complained, however, that the ``full aft'' 5th wheel position
creates additional problems. They cite the large gap between the
tractor and trailer as being responsible for decreased fuel efficiency.
The use of only one position on a moveable 5th wheel also negates
[[Page 17112]]
the advantage of moving the coupler to further distribute axle loads.
Volvo contends that the addition of auxiliary equipment (tools boxes,
cab protection devices, generators, etc.) could increase the front axle
weight and therefore discourages and accepts no responsibility if such
additions are made. Owners, however, have stated that some installation
of the auxiliary equipment is performed or facilitated by the dealer.
In other instances, owners report that they informed the dealer of the
additions at the time of purchase.
NHTSA granted DP01-006 after evaluating the issues raised in that
petition and has opened a Recall Audit (AQ02-018).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.009
Complaint 6--Suspension problems (12 complaints). This issue
involves many of the same issues raised in the axle component
complaints. Most complaints also cited vibration, alignment, and
premature steer axle tire wear as being suspension related. Regarding
this issue, no failed components, other than axle U-bolts, were
identified. As such, no specific suspension problems were identified.
The number of complaints citing suspension problems is tallied in the
table below. No further action on this issue will be taken.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.010
Complaint 7--Transmission and clutch problems (20 complaints).
There were a few complaints of transmission failure; however, all but
one of the owners interviewed reported that the transmission was
replaced under warranty. Two owners complained of difficulty with
shifting and another reported that the transmission shifted into the
wrong gear. Two owners complained of the transmission overheating. None
of the transmission complaints indicated that the situation presented a
recurring safety hazard. There were no reports of collisions or
injuries related to this issue.
Regarding clutch complaints, most complainants reported premature
wear
[[Page 17113]]
requiring expensive replacement. Other complaints noted that the clutch
required repeated adjustment. None of the complaints indicated that a
hazard to safety existed. No further action on this issue will be
taken.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.011
Complaint 8--Engine defects (5 complaints). Very few complaints
alleged engine problems and none exhibited any trend that could be
considered a hazard to safety. The OOIDA petition specifically noted
unexpected ``acceleration'' and ``shut down'' (stalling) as issues of
contention. One complaint noted the occurrence of engine ``rev up''
while at idle while most of the engine problems cited poor wiring
connections leading to difficult starting or rough idle. No trend
regarding engine problems was observed. No further action on this issue
will be taken.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.012
Complaint 9--Electrical defects (65 complaints). A substantial
number of complaints noted ``electrical problems.'' Of the OOIDA
petition complaints that contained specific information, most defined
electrical problems with the ``instrumentation'' or ``dash.'' These
issues were analyzed in greater detail through vehicle owner and truck
service center interviews. Nearly all instrument problems appeared to
be related to the ``SmartDash'' or vehicle management display and
instrument panel lighting.
The SmartDash component at issue is a small LCD screen located on
the instrument panel that displays a range of information to the
driver. The unit provides information such as miles per gallon, trip
time, axle and coolant temperature, diagnostic fault codes, and other
information. Volvo representatives have acknowledged that the display
screen on model year 1998 through 2000 vehicles is subject to failure.
They report that a quality control problem with the vendor necessitated
a change in the unit's design and construction (new vendor). Volvo
identifies this unit as an accessory item and notes that all crucial
gauges are duplicated in analog form elsewhere on the dash. This
complaint was common among both individual and fleet owners and
comprised about 38% of the complaints expressed through telephone
interviews.
Instrument panel lighting was another recurring electrical-related
complaint. Regarding this complaint, many owners, including at least
three fleets, reported recurrent problems with instrument panel
lighting prematurely ``burning out'' or experiencing poor electrical
connections. This problem was cited in approximately 11% of the
complaints expressed through telephone interviews. None of the
complainants reported simultaneous failure of all instrument lighting.
They complained that lamp replacement was needed every other month or
so. Some complainants also noted that the lamps exhibited poor or loose
connections.
Analysis of electrical problems revealed allegations of six (6)
fires involving model year 1998 through 2001 VN series tractors with
four (4) fires, potentially electrical in origin (one involving just
smoke), originating in the sleeper compartment.
The four (4) sleeper berth fires involved VN 610 and 660 models. In
each case fire investigators identified the fire's origin in the
proximity of electrical wiring, with three cases originating near the
sleeper ventilation control panel. Unfortunately, the exact cause of
the fire was not determined although electrical short-circuiting was
indicated as a possible source. The
[[Page 17114]]
sleeper berth of the VN-series truck is equipped with an individual
heating and air conditioning blower located below the lower bunk and
just right of the center of the vehicle. A controller unit used to
adjust HVAC temperature and blower fan speed is located on the left
side wall of the berth about midway between the ceiling and floor. At
least three (3) fires reportedly originated in the area of this control
panel.
The two remaining fire complaints involved a 2001 VN-610 and a 1998
VN-770. Investigation of the VN-610 fire failed to reveal the exact
origin of the fire although the investigator believed it began in the
vehicle's engine compartment. The VN-770 fire reportedly began in the
dash wiring due to a faulty ``dimmer switch.'' Limited information was
available regarding these two incidents. Complaints regarding fire and
electrical problems in the sleeper berth appear to contain similar
elements that warrant additional analysis.
Other than the sleeper berth fires, no trends were observed
indicating a potential safety defect trend. An investigation into the
sleeper berth fires has been opened.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.013
ODI has compared the number of complaints regarding Volvo trucks
with the number of complaints about similar problems on other makes of
other heavy trucks. The comparison was limited to the complaint areas
noted in the OOIDA petition. The table below compares the total number
of Volvo truck complaints (all sources) against the complaints in the
ODI database for other manufacturers' vehicles. Prior to the OOIDA
petition, the total number of Volvo truck complaints recorded in the
database was approximately 190.
[[Page 17115]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP02.014
Analysis of the information made available through and as a result
of the petition supports a conclusion that this petition should be
partially granted and partially denied. The petition is granted with
respect to three areas of concern--(1) steering problems, (2) front
axle U-bolt problems and (3) sleeper berth fires. Additionally, the
issue of steering axle overweight condition is being addressed through
Recall Audit AQ02-018 while an issue pertaining to drive axle U-bolts
is being investigated in an Engineering Analysis, EA01-011. No further
action will be taken with respect to the remaining issues raised by the
petition.
[FR Doc. 02-8520 Filed 4-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P