← New search

2007 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

Owner complaints for the 2007 Toyota Prius are substantially higher than the model-year median of 164.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,721 reports with mileage · 282 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Exterior Lighting. Review the 1,060 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 248 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 184 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

124 crash reports9 fire reports53 injury reports

Tires complaints

11 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Sep 28, 2024
Tires

After an Interstate highway drive and when then discovering my tire had been punctured by a screw or other object, but with still enough air in the tire to drive to a tire repair facility, I drove to have the puncture repaired. On repairing the puncture of the 185/65R15 tire, the repairman observed a portion of the tire’s steel …

Read full complaint

After an Interstate highway drive and when then discovering my tire had been punctured by a screw or other object, but with still enough air in the tire to drive to a tire repair facility, I drove to have the puncture repaired. On repairing the puncture of the 185/65R15 tire, the repairman observed a portion of the tire’s steel belt to be visible on the inside of the tire. An immediate replacement of the tire was recommended, but this facility did not have an identical tire to provide. The facility emailed me a picture of the protruding steel belt. This writer has twice reported the matter to the tire’s manufacturer, but still no response since the first report on 09/24/2024. No party other than the tire repair facility has inspected the tire. This writer has recognized no noticeable effect of the defect, but the repair facility stated it could cause a blowout at any time.

NHTSA ODI #11617019

Mileage unknown · May 6, 2022
Tires

PURCHASED 4 TRAVELSTAR UN99 205/55R16 91V STEEL BELTED RADIAL TIRES PROFESSIONALLY INSTALLED. IN LESS THAN 20 MILES OF DRIVING, NOTICED BULGE ON FRONT DRIVER OUTER SIDEWALL, DRIECTLY ABOVE THE VALVE STEM. NO DAMAGE TO RIM, NOTHING WAS RUN OVER OR HIT. SELLER OF TIRES WAS AUTOPLICITY REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING, CITING THAT A BULGE…

Read full complaint

PURCHASED 4 TRAVELSTAR UN99 205/55R16 91V STEEL BELTED RADIAL TIRES PROFESSIONALLY INSTALLED. IN LESS THAN 20 MILES OF DRIVING, NOTICED BULGE ON FRONT DRIVER OUTER SIDEWALL, DRIECTLY ABOVE THE VALVE STEM. NO DAMAGE TO RIM, NOTHING WAS RUN OVER OR HIT. SELLER OF TIRES WAS AUTOPLICITY REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING, CITING THAT A BULGE ON THE SIDEWALL USUALLY OCCURS DUE TO A POSSIBLE ROAD HAZARD, IMPROPER INFLATION, EXCESSIVE LOAD IMPACT, OR AN INSTALLERS ERROR AND IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY. THE SELLER DID NOT ASK FOR ANY PHOTOS PRIOR TO MAKING THIS DECISION. WE HAVECONTACTED AMAZON.COM, WHOM WAS THE DISTRIBUTOR FOR AUTOBLICITY. SHOULD THIS TIRE FAIL, THERE WOULD BE A LOSS OF CONTROL DUE TO ITS LOCATION OF THE FRONT DRIVERS SIDE. THIS WOULD PUT BOTH THE DRIVER AND OTHER PERSONS IN THE AREA AT RISK. THIS BATCH OF TIRES NEEDS TO BE RECALLED.

NHTSA ODI #11463673

93,251 miles · Aug 14, 2015
Tires

MY BRIDGESTONE ECOPIA EP 422 TIRES WORE OUT AFTER ONLY 32,000 MILES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ADVERTISED AS WARRANTIED FOR 65,000 MILES. THE BRIDGESTONE DEALER GAVE ME A REFERENCE # 112-95-47 AND SENT ME TO A DEALER. THE DEALER MEASURED THE TIRES AT 4-4-0 AND STATED THAT THE WARRANTY WOULD NOT COVER BECAUSE THE INSIDE EDGES OF ALL …

Read full complaint

MY BRIDGESTONE ECOPIA EP 422 TIRES WORE OUT AFTER ONLY 32,000 MILES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ADVERTISED AS WARRANTIED FOR 65,000 MILES. THE BRIDGESTONE DEALER GAVE ME A REFERENCE # 112-95-47 AND SENT ME TO A DEALER. THE DEALER MEASURED THE TIRES AT 4-4-0 AND STATED THAT THE WARRANTY WOULD NOT COVER BECAUSE THE INSIDE EDGES OF ALL FOUR TIRES WERE BALD. HE STATED THAT, "IT LOOKS LIKE AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM TO ME." DURING THE LIFE OF THE TIRES I RETURNED TO THE TOYOTA DEALER FOR 5,000 MILE SERVICE INTERVALS. EACH TIME THEY CHECKED THE ALIGNMENT AND INFLATION. IT WAS ALWAYS "WITHIN SPEC" FOR MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. I TOLD THIS TO THE DEALER AND THE BRIDGESTONE REPRESENTATIVE. THEY STATED THAT THEY ARE SORRY BUT THEY CANNOT HONOR THE WARRANTY. WHAT GOOD IS A 65,000 MILE WARRANTY FOR TIRES THAT WEAR OUT IN 32,000 MILES IF THE FACT THAT THEY WORE OUT VOIDS THE WARRANTY? I PURCHASED THESE TIRES BECAUSE THEY GOT HIGH RATINGS FOR LOW ROLLING RESISTANCE AND THE BRIDGESTONE BROCHURE RECOMMENDED THEM FOR MY 07 PRIUS. WHILE THE GAS SAVINGS WERE GOOD, THE LOSS OF HALF THE LIFE OF THE TIRE MORE THAN OUTWEIGHS THE GAS SAVINGS. I BELIEVE THAT BRIDGESTONE HAS HAD A WEAR PROBLEM WITH THESE TIRES BECAUSE AFTER ONLY 3 YEARS THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN THE TIRES AND REPLACED THEM WITH THE NEW ECOPIA 422 PLUS. IT HAS A 70,000 MILE WARRANTY. BUT THE NEW TIRE HAS A TREAD COMPOUND RATED AT 680 WHILE THE OLD TIRE HAS A TREAD COMPOUND RATED AT 400. WOULDN'T IT BE REASONABLE TO THINK THAT THE MUCH HARDER 680 RATING WOULD PRODUCE MUCH MORE THAN ONLY 5,000 MILE MORE WARRANTY? I THINK THAT THEY WITHDREW THE SOFTER TIRE BECAUSE IT WORE OUT TOO QUICKLY AND CHANGED TO THE HARDER TREAD COMPOUND TO GET IT CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY. BUT, THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE OLD TIRE WARRANTY. I PRESENTED THIS LOGIC TO THE BRIDGESTONE REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PHONE AND IN PERSON. THEY STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT HAD COMPLAINTS. I DOUBT THIS. THAT IS WHY I AM SENDING THIS COMPLAINT. THIS IS FALSE ADVERTISING.

NHTSA ODI #10748785

200,000 miles · Oct 29, 2014
TiresFire

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER TO HAVE FOUR TIRES INSTALLED BUT AFTER THE REPAIR THE TPMS WARNING LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER, WHO INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS DAMAGED DURING THE TPMS SENSOR INSTALLATION AND NEEDE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER TO HAVE FOUR TIRES INSTALLED BUT AFTER THE REPAIR THE TPMS WARNING LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER, WHO INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS DAMAGED DURING THE TPMS SENSOR INSTALLATION AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKED, THERE WAS FIRE COMING FROM THE CONSOLE TO THE REAR SEATS. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND STATED THAT THE FIRE MIGHT BE DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000.

NHTSA ODI #10650967

87,000 miles · Mar 7, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Power TrainStructure

THE PROBLEM HAS OCCURRED WHENEVER THE DONUT TIRE IS BEING USED ON THE VEHICLE AS A TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT FOR A FLAT TIRE - THIS HAS OCCURRED ON BOTH THE TWO OCCASIONS THAT IN WHICH I HAVE HAD TO USED THEM BOTH TIMES ON THE FRONT TIRES, ONCE ON THE LEFT TIRE AND THE SECOND OCCASION, MOST RECENT ON THE LEFT. APPARENTLY, THE D…

Read full complaint

THE PROBLEM HAS OCCURRED WHENEVER THE DONUT TIRE IS BEING USED ON THE VEHICLE AS A TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT FOR A FLAT TIRE - THIS HAS OCCURRED ON BOTH THE TWO OCCASIONS THAT IN WHICH I HAVE HAD TO USED THEM BOTH TIMES ON THE FRONT TIRES, ONCE ON THE LEFT TIRE AND THE SECOND OCCASION, MOST RECENT ON THE LEFT. APPARENTLY, THE DONUT TIRE BECAUSE OF ITS SMALLER DIAMETER CAUSES THE CAR'S SLIP DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM TO ACTIVATE (SURMISED BY THE ICON I SEE ON THE DASH WHEN THIS OCCURS), OFTEN FOR PERIODS OF HALF THE DRIVING TIME - WHAT THEN HAPPENS IS THAT THERE IS A TOTAL LOSS OF ENGINE POWER TO THE DRIVE CHAIN, THE CAR CANNOT ACCELERATE OR EVEN MAINTAIN SPEED - IT ESSENTIALLY COASTS OR SLOWS. THIS OCCURS EVEN WHEN/IF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS DEPRESSED TO TRY TO FEED POWER TO THE WHEELS - THE ENGINE IS UNRESPONSIVE. INTERMITTENTLY, THE POWER IS RESTORED, AND THEN THE CYCLE BEGINS AGAIN. ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT HAD AN ACCIDENT DUE TO THIS LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, I CONSIDER MYSELF LUCKY NOT TO HAVE. USE OF A DONUT TIRE IS THE ONLY OPTION OPEN TO TEMPORARILY REPLACING A FLAT TIRE. I THINK THAT THIS SYSTEM'S RESPONSE TO USE OF THE DONUT TIRE (WHICH IS MANUFACTURER'S SUPPLIED) IS A DEFECT THAT IS DANGEROUS. A DRIVER MUST BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN AND CONTROL VEHICLE SPEED TO PREVENT AND/OR REMEDY A DANGEROUS SITUATION. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10502002

62,280 miles · Aug 31, 2011
Tires

DRIVING PASSENGER VEHICLE AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON A TOLLROAD. NORMAL CLEAR DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS AT ABOUT 80 DEGREES. THERE WAS A LOAD NOISE, THEN SMOKE AND LOSS OF VEHICLE STABILITY. PASSENGER SIDE REAR TIRE HAD A BLOWOUT. APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF OF THE TIRE IN THE SIDE WALL AREA WAS TORN APART. TIRE WAS REPLACED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10422709

40,000 miles · Feb 28, 2011
Exterior LightingTires

THE PRIUS HEADLIGHTS TURN OFF RANDOMLY WHILE DRIVING. SOMETIMES ONE, SOMETIMES BOTH. THERE IS NO PATTERN AND THEY GO BACK ON WHEN THE ON/OFF SWITCH IS ACTIVATED. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE ABOUT 40,000 MILES. THE BULBS WERE REMOVED AND RESET AND THE RIGHT SIDE WAS FIXED, THE LEFT SIDE FAILS LESS FREQUENTLY. THIS IS A POTE…

Read full complaint

THE PRIUS HEADLIGHTS TURN OFF RANDOMLY WHILE DRIVING. SOMETIMES ONE, SOMETIMES BOTH. THERE IS NO PATTERN AND THEY GO BACK ON WHEN THE ON/OFF SWITCH IS ACTIVATED. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE ABOUT 40,000 MILES. THE BULBS WERE REMOVED AND RESET AND THE RIGHT SIDE WAS FIXED, THE LEFT SIDE FAILS LESS FREQUENTLY. THIS IS A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION SINCE THE DEALER DOES NOT SEEM TO BE SURE OF THE CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. THE COST TO REPLACE THE BULBS IS OVER $400. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL FIX THE PROBLEM. THE TIRES WEAR OUT VERY QUICKLY; REPLACED ORIGINAL TIRES AT 22,209 MILES AND NOW AT 50,287 MILES THE SECOND SET HAS TO BE REPLACED. THE TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT GOES ON CONTINUOUSLY, REGARDLESS OF PRESSURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10384856

Mileage unknown · Mar 2, 2010
Electrical SystemExterior LightingService Brakes, Hydraulic

2007 TOYOTA PRIUS WITH TIRE FAILURE AND BRAKES GRABBING. *KB THE BATTERY AND HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE CONSUMER STATED TOYOTA HAS SINCE REMOVED THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF BULB AND ASSEMBLY FROM PRODUCTION. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS 1 YEAR OLD THE CONSUMER WAS STOPPED BY THE POLICE AND GIVEN A WARNING FOR THE HEADLIGHT BEING OUT. HOWEVER,…

Read full complaint

2007 TOYOTA PRIUS WITH TIRE FAILURE AND BRAKES GRABBING. *KB THE BATTERY AND HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE CONSUMER STATED TOYOTA HAS SINCE REMOVED THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF BULB AND ASSEMBLY FROM PRODUCTION. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS 1 YEAR OLD THE CONSUMER WAS STOPPED BY THE POLICE AND GIVEN A WARNING FOR THE HEADLIGHT BEING OUT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CONSUMER AND HER HUSBAND EXITED THE VEHICLE, THEY ALONG WITH THE POLICE OFFICER FOUND BOTH HEADLIGHTS WERE WORKING AND HE LET THEM GO WITHOUT A CITATION. THE CONSUMER HAS SINCE DISCOVERED THAT ONE HEADLIGHT OR THE OTHER WILL JUST GO OUT ON OCCASION DURING EVERY DRIVE. THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE HEADLIGHTS BEGAN TO DIM WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS ONLY A YEAR OLD. TOYOTA RECOMMENDED USING THE HEADLIGHTS LESS AND THEY FURTHER RECOMMENDED NOT USING THE HIGHLY TOUTED FEATURE THAT ALLOWS THE LIGHTS TO AUTOMATICALLY TURN OFF AFTER THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TURNED OFF. LAST MONTH, THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TOYOTA REGARDING INFORMATION ABOUT A PROBLEM WITH THE HID HEADLIGHTS. THE LETTER STATED THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM WOULD REIMBURSE FOR SOME COST RELATIVE TO THE DEFECTIVE HEADLIGHTS. HOWEVER THE LOCAL DEALER DID NOT AGREE AND THE COST FAR EXCEEDED ANYTHING MENTIONED IN THE LETTER. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THE COST OF INSTALLATION FOR NEW BULBS WOULD BE $245 IN LABOR FOR EACH HEADLIGHT REPLACEMENT, THAT WAS IN ADDITION TO THE EXORBITANT COST OF THE BULBS THEMSELVES. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10315409

26,000 miles · Jul 1, 2008
Tires

THE NEW TIRES WE GOT ON A NEW VEHICLE PURCHASE LASTED ONLY ABOUT 10,000 MILES, WHICH WAS MUCH LOWER THAN EXPECTED AND LOWER THAN WHAT THE DEALERSHIP SAID WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10232972

8,983 miles · May 1, 2007
Power TrainTiresVehicle Speed Control

CAUSE: FLAT TIRE IN THE FRONT LEFT OR FRONT RIGHT OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRONT LEFT DEMONSTRATING THE MOST SEVERE HAZARD FAILURE: THE TRACTION CONTROL SYSTEM ENGAGES REGULARLY DUE TO A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE SPARE AND NORMAL TIRE SIZE. TRACTION CONTROL CUTS POWER TO THE DRIVE WHEELS AND CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN, CAUSING VEHICLE TO …

Read full complaint

CAUSE: FLAT TIRE IN THE FRONT LEFT OR FRONT RIGHT OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRONT LEFT DEMONSTRATING THE MOST SEVERE HAZARD FAILURE: THE TRACTION CONTROL SYSTEM ENGAGES REGULARLY DUE TO A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE SPARE AND NORMAL TIRE SIZE. TRACTION CONTROL CUTS POWER TO THE DRIVE WHEELS AND CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN, CAUSING VEHICLE TO LOSE SPEED IN NON-DETERMINISTIC MANNER. VEHICLE IS NOT RESPONSIVE. CONDITION IS WORST DURING THE FIRST 40 MILES DRIVEN ON THE SPARE TIRE BUT CONSEQUENTLY IMPROVES DUE TO LEARNING INSIDE THE CAR COMPUTER. UNFORTUNATELY, VEHICLE IS MOST DANGEROUS WHEN THE DRIVER HAS THE LEAST CONTROL OVER THE SITUATION. CORRECTION: NONE, THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMS THE VEHICLE IS OPERATING AS DESIGNED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10189459

Official recalls

4

12V536000 · Engine And Engine Cooling; Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter

Nov 14, 2012

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.

Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Engine And Engine Cooling

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.

Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

12V537000 · Steering; Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector

Nov 14, 2012

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.

Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Steering

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.

Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

10V036000 · Equipment:other:labels

Feb 3, 2010

SOUTHEAST TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2011 PASSENGER VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A DRIVER MAY OVERLOAD A VEHICLE WHICH MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.

09V388000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal

Oct 5, 2009

TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004-2010 PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL CAN GET STUCK IN THE WIDE OPEN POSITION DUE TO ITS BEING TRAPPED BY AN UNSECURED OR INCOMPATIBLE DRIVER'S FLOOR MAT.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A STUCK OPEN ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY RESULT IN VERY HIGH VEHICLE SPEEDS AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO STOP THE VEHICLE, WHICH COULD CAUSE A CRASH, SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.

Remedy: TOYOTA FILED AN AMENDED DEFECT REPORT ON NOVEMBER 25, 2009, STATING THAT DEALERS WILL MODIFY THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND, ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, ALTER THE SHAPE OF THE FLOOR SURFACE UNDER THE PEDAL. THESE CHANGES ADDRESS THE RISK OF PEDAL ENTRAPMENT DUE TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE FLOOR MAT. REDESIGNED ACCELERATOR PEDALS WILL BECOME AVAILABLE BEGINNING IN APRIL 2010 AND DEALERS WILL REPLACE ANY MODIFIED PEDAL WITH THE NEW PEDAL IF DESIRED. ALSO, DEALERS WILL REPLACE ANY GENUINE TOYOTA OR LEXUS ALL-WEATHER FLOOR MATS WITH REDESIGNED ALL-WEATHER MATS, OR REPURCHASE THE PREVIOUS MATS FROM OWNERS WHO DO NOT WANT THE NEW ONES. ADDITIONALLY, SOFTWARE MODIFICATIONS WILL BE INSTALLED ON CAMRY, AVALON AND LEXUS ES 350, IS 350 AND IS 250 MODELS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE BRAKE OVERRIDES THE ACCELERATOR IN THE EVENT BOTH BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS ARE APPLIED. TOYOTA WILL BEGIN MAILING LETTERS TO OWNERS ON DECEMBER 31, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331, LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

3

DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds

Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System

NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.

DP13001 · Intermediate Steering Shaft Separation

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Apr 8, 2020

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:linkages

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

Additional source detail variants (3)

Steering:column

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

Steering:linkages

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

Steering

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

PE09019 · Headlight Failure

Opened Apr 17, 2009 · Closed Aug 27, 2009

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Exterior Lighting:headlights

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Exterior Lighting

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.