Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices 57643

1Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, 1992—1998

Editions for MY 1992—1997 Suburbans.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International

Airport under the provisions of the

Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion

Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990)

(Public Law 101–508) and Part 158 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR Part 158).

On August 28, 2000, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the Luzerne and

Lackawanna Counties By-County Board

of Commissioners was substantially

complete within the requirements of

section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA

will approve or disapprove the

application, in while or in part, no later

than Nov. 23, 2000. The following is a

brief overview of the application.

PFC Application No.: 00–03–C–00–

AVP.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date:

January 1, 2001.

Proposed charge expiration date: July

31, 2010.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$10,794,855.

Brief description of proposed

project(s):

• Construct New Passenger Terminal

Facility

• Construction Access Roadways and

Non-Revenue Surface Parking

• Construction Terminal Aircraft

Parking Apron

• Architect/Engineering Inspection

and Contingency Fees

• Construct Snow Removal

Equipment Storage/Maintenance

Building

• Airport Master Plan Update

• Design/Construct Perimeter Fence

• Design Runway Safety Areas

• Design/Reconstruct General

Aviation ramp

• Purchase Snow Removal Equipment

(Three plows/spreaders)

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: NonScheduled/On-Demand Air Carriers,

with seating capacity of less than 20

seats, filing DOT Form 1800–31.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

regional airports office located at: 1

Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York

11434–4809.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Luzerne and

Lackawanna Counties By-County Board

of Commissioners.

Issued in New York City, New York on

August 28, 2000.

Thomas Felix,

Manager, Planning and Programming Branch,

Eastern Region

[FR Doc. 00–24492 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,

DP00–001

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect

investigation.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

reasons for the 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 DP00–001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George Chiang, Office of Defects

Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–5206.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mr. Dave

Blum (petitioner), 5329 Eagles Nest

Road, Fruitland Park, Florida 34731,

submitted a petition to NHTSA by letter

dated February 1, 2000, requesting that

an investigation be initiated on trailer

towing hitch platforms (receivers) and

related hitch equipment for

‘‘compatibility with National Highway

Safety Standards for materials and

construction specifications.’’

Mr. Blum is a safety committee

member of the Region 3 Wally Byam

Caravan Club International Airstream

travel club. He provided pictures and

descriptions of four club members’ tow

vehicles with cracked Original

Equipment Manufacturer hitch

receivers. The tow vehicles were model

years (MY) 1993, 1994, and 1997

General Motor Corporation Suburban

Sport Utility Vehicles and a MY 1995

Dodge 2500 pickup truck.

NHTSA has reviewed and analyzed

all available information. The result of

this review and analysis is set forth in

a Petition Analysis Report for DP00–001

and is published in its entirety as an

appendix to this notice.

For the reasons presented in the

petition analysis report, it is unlikely

that NHTSA would issue an order

concerning the notification and remedy

of a safety-related defect at the

conclusion of an investigation.

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.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations

of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Kenneth N. Weinstein,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

Appendix—Petition Analysis—DP00–

001

1.0 Introduction

Mr. Dave Blum (petitioner), Fruitland Park,

Florida, submitted a petition to NHTSA by

letter requesting that an investigation be

initiated on trailer towing hitch receivers

(platforms) and related hitching equipment

‘‘to assess their compatibility with National

Highway Safety Standards for materials and

construction specifications.’’ The petitioner,

who is a member of the Wally Byam Caravan

Club International (WBCCI) Airstream travel

club safety committee stated that NHTSA’s

Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) should

open an investigation concerning hitch

receiver failure because the WBCCI Airstream

travel club members allegedly inspected and

found cracks in their hitch receivers.

2.0 Vehicle Information

2.1 Subject Vehicle

In his petition, Mr. Blum did not specify

the make, model, or year of vehicles he

wanted ODI to investigate. However, between

December 1999 and January 2000, he

supplied information concerning cracked

hitch receivers on a 1993, 1994, and 1997

model year (MY) General Motor Corporation

(GM) Suburban vehicle and on a 1995 MY

Dodge 2500 pickup (PU) truck. ODI selected

MY 1992—1997 GM Suburban vehicles as

the subject vehicles for the following reasons:

(1) the petitioner identified three Suburban

vehicles with cracked Original Equipment

Manufacturer (OEM) hitch receivers; (2) the

ODI consumer complaint database contained

a relatively high number of complaints on the

subject vehicles; (3) the Suburban has one of

the largest towing capacities among the peer

vehicles and is commonly used to tow large

travel trailers; and (4) ODI had conducted a

previous investigation (PE95–036) on certain

GM Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), including

MY 1992–1995 Suburbans to investigate a

similar OEM hitch receiver crack problem.

2.2 Vehicles Involved

GM produces the Suburban for both the

Chevrolet and GMC Divisions. The combined

number of subject vehicles produced in the

United States was 738K vehicles.1 The

Chevrolet Division accounted for 512K

57644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices

2NHTSA ODI PE95–036 (J. Abbott) of 31 October,

1995 (closing resume).

3 ‘‘Trailering Couplings, Hitches, and Safety

Chains—Automotive Type’’—SAE J684 (6/98).

vehicles and the GMC Division accounted for

226K vehicles. According to GM, among the

738K vehicles, 494K vehicles were equipped

with factory installed OEM hitch receivers.

3.0 Previous Recalls and Investigations of

Hitch Receivers

ODI is aware of one recall and one

previous investigation concerning hitch

receiver cracking. DaimlerChrysler recalled

certain MY 1998–2000 Dodge 2500 Ram

pickup trucks (Recall 00V–107) because the

steel had insufficient strength due to poor

quality control. ODI opened a Preliminary

Evaluation, PE95–036, in June of 1995 into

an alleged defect in MY 1992–1993 Suburban

vehicles after receiving four (4) complaints,

one MY 1992 and three (3) MY 1993,

concerning cracked hitch receivers. During

this investigation, ODI expanded the scope to

include other MY 1992–1995 GM SUVs. By

the conclusion of the investigation in late

1995, ODI had received another complaint

(MY 1992) and GM reported three (3)

additional complaints (one MY 1992 and two

MY 1993) bringing the complaints to a

combined total of eight (8). The investigation

revealed no injuries or crashes related to the

alleged defect on the subject vehicles. ODI

closed the investigation without any further

actions and concluded the following:

* * * it appears that the cracks are readily

obvious and slow to propagate. The problem

may not be a catastrophic failure of the hitch

platform. The high number of warranty

claims coupled with the corresponding low

number of failures is not indicative of a

safety trend at this time.2

4.0 Hitch Receiver/Equipment and Towing

Limits

Currently, there are no Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable

to trailer towing hitch equipment. However,

many hitch equipment manufacturers use the

Society of Automotive Engineers Standard,

SAE J684,3 for hitch classification and test

limits. According to SAE J684 (Table 1), there

are four classes of towing capacities or tow

ratings for applications less than 10,000 lb.

When used with a weight distributing hitch

system, the Suburban has a 10,000 lb.

maximum towing capacity with the driver

and one passenger onboard and no cargo in

the tow vehicle. The additional weight of

other occupants and cargo in the tow vehicle

will reduce the towing capacity accordingly.

TABLE 1.—VARIOUS TYPES OF HITCH RECEIVERS

Class rating

per SAE J684

Towing

duty

Max. towing

weight (in

pounds)

Hitch system

attachment type Common payloads

Class I ......................... Light ........................... 2,000 Weight Carrying (WC) ....................... Monocycle & Jet Ski trailers.

Class II ........................ Medium ...................... 3,500 WC ..................................................... Small Boat & utility trailers.

Class III ....................... Heavy ........................ 5,000 WC ..................................................... Med. travel & utility trailers, Large boat

trailers.

Class IV ...................... Heavy ........................ 10,000 Weight Distributing ............................ Large travel & utility trailers Automotive trailers.

4.1 Hitch Receiver

Figure 1 shows a diagram of a typical frame

mounted Class III/IV type hitch receiver.

There are three basic sections that make up

a hitch receiver: (1) the hitch bar and ball

assembly that connects the trailer to the tow

vehicle, (2) the horizontal box transfer beam

and (3) the vertical mounting flanges for

attachment to the vehicle frame. Note that the

diagram also shows the typical crack patterns

found as reported by the petitioner.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices 57645

4 Various Trailering Guides: Ford 2000 RV &

Trailer Towing Guide (8/99); Reese ‘Hitching-Up

Procedure’ distributed during Airstream RV rally in

Sarasota, Florida (2/00); 1997 Airstream 34′ Excella

Travel Trailer Owners Guide, Sections B and I on

Hitching Up and Trailer Specifications; GM

Suburban Owners Manuals, Section 4—‘Towing a

Trailer’, MY 1993–1997; GM Suburban Sales

Brochures, Section on Trailering, MY 1993–1997;

and GMC Trailering Guides, MY 1993–1997.

5 Discussions with SAE J684 Group Chairman,

Mr. Jim Fait, during April and May of 2000.

4.2 Weight Distribution (WD) Hitch System

Normally, on the lighter duty Class I/II/III

applications, the trailer’s tongue weight

directly pushes down on the hitch receiver’s

coupling ball causing the rear of the tow

vehicle to drop and the front of the vehicle

to rise slightly. With larger and heavier

trailers, this can severely affect vehicle

handling and stopping distances and further

add stresses to the tow vehicle and hitch

receiver structures. To reduce these

undesirable effects, an ‘aftermarket’ or ‘third

party’ Weight Distribution (WD) hitch system

must be used when towing large trailers. For

Class IV applications with the WD system as

shown in the set up of Figure 2, the two

spring bars are bent upward to apply a

counter moment torque to the WD hitch ball

mount assembly and redirect or redistribute

the point load tongue weight further forward

in the tow vehicle. The subject vehicles’

hitch receiver has a decal specifying 10,000

lb. towing and 1,000 lb. maximum tongue

weight limits when used with the WD hitch

system.

4.3 Proper Installation of the WD Hitch

System

Based on the information obtained from

various trailering sources,4 a properly

installed WD hitch system evenly distributes

the loads to the entire tow vehicle. The WD

hitch system’s spring bars force both the front

and rear wheel fenders equally downward.

This aligns the tow vehicle so that it is

approximately the same ‘attitude’ or ‘level’ as

it was before the trailer was hooked up. A

poorly installed WD hitch system can cause

the tow vehicle’s front end to ‘lift up’

resulting in more weight to the hitch receiver

and rear axle. In addition, the ball mount

height, spring bar angles, spring bar

engagement level, and ball mount receiver

bar length can also affect the proper

installation and effectiveness of the WD hitch

system.

4.4 Hitch Receiver Performance

For Class IV hitch receivers, SAE

recommends a series of static test loads

applied to the hitch ball mount and receiver

to verify their towing limits. The static test

loads include longitudinal, transverse,

vertical and moment loads. According to

SAE,5 these static test loads are higher than

the loads encountered during actual on-road

towing. For example, the 2,100 lb. SAE

specified vertical load is more than twice that

of the typical trailer tongue weight limit of

1,000 lb. Tests conducted by SAE in the mid1990s verified that the actual measured

dynamic loads under normal towing

conditions, such as turns, hills, dips and

stops, are well within the higher SAE

specified static loads. However, SAE also

cautioned that abuse or mishaps such as

backing into an object or one side of the

trailer falling off the pavement can create

loads that exceed the SAE specified loads.

Remote and unimproved roadways and

certain stretches of highways, with short

concrete slabs causing the trailer to

‘‘porpoise’’ or oscillate up and down

severely, can also create higher than normal

loads at the hitch receiver.

5.0 Complaints

5.1 Complaints Submitted to ODI on the

Subject Vehicles

ODI searched and analyzed all complaints

involving the subject vehicles in its

consumer database pertaining to an alleged

cracked hitch receiver. As of August 1, 2000,

the ODI database had recorded 15 cracked

hitch receiver complaints on the subject

vehicles. As shown in Table 2, the complaint

dates, by calender year, were as follow: five

in 1995, one in 1996, two in 1998, one in

1999 and six in 2000. There are high

concentrations of complaints submitted in

years 1995 and 2000. The first complaint

concentration in 1995 was due to an effort of

a Northeast region WBCCI Airstream travel

club who surveyed its members and

submitted all five of the complaints to ODI.

The second complaint concentration in year

2000 was due to the efforts of the petitioner’s

Southeast region Airstream travel club safety

committee in conjunction with ODI

personnel during the February 2000 RV Rally

in Sarasota, Florida. The inspections and

field survey during the rally resulted in the

submission of five of the six CY 2000

complaints in the ODI database. Otherwise,

ODI has received only one or two complaints

per year on the subject vehicles.

57646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices

6 Dodge light duty pickup truck population

equipped with OEM hitch receivers suppled by

DCX on 6/20/00.

7A’Weigh We Go Recreation Vehicle Weight &

Tire Safety Handbook, Textbook Edition, Section I,

Rev. 1/00.

8 Discussons with AWWG president, Mr. J.

Anderson, during March–April 2000. Data taken

from AWWG’s weighing of both tongue and vertical

weighing of both tongue and vertical weights on

travel trailers in early 1990’s.

TABLE 2.—ODI COMPLAINTS BY CALENDAR YEAR

Calendar year CY95 CY96 CY97 CY98 CY99 CY00 Total

Suburban Total ........................................................................ 5 1 0 2 1 6 15

Table 3 shows the complaint counts by

model year for the subject vehicles equipped

with the OEM installed hitch receivers.

Among the fifteen Suburban complaints,

eleven complainants were contacted during

this petition analysis and they all reported

towing 29′ and longer Airstream trailers

having a listed Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

(GVWR) ranging from 7,000 to 9,800 lb. Most

of the complainants never weighed their

trailer and do not know the actual gross

trailer towing weight (trailer plus cargo in

both the tow vehicle and trailer). One recent

(CY 2000) complainant reported that prior to

towing his current 31′ trailer, he was towing

a 30′ long trailer when the trailer’s wheels hit

a large pothole on the road. The impact was

severe enough to damage the trailer’s frame

and totally destroyed the trailer structure.

After receiving the Airstream RV club’s

newsletter which asked members to inspect

their hitch receivers, he found cracks in the

hitch receiver. It is unclear whether the

cracks were caused by the impact with the

pothole or inappropriate loading, or initiated

from incorrect installation and usage of the

WD hitch system. ODI was unable to contact

the other four complainants despite

attempting to reach them at the addresses

and telephone numbers they provided.

TABLE 3.—ODI COMPLAINTS AND COMPLAINT RATES ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER VEHICLES

Model year MY92 MY93 MY94 MY95 MY96 MY97 Total Pop. with

hitch Rate

Suburban Total ................................................. 2 6 4 0 2 1 15 494K 3.0

Dodge PUs ....................................................... 100300 4 495K 0.8

5.2 Complaints Submitted to ODI on Peer

Vehicles

ODI has also searched for cracked hitch

receiver complaints in its database on other

MY 1992–1997 trucks and vans having

similar towing capacities. Except for the

Dodge D–150/250/350 and B–1500/2500/

3500 series pickup trucks (see Table 3), ODI

has received no more than one hitch receiver

complaint on any other vehicle. The

complaint rate for cracked hitch receivers on

the Dodge truck with OEM hitch receivers is

0.8 per 100,000 vehicles 6 as compared with

the subject vehicles’ rate of 3.0 per 100,000

vehicles.

6.0 Inspection and Survey at the

Recreational Vehicle (RV) Rally

6.1 Airstream RV Rally in Sarasota, Florida

ODI personnel, at the invitation of the

petitioner and the Airstream Region 3 RV

Safety Committee, attended a RV rally held

in Sarasota, Florida during the period of

February 15–21, 2000. Of the 600 RV

participants towing a travel trailer at the RV

rally, approximately 150 use the subject

vehicle to tow a large 31′–34′ length

Airstream travel trailer. Therefore, the

percentage of large travel trailers among the

600 travel trailers at the Airstream RV rally

was approximately 25%.

6.2 Physical Inspection of the Tow Vehicle

Hitch Receivers

During the course of the RV rally, ODI and

Airstream RV Safety Committee personnel

made several announcements requesting each

RV rally participant to inspect his/her hitch

receiver for cracks. For those that responded,

ODI and safety committee personnel visited

them to further inspect their tow vehicles

and trailers and to interview the owners. The

Suburban was used as the tow vehicle in 21

of the 27 units inspected. Among these 21

units, 10 had cracked OEM hitch receivers,

four had previously experienced cracked

OEM hitch receivers and since had them

replaced, and the remaining seven did not

have any problems while using either the

OEM or the non-OEM hitch receiver. The

older MY 1993–1994 Suburbans accounted

for six of the ten cracked receivers. Eight of

the these 10 Suburban vehicles towed or

previously towed the large 31′–34′ length

Airstream travel trailer with GVWR near the

10,000 lb. limit.

Among the remaining six owners who

didn’t have the Suburban as their tow

vehicle, there were two reports of cracked

hitch receivers. Specifically, a MY 1995 and

a MY 1996 Dodge pickup truck towing

Airstream 30′ and 34′ travel trailers

respectively.

6.3 Overloading in the RV Community

Present at this rally was the A’Weigh We

Go (AWWG) weighing service. AWWG

travels across North America to large rallies

to provide an on-site weighing service and to

give seminars on safe towing practices. RV

manufacturers and tire companies partially

sponsor AWWG to provide the weighing

service at a nominal cost to the participants.

AWWG 7 has weighed more than 10,000

vehicles and trailers in the past 10 years

including motorhomes, tow vehicles, 5th

wheel trailers, and travel trailers (TTs). The

majority of the data collected were from

motorhomes (5,462 units) and the least

amount of data collected were from travel

trailers (462 units). They found that

overloading or improper matching of

equipment and loading is a common problem

in the RV communities. Among the 462

travel trailers they have weighed over this

period, 54 percent of the tow vehicles and 51

percent of the TTs exceeded load limits in

one or more of the loading limits such as the

Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR),

the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR),

Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR), Tire Load

Rating (TLR) or net vertical hitch loading.

AWWG noted the following concern in their

handbook:

Of particular concern is that 57% (percent)

were over GCWR, indicating that too many

folks are trying to pull too much trailer with

too little truck.

6.4 Weighing of Units at the Florida RV

Rally

ODI contracted with AWWG to use their

weighing services during the Florida RV

rally. ODI then requested all of the Suburban

owners with cracked hitch receivers and

randomly selected a few of the owners

without cracked hitch receivers to have their

units weighed by the AWWG (at ODI’s

expense) at the conclusion of the RV rally.

ODI instructed each owner to prepare the tow

vehicle and trailer as they normally would

for road travel. Prior to the day of departure,

AWWG weighed each tow vehicle without

the trailer attached. Then, on departure day,

AWWG weighed the entire tow vehicle and

trailer assembly at each wheel and axle. By

measuring the loads at each wheel, AWWG

can determine if the loads exceed any of the

GCWR, GVWR, GAWR limits for both the tow

vehicle and the trailer. AWWG also measured

and calculated the total trailer towing weight

and the net vertical loading on the tow

vehicle. According to AWWG, the net

vertical loading on the tow vehicle rear axis

is roughly equal to the trailer tongue weight

within an error of 50 lb.8 By comparing the

measured vehicle loads with the

manufacturer’s load limits, AWWG can

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices 57647

9AWWG Weighing Devices—Model WL 101,

Range 0–20,000 lb., Class III Accuracy, Load-OMeter Corporation, Baltimore, MD.

10Thor Industries, Inc. Airstream, An American

Legend 2000 Sales Brochure.

11Thor Industries, Inc. Airstream Travel Internet

web site at http://www.airstream-rv.com 5/00.

12A Weigh We Go Recreation Vehicle Weight &

Tire Safety Handbook, Textbook Edition, Section

VI, Rev. 1/00.

13 General Motor response to ODI Information

Request (IR), GM 583 of 3/00 and FAX of 5/00.

calculate the amount of ‘weight margins’ or

‘weight overloading’ in each of these areas.

During the RV rally, AWWG used

calibrated commercial/industrial grade

weighing scales that measure up to 20,000 lb.

each with an accuracy to +/¥50 lb.9 Many

law enforcement agencies use the same type

of scale during their highway truck

inspections. Throughout the weighing

process, ODI personnel observed that AWWG

was careful to keep the vehicle and/or trailer

level during weighing in order to obtain the

most accurate and consistent readings.

6.5 AWWG Data Review

AWWG weighed nine of the 10 Suburban

vehicles with cracked OEM hitch receivers.

One owner did not make his vehicle and

trailer available for weighing. Eight of the

nine weighed units showed overloading in at

least one category. Note that these recorded

load conditions represent only the load

conditions while attending the week-long RV

rally. Table 4 shows the various load

conditions for each of the nine weighed

units. The percentage of the rated load limit,

shown as a ‘‘+’’ value, represents the margin

within which the vehicle/trailer is below the

maximum weight rating, and the percentage

over the rated load limit, shown as a ‘‘¥’’

value, represents overloading. Many owners

exceeded weight limits in more than one

rating. One owner (ID #1) exceeded six of the

nine weight limits. Based on the weight data,

overloading appeared to be a major

contributing factor in cracked hitch receivers.

The two vehicles listed at the bottom of the

table (ID #8 & #9) that recorded the least

amount of overloading and no overloading,

respectively, had previously towed a larger

and heavier 34′ travel trailer, and that may

have been the cause of the cracked hitch

receivers.

The remaining seven Suburban vehicles

with cracked hitch receivers that were

weighed had from one to six failed rating

areas out of the possible nine areas.

Additionally, six of these seven units

exceeded either the 10,000 lb. trailer towing

or 1,000 lb. tongue weight limits as specified

on the OEM hitch receiver.

6.6 Weights of Large Travel Trailers

Many modern RV trailers have comforts

and amenities that help make mobile

traveling more like a home on wheels. Full

size bedroom, kitchen, bath, recliner and sofa

are standard on many 28′ or larger trailers.

Many RV manufacturers can equip these

trailers with additional options such as

ceramic tile floors, stone counter tops,

microwave oven, entertainment center,

satellite/computer systems and room slideouts. All these items add additional weight

to the basic trailer. The more the trailer

weight is above the empty Dry Weight

condition, the less ‘cargo’ capacity is

available to the consumer before reaching the

trailer GVWR and the hitch receiver’s towing

limit. For example, Airstream rates their MY

2000 34′ length Limited travel trailers at

8,290 lb. Dry Weight and a GVWR of 9,800

lb. maximum10 resulting in a Net Carrying

Capacity (NCC) of only 1,510 lb. This NCC

would include any additional dealer or

owner-installed options, fluids, LP gas,

personal items such as food, clothing,

television, furniture, kitchen wares, books,

and repair tools. In addition, relocating some

loads from the trailer to the tow vehicle may

help keep from exceeding the trailer’s GVWR,

but still diminishes the towing capacity of

the hitch receiver from the 10,000 lb.

maximum rating. Note that in a ‘‘remote’’

camping environment where there are no

utilities, the camper may have the 54-gallon

fresh water tank and the twin 20-gallon LP

tanks filled to full capacities. These two

items alone account for a combined weight

of more than 600 lb. of the available NCC. In

the Airstream web site,11 the following

disclaimer appears at the bottom of every

page:

Vehicle Loading: Every effort has been

made to provide the greatest number of

options for the recreation vehicle owner.

Along with these choices comes the

responsibility to manage the loads that are

imposed by the choices so that they remain

within the manufacturer’s specified chassis

weight limits. Do not overload the recreation

vehicle.

Dry weights based on standard features;

optional equipment not included. Net

carrying capacity (NCC) determined by

subtracting unloaded vehicle weight (UVW)

from gross vehicle weight (GVWR) and

includes fluids, options and cargo. Liquid

capacities and weights are approximations

only.

Besides a safety seminar given by the RV

club’s safety committee at the Florida rally,

AWWG also presented a safety seminar there.

During the seminar, AWWG reported that

‘‘the average couple carries about 2,000 lb. of

stuff and the average full-timer, about 3,000

lb.’’ which was documented in its

handbook.12 Many of the participants at the

RV rally were retired ‘‘full-timers,’’ including

all of the Suburban owners with cracked

hitch receivers.

Although not included in Table 4, because

the owners did not report any hitch receiver

problems, seven other Suburban vehicles

towing large trailers with OEM and non-OEM

hitch receivers, including the one belonging

to the petitioner, were also weighed by

AWWG. The results showed that overloading

is also common among these owners, but to

a lesser extent.

While the WBCCI RV safety committee

provides guidance to RV owners in the

proper usage of towing a trailer and the need

to regularly inspect the towing equipment,

there are no Federal or state laws that require

weighing of RV trailers while traveling the

nation’s interstates as there are for

commercial trucks.

7.0 GM Data Review

At the request of ODI, GM supplied the

following information13 concerning the

alleged defect. GM stated that the same hitch

receiver design has been used during the

entire production period of the subject

vehicles (MY 1992–1997).

7.1 GM Owner Reports

Among the 494K MY 1992–1997 Suburban

vehicles sold with OEM hitch receivers, GM

has received 15 owner complaints, one

accident claim, and has been named in two

lawsuits related to the alleged defect in the

subject vehicles. Excluding non-crack-related

problems, duplicates of RV rally field survey

reports and ODI complaints, Table 5 lists the

nine cracked hitch receiver complaints from

GM. The first reported litigation case

involved a MY 1993 Suburban towing a 34

Airstream RV travel trailer. Prior to the case

going to trial, the owner filed a ‘notice of

nonsuit’ and the court dismissed the case in

1/99. ODI reviewed this same report in 1995

during its investigation (PE95–036). The

other litigation report involved a MY 1995

Suburban that lost its trailer while hauling a

load of pumpkins. The owner replaced the

hitch receiver before a GM representative was

able to verify the failure or determine the

cause. The report claimed approximately

$1800 in damages. The one accident claim

was from the same owner as the first

litigation report. GM also reported 154

warranty claims on the subject vehicles’

hitch receiver. Based on the GM failure

codes, ODI estimates that approximately 15

to 20 percent of the claims may involve

cracks in the vertical mounting flange, but

further detail is not available. None of the

complaints or warranty reports indicate

bodily injuries or vehicle crashes as a result

of the cracked hitch receivers.

TABLE 4.—WEIGHT DATA/ANALYSIS ON THE NINE SUBURBAN HITCH RECEIVER CRACK FAILURES

ID Tow vehicle Trailer

Tow vehicle overload? (percent) Trailer overload? (percent) Hitch receiver overload? (percent)

Tow veh.

GCWR

Tow veh.

GVWR

Tow veh.

GAWR

Tire load

limit

Trailer

GVWR

Trailer

GAWR

Tire load

limit

Trailer two

Wt. 10,000

lb.

Vert. Wt.

1,000 lb. Remarks

1 ..................... 1994 Sub ............. 34′ A/S ................. ¥4 99 92 ¥1 ¥16 ¥12 68 ¥23 ¥12 6 failed areas

2 ..................... 1996 Sub ............. 34′ A/S ................. 99 ¥3 ¥12 94 ¥5 98 82 ¥15 ¥18 5 failed areas

3 ..................... 1999 Sub ............. 34′ A/S ................. ¥1 92 77 78 ¥3 ¥13 84 ¥17 1 4 failed areas

57648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 4.—WEIGHT DATA/ANALYSIS ON THE NINE SUBURBAN HITCH RECEIVER CRACK FAILURES—Continued

ID Tow vehicle Trailer

Tow vehicle overload? (percent) Trailer overload? (percent) Hitch receiver overload? (percent)

Tow veh.

GCWR

Tow veh.

GVWR

Tow veh.

GAWR

Tire load limitTrailer

GVWR

Trailer

GAWR

Tire load limit

Trailer two

Wt. 10,000 lb.

Vert. Wt.

1,000 lb. Remarks

4 ..................... 1993 Sub ............. 31′ A/S ................. 80 96 93 90 ¥7 0 88 82 ¥8 3 failed areas

5 ..................... 1993 Sub ............. 34′ A/S ................. 92 ¥5 ¥10 90 99 98 63 ¥3 84 3 failed areas

6 ..................... 1993 Sub ............. 34′ A/S ................. 91 86 ¥4 90 91 97 79 ¥1 88 2 failed areas

7 ..................... 1995 Sub ............. 30′ A/S ................. 85 96 ¥1 85 95 93 99 91 65 1 failed area

8 ..................... 1994 Sub ............. 31′ A/S ................. 86 80 80 67 ¥1 100 95 92 63 1 failed area

9 ..................... 1996 Sub ............. 30′ A/S ................. 86 87 79 97 96 91 84 91 100 0 failed area

Notes:

GCWR—The Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) is the maximum allowable combined weights from the tow vehicle and the trailer as specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

GVWR—The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight of the tow vehicle or trailer as specified by the manufacturer.

GAWR—The Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) is the maximum allowable weight on each axle as specified by the manufacturer.

Tire Load Limit—The tire load limit is the maximum allowable load on each tire as specified by the manufacturer.

Trailer Tow Wt.—The trailer towing weight is the maximum allowable towing weight by the hitch receiver. It includes the trailer weight, as well as any additional occupant and cargo weights in

the tow vehicle.

Vert. Wt.—The hitch vertical weight is the maximum net vertical loads on the rear axis after trailer hookup. According to AWWG, the vertical weight is approximately the same as the hitch

tongue weight.

TABLE 5.—GM COMPLAINTS AND REPORTS ON HITCH RECEIVER CRACKING

ID DOI Tow vehicle Trailer mileage Trailer weight Nature of failure Est. damage

cost GM/dealer action

99–6701 ...... 6/99 ’96 Sub ...... 6K vehicle miles ..... 32’ Jayco Est. 9Kι .. 1’’ crack both sides Not Available

(n/a).

100% Goodwill

(G/W).

99–7801 ...... 8/99 ’94 Sub ...... 100K vehicle miles Car Trailer Est.

6,5Kι.

Side plate broke off $0.9K on trailer.Denied.

99–6101 ...... 9/99 ’94 Sub ...... Est. 120K tow miles 27 Jayco RV Est.

8Kι.

Broken & cracked ... N/A ................. Denied.

99–7001 ...... 11/99 ’95 Sub ...... 45K vehicle miles ... A/S trailer N/A ......... Broken & cracked ... N/A ................. Under warranty.

99–0994 ...... 8/99 ’96 Sub ...... 43K vehicle miles ... RV trailer N/A ......... Broken-trailer separation.N/A ................. 75% G/W.

99–4148 ...... 12/99 ’94 Sub ...... 57K vehicle miles ... A/S trailer N/A ......... Cracked on both

sides.

N/A ................. Denied.

99–1001 ...... 3/00 ’93 Sub ...... Est. 60K tow miles .. A/S 32’ trailer 6.5K+ Broken & cracked

on both sides.

N/A ................. Denied.

99–6101 ...... 10/94 ’93 Sub ...... 160K vehicle miles A/S trailer N/A ......... Broken & crack ....... N/A ................. Denied.

7.2 GM Hitch Receiver Design, Test and

Performance Limits

During the development phase, GM

conducted both nondestructive analysis and

destructive testing on their hitch receiver

design. This included Finite Element

Analysis (FEA), static load testing and onroad durability tests. GM’s FEA, as well as

the static load testing, support GM’s opinion

that the hitch receiver will perform as

designed. Both GM and other hitch receiver

manufacturers use the same static load limits

found in the SAE standard. In addition, GM

successfully conducted a 6,500 mile on-road

durability test with a Suburban towing a

10,000 lb. trailer having 1,000 lb. tongue

weight over various road conditions without

cracks or hitch receiver failure. According to

GM, due to the course’s hilly terrain, this test

is equivalent to 20,000 normal towing miles.

It should be noted that GM does not identify

the ‘‘towing rating with no cargo’’ limitation

anywhere on the hitch receiver, on the

vehicle, or in any of the pre-1996 owners’

manuals. However, this limitation is

specified in their trailering guides.

7.3 GM’s Assessment of the Crack Hitch

Receiver Problems

GM concluded that based on its data:

All test and analysis documents within

GM’s possession indicate that the subject

component will perform without failure in

the field if load limitations are met. GM

believes that loaded trailer weights in the

field may exceed 10,000 lb. and that loaded

trailer tongue weights in the field may exceed

1000 lb. It is GM’s belief that if the hitch

platform is used within the confines as

described by GM in various, readily available

trailering usage documents, the subject

component will perform without failure.

8.0 Conclusions

1. There are no Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards (FMVSS) or ‘‘National

Highway Safety Standards for materials and

construction specifications,’’ as indicated in

the petition, relating to trailer hitch design.

The SAE J684 trailering standard covers

classification and testing of towing

equipment. For Class IV hitch receivers,

according to SAE J684, the static test loads

take into account the dynamic loads

experienced during normal towing

operations.

2. An analysis of hitch receiver crack/

failure complaints in the ODI consumer

complaint database and those submitted by

GM reveals a low number and rate of

complaints and a lack of a complaint trend

for the subject vehicles, as well as their peer

vehicles.

3. A recent field survey and weighing of

the tow vehicles and trailers conducted by

ODI indicate that a combination of

overloading, improper hitch setup, and

adverse road conditions appears to be a major

factor in hitch receiver failures. Eight of nine

surveyed Suburban owners at the Florida RV

rally had overloaded their vehicle/trailer in

one or more areas that can affect the

structural integrity of the hitch receiver

platform.

4. GM information indicates that the hitch

receiver design passes the same static loading

levels as specified in SAE J684 and also

passes their on-road durability test while

towing of a 10,000 lb. trailer with 1,000 lb.

tongue load. GM believes that overloading is

the cause of the reported failures in the field.

5. ODI initiated an investigation on the

same hitch receiver cracking problem in

1995, but closed it in October the same year

because the total complaint rates were low

and ODI could not identify a defect trend.

Since then, ODI has found no new significant

information on MY 1992–1997 Suburban

vehicles to support reopening this

investigation.

6. RV owners should be educated as to the

seriousness of overloading their RVs and tow

vehicles. This could be accomplished by

initiating an extensive campaign by vehicle,

RV manufacturers, RV club safety

committees, and national RV associations to

further define loading limits and industrywide terminologies, to advise owners to

avoid conditions leading to overloading of

both the towing vehicle and trailer, to inspect

their towing equipment periodically, and to

install weight distributing hitch systems

correctly.

7. Based on the information presented

above, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue

an order for the notification and remedy of

a safety-related defect in the subject vehicles

at the conclusion of the investigation

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices 57649

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.

[FR Doc. 00–24584 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7164; Notice 2]

Suzuki Motor Corporation; Denial of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Suzuki Motor Corporation of

Hamamatsu, Japan, has determined that

it manufactured 1,595 vehicles that fail

to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225,

‘‘Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,’’

and has filed an appropriate report

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect

and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Suzuki

has also applied to be exempted from

the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—

‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’ on the basis that

the noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on April 25, 2000 in the

Federal Register (65 FR 24253), with a

30-day comment period. We received no

comments.

FMVSS No. 225, S4.1, requires that:

Each tether anchorage and each child

restraint anchorage system installed, either

voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in

any new vehicle manufactured on or after

September 1, 1999, shall comply with the

configuration, location, marking and strength

requirements of this standard. The vehicle

shall be delivered with written information,

in English, on how to appropriately use those

anchorages and systems.

FMVSS No. 225, S12, requires that:

The vehicle must provide written

instructions, in English, for using the tether

anchorages and the child restraint anchorage

system in the vehicle. If the vehicle has an

owner’s manual, the instructions must be in

that manual. The instructions shall:

(a) Indicate which seating positions in the

vehicle are equipped with tether anchorages

and child restraint anchorage systems;

(b) In the case of vehicles required to be

marked as specified in paragraphs S4.1,

S9.5(a), or S15.4, explain the meaning of

markings provided to locate the lower

anchorages of child restraint anchorage

systems; and

(c) Include instructions that provide a stepby-step procedure, including diagrams, for

properly attaching a child restraint system’s

tether strap to the tether anchorages.

At the start of production for the 2000

model year, Suzuki began installing

user-ready tether anchorages as standard

equipment in Suzuki Swift vehicles.

Due to an oversight, however, Suzuki

neglected to update the Suzuki Swift

owner’s manual in conjunction with

this production change. As a result, the

owner’s manuals for 1,595 Suzuki Swift

vehicles manufactured between August

1999 and February 2000, and shipped

prior to March 2000, do not comply

with the information requirements in

FMVSS No. 225.

Suzuki supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘The vehicle owner’s manual for the

subject Suzuki Swift vehicles contains the

following text relating to the use of child

restraint systems that require use of a top

tether:

Some child restraint systems require the

use of a top strap. If you use such a restraint

system and your vehicle is not equipped with

the top tether strap anchor bracket, have your

dealer install the top strap anchor bracket, or

contact your dealer for instructions on how

to install the anchor bracket.

In addition to the text message, the owner’s

manual contains two illustrations (one for the

hatchback model and one for the sedan

model) showing a child restraint system

positioned at one of the rear seating

positions, with its tether strap attached to the

tether anchorage.

Although the Swift owner’s manual does

not mention that user-ready tether

anchorages are provided as standard

equipment and does not show all of the

seating positions that are equipped with a

tether anchorage, the illustrations in the

manual do show the tether anchorage

location for one of the rear seating positions.

Suzuki believes that vehicle owners will

assume, based on the illustrations, that

anchorages are provided for both rear seating

positions. In addition, when you look at the

actual vehicle, it is obvious that user-ready

anchorages are provided as standard

equipment for both rear seating positions.

Since the tether anchorages are easily

recognizable in the vehicle, Suzuki believes

that failure to fully illustrate the location of

each tether anchorage in the vehicle owner’s

manual is inconsequential.

The Swift owner’s manual also does not

fully comply with the requirement to ‘‘* * *

provide a step-by-step procedure, including

diagrams, for properly attaching a child

restraint system to the tether

anchorages* * *.’’ Typically, because there

are differences in child restraint system

design, the vehicle owner’s manual can only

provide general instructions to hook the

tether strap hook into the anchor bracket and

tighten the tether strap. These steps are

somewhat obvious, and should be intuitively

understood by vehicle owners.

Also, each child restraint system is

required to be accompanied with its own

installation instructions. S5.6.1 of FMVSS

No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, requires

that each child restraint system ‘‘* * * must

be accompanied by printed installation

instructions in the English language that

provide a step-by-step procedure, including

diagrams, for installing the system in motor

vehicles * * *.’’. Suzuki believes that

vehicle owners rely on the installation

instructions provided with the child restraint

system, rather than those provided in the

vehicle owner’s manual, for information

about how to install the child restraint

system in their vehicle. As a result, Suzuki

believes that failure to provide a step-by-step

procedure, in the vehicle owner’s manual, for

attaching a child restraint system to the

vehicle’s tether anchorages is

inconsequential to safety.’’

We are denying Suzuki’s application

for the following reasons:

Suzuki failed to adhere to S4.1 of

FMVSS No. 225, which requires that

manufacturers shall specify tether

anchorage configurations and locations

in their vehicles along with written

information on how to use those

anchorages and systems appropriately.

Suzuki also failed to meet the

requirements of S12(a) and (c) of

FMVSS No. 225, which specify that the

information provided in the vehicle

owner’s manual must (a) indicate which

seating positions in the vehicle are

equipped with tether anchorages and (b)

include instructions that provide stepby-step procedures, and diagrams for

properly attaching a child restraint

system’s tether strap to the tether

anchorages. Suzuki provides no excuse

for its oversight in neglecting to update

the 2000 model year Suzuki Swift

owner’s manual with the required

information.

The agency does not agree with

Suzuki that illustrating one child

restraint system positioned at only one

of the two rear seating positions, with

its tether strap attached to the tether

anchorage sufficiently demonstrates to

the owner that in fact two rear seating

positions are available for child

restraints with tether installations. The

agency further disagrees with Suzuki’s

assumption that the steps necessary for

hooking the tether strap to the anchor

bracket in the vehicle will be

‘‘intuitively’’ understood by vehicle

owners. Child restraint systems with a

top tether strap have only recently been

introduced for use in this country, and

requirements for tether anchorages have

only applied to vehicles manufactured

after September 1, 1999. Therefore, it is

not likely that vehicle owners will be

familiar with this new child restraint

system feature on the child seat itself or

its proper connection to the vehicle. The

use of a top tether decreases the motion

of a child restraint in a forward crash

and therefore reduces the likelihood

that the occupant child’s head will

impact hard interior surfaces of the