Reese preliminary evaluation PE10014
Cequent (Reese) Hitch. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the trailer hitches. Opened Apr 30, 2010, closed Sep 13, 2010 after 4 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedODI has reviewed the post-crash (Florida, May 7, 2006)information and information provided by Cequent (Reese) and has concluded that the presently-known facts do not indicate the likelihood of a defect in the Cequent hitch as alleged and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances. The enclosed report summarizes the results of ODI's review and provides the basis for this determination.
A Preliminary Evaluation is the first formal stage: NHTSA has decided the complaints and other information it screened are worth a closer look, and asks the manufacturer for its own data on the condition. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2010 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2010 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2010 | |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2010 | |
| Memo granting a response extension | INRE | 2010 | 2 files 12 |
| Filed document | INLM | 2010 | 2 files 12 |
| Correspondence | INLO | 2010 | 2 files 12 |
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themNHTSA filed this action against Cequent Performance Products, Inc. without naming a model year — an equipment or manufacturer-level query.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs PE10014 a recall?
No. A preliminary evaluation is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is PE10014 still open?
No. It closed on Sep 13, 2010 without a recall.
Which vehicles does PE10014 cover?
NHTSA filed it against Cequent Performance Products, Inc. without naming a model year.