[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