Thomas Built Buses preliminary evaluation PE19007
Rear Leaf Spring Fractures. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the springs on 11 model years (2008–2018). Opened Jun 18, 2019, closed Oct 17, 2023 after 4.3 years without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn June 18, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE19-007 to investigate instances of leaf-style suspension springs fracturing in various model 2008-2018 Thomas Built Buses (TBB) school buses, which could lead to a road hazard if a piece of the leaf spring detaches from the vehicle while driving. This investigation was prompted by ODI’s review of field reports in Daimler Truck North America's (DTNA) Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data, describing cracked rear leaf-style suspension springs in Thomas Built school buses. ODI contacted three municipal school bus fleets with subject vehicles. These fleets described similar failures where a fractured piece of leaf spring separated from the vehicle while driving. In addition, ODI contacted a nationwide school bus transportation service provider who identified several failures of this component. DTNA’s response to NHTSA’s Information Request (IR) in this investigation acknowledged that TBB school bus leaf springs may corrode and fracture. DTNA data provided in response to the IR did not show a high frequency of failures that result in portions of a cracked leaf spring detaching from the vehicle. In the response, the majority of the information concerned C2 springs. While the C2 represents approximately 71% of the sales, 136 of 141 warranty claims (97%) were for C2 buses, and 94% of all of the replacement parts sales were for C2 springs. In 2021, DTNA retained Exponent to assess reports of rear leaf spring fractures on TBB C2 school buses. As part of its assessment, Exponent inspected in-service buses and leaf springs, conducted material and metallurgical analyses of exemplar leaf springs, and analyzed manufacturer- and fleet-generated claims data. Exponent concluded based on its assessment that DTNA’s leaf springs are typical for the industry and within DTNA’s specification, and it found a low frequency of a cracked leaf springs detaching from vehicles. Exponent also asserted that it could not confirm any instance of detachment while driving, resulting in roadway debris. In 2022, in response to NHTSA’s ongoing investigation, Exponent conducted additional analysis of the metallurgical characteristics of new and used (in-service) subject leaf springs and reviewed data from a major nationwide school bus transportation provider that had obtained leaf spring replacements. Similar to its initial findings, Exponent determined that the leaf spring material specified by DTNA is commonly used for leaf springs and adheres to industry-adopted standards. Exponent’s metallurgical analysis also showed that DTNA’s springs are coated with a corrosion inhibitor. Exponent’s failure analysis of fractured leaf springs found that the fractures were due to fatigue crack initiation and growth, a common fracture mode for this component. Exponent’s inspection of in-service leaf springs found surface corrosion within the expected range. Exponent also found that corrosion pitting may play a role in fatigue crack initiation. Exponent’s analysis of DTNA warranty data found one claim in which part of the leaf spring was described as missing. Based on NHTSA’s investigation, including its careful review and assessment of the analysis provided by DTNA’s consultant Exponent, there is insufficient information at this time to conclude that a defect results in detached leaf springs creating a hazard for other roadway users. However, ODI does acknowledge that most roadway users encountering this type of debris would not know what it was or where it came from. For reporting purposes, using roadway debris as a measure could result in this issue being under-reported. Additionally, leaf springs are generally considered wear components that need routine inspection. If signs of corrosion or fracture are present, leaf springs should be immediately replaced. During NHTSA’s investigation, DTNA did share messaging with school bus fleets reminding them of the importance of routine and required inspection of school bus wear components, including leaf springs. Considering the nature of this component and available information, including the metallurgical analysis of DTNA’s in-use components and low rate of broken or missing leaf springs for the subject population, this Preliminary Evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety�related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.
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 opening and closing resumes with the full reasoning are on NHTSA’s site under this number.
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 themAlso named: 2008 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2009 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2010 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2011 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2012 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2013 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2014 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2015 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2016 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2017 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2; 2018 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2.
A vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs PE19007 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 PE19007 still open?
No. It closed on Oct 17, 2023 without a recall.
Which vehicles does PE19007 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 11 model years: 2008 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2, 2009 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2, 2010 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2, 2011 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2, 2012 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2, 2013 Thomas Built Buses SAF-T-Liner C2 and more. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.