[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 164-166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-8151]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition (Defect Petition 05-002) submitted by Mr. Jordan Ziprin to 
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), by letter dated July 8, 
2005, 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 within the electronic throttle control (ETC) system in 
model year (MY) 2002 to 2005 Toyota and Lexus vehicles, or to reopen 
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 04-021 whose subject was the ETC system on 
MY 2002 to 2003 Toyota Camry, Solara and Lexus ES models. In a letter 
dated August 18, 2005, Mr. Ziprin amended the petition to include 
additional allegations of interrelated brake and acceleration problems 
that allegedly result in inappropriate and uncontrollable vehicle 
accelerations in ETC equipped MY 2002 to 2005 Toyota and Lexus 
vehicles.
    After reviewing the material cited by the petitioner and other 
information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the 
agency's investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition 
is not warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Yon, Vehicle Control 
Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The petitioner owns a 2002 Toyota Camry with 
V6 engine that he purchased new in March 2002. On July 5, 2005, at 
approximately 8:45 p.m., the petitioner parked his vehicle in the 
driveway of a home near his residence in Phoenix, Arizona and exited 
the vehicle. Upon determining that he was at the wrong address, he re-
entered the vehicle, started the engine, placed his foot on the brake 
pedal and shifted the gear selector to reverse. The petitioner states 
that he was steering clockwise as the vehicle drifted backwards from 
the driveway under its own power. He alleges that without application 
of the throttle the vehicle suddenly accelerated backwards at a high 
rate causing a loss of vehicle control. The vehicle appears to have 
moved in a circular path and came to rest with the driver's door 
abutted to a utility box situated on a concrete pad in front of the 
home adjacent to where the vehicle had been parked. According to the 
petitioner, he does not recall if he applied, or attempted to apply, 
the brake pedal during this incident. He stated, however, that he is 
sure he would not have applied the throttle since no application was 
necessary for vehicle movement. Although the exact distance and path 
the vehicle traveled during the incident is unknown, the vehicle damage 
\1\ and incident site evidence suggests the vehicle yawed (rotated 
about a vertical axis) through a significant angle to reach its final 
rest position; this is consistent with the petitioner's statement that 
the vehicle accelerated at a high rate and is an indication that a 
significant throttle opening occurred. Additionally, the petitioner 
describes another incident \2\ that happened in April 2002, within the 
first few weeks of his ownership, stating that he did not report the 
incident at that time because he felt that his unfamiliarity with the 
vehicle may have caused an error that lead to the incident.

[[Page 165]]

ODI visited the location of both incidents and performed an inspection 
of the petitioner's vehicle on October 5, 2005, as described in the 
December 15, 2005 memo to file.' \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Repair damage for the petitioner's vehicle from this 
incident was estimated at $3,000.
    \2\ The incident occurred while the petitioner was reversing the 
vehicle at a gas station local to his residence.
    \3\ The documents are available for public review at ODI's Web 
site: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner has submitted several letters to ODI \3\ that 
contain further descriptions of his two incidents, discussions of his 
review of related information including information from ODI's 
complaint and investigation databases, and lists of Vehicle Owner 
Questionnaire (VOQ) numbers (reports) with comments describing his 
analysis of each. In total, ODI recognizes 1,172 distinct VOQ reports 
that the petitioner has obtained from ODI's database, reviewed and 
submitted to the agency.\4\ The reports involve MY 2002 to 2005 Toyota 
products,\5\ including 4 Lexus and 15 Toyota models, defining a vehicle 
population of some 7.1 million vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This count does not include reports contained in 
correspondence received after November 30, 2005.
    \5\ A ``product'' is defined as a distinct make, model and model 
year vehicle.
    \6\ Vehicle production was estimated from Early Warning 
Reporting data submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its analysis of the petitioner's data, ODI noted that many of 
the cited reports involved complaints related solely to the brake 
system. Accordingly, ODI performed an analysis of the ODI complaint 
database for all MY 2002 to 2005 light vehicles for reports coded to 
the brake system component category. With the exception of two 
products,\7\ the analysis showed that the vehicles identified by the 
petitioner were not over-represented in the complaint database. 
Accordingly, ODI determined that there was insufficient evidence to 
support the existence of a brake system-related defect in these 
vehicles. Additionally, ODI determined that many of the products 
identified by the petitioner were not manufactured with ETC systems, 
but were instead built with mechanical throttle control systems 
(typically cable based). In fact, for the four MYs cited by the 
petitioner, only the Toyota Camry and Lexus ES models were all 
manufactured with ETC. For these reasons, ODI restricted its analysis 
to petitioner reports involving MY 2002 to 2005 Camry, Solara, and ES 
models (identified henceforth as the subject vehicles) that alleged an 
abnormal throttle control event. There are approximately 1.9 million 
subject vehicles in this population.\6\ The design and operation of the 
subject vehicle's ETC system, including the diagnostic and safety 
control system, is discussed in the closing report for PE04-021 and in 
information Toyota provided during PE04-021 and this petition.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The MY 2004 RX330 was the subject of PE05-009 and a service 
action Toyota subsequently conducted. The MY 2002 Toyota Tundra 
product prompted a number of brake disc-borne vibration complaints 
that ODI reviewed but did not find to be sufficient evidence to 
indicate the existence of a safety related defect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the total of 1,172 reports to which the petitioner has directed 
our attention, and after excluding the reports discussed above, ODI 
identified 432 \8\ unique subject vehicle VOQ reports involving 
throttle control concerns originating from ETC equipped vehicles; this 
appears to be a relatively comprehensive representation of the ODI 
complaint database regarding this issue on the subject vehicles. 
Generally speaking, these reports fall into one of three categories; 
(1) those that involve engine management system (EMS) related 
driveability concerns, (2) those that involve throttle control related 
concerns where the brake system was reportedly ineffective, and (3) 
those that involve throttle control related concerns where the 
effectiveness of the brake system was unknown or ambiguous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ There were a total of 468 reports, but duplicates (from the 
same complainant) were eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI found that 171 of the 432 reports (40%) involved driveability 
concerns. These reports describe a condition where the operator 
intentionally applies the throttle pedal, in expectation that the 
vehicle will accelerate, and then experiences a delay or hesitation in 
vehicle response.\9\ Complainants allege the delay lasts from 2 to 5 
seconds and that during that period the operator further depresses the 
accelerator; this results in a greater than anticipated vehicle 
response which is disconcerting to vehicle occupants.\10\ Many reports 
allege that this condition is a safety problem. ODI has interviewed 
several complainants and found that while they express concern and 
frustration over the issue they nevertheless continue to operate the 
vehicle on a daily basis. No crashes, injuries or fatalities have been 
alleged to result from this condition, despite the large subject 
vehicle population and years of exposure. These complaints, which 
relate to delayed throttle response, involve vehicle response to 
intentional driver commands. Therefore, ODI does not consider this 
concern to be related to the allegations raised by the petitioner and 
these reports do not provide support for the investigation requested by 
the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This is contrary to the other throttle control categories 
ODI established and to what the petitioner alleges, i.e., that the 
accelerator opened by itself and the vehicle accelerated without 
driver input.
    \10\ This issue is the subject of a Toyota technical service 
bulletin intended to address the driveability condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, 93 of the reports (~20%) allege throttle control 
concerns where the brake was reported by the operator to be ineffective 
at controlling vehicle movement despite brake application, indicating 
that, if the reports are assumed to be correct, simultaneous failures 
of the throttle control and brake systems must have occurred.\11\ These 
incidents, sometimes referred to as ``sudden or unintended 
acceleration'' incidents,\12\ occurred under various operating 
conditions and often resulted in a crash with alleged injuries and or 
fatalities. ODI has interviewed 24 of the complainants \13\ and learned 
that most vehicles were subsequently inspected by dealership, 
manufacturer and or independent technical personnel who were unable to 
discover any evidence of a failed or malfunctioning vehicle component 
or system or any other vehicle condition that could have contributed to 
the incident.\14\ Additionally, for reports where an interview was not 
conducted, many state that no vehicle-based cause was ever found in 
post-incident vehicle inspections. For these 93 reports, the complaint 
rate of 4.9/100k vehicles is similar to that of the general vehicle 
population and is unremarkable.\15\ The complaint trend is also 
constant and neither increasing or decreasing. Accordingly, because 
these reports do not appear to indicate a distinct safety defect that 
would warrant investigation

[[Page 166]]

and are factually distinguishable from the specific facts of 
petitioner's case, the reports do not provide support for the 
investigation requested by the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ODI notes that reports of this nature are not unique to the 
subject vehicles or to Toyota products.
    \12\ Sudden or unintended acceleration events have been the 
subject of many public and private studies which generally conclude 
that, absent any evidence to support a vehicle-based failure, the 
unavoidable explanation is that driver error--the inadvertent 
application of the accelerator rather than the brake--is the cause 
of the incidents. For further information regarding sudden and 
unintended acceleration events, see DPs 99-004, 03-003 and 03-007 
including the Federal Register notices and the notes and references 
contained therein.
    \13\ A comprehensive driver interview was used to ascertain 
specific detail about each incident. Based on the results of these 
interviews, ODI would caution readers of these complaints regarding 
conclusions based solely on the content of the complaint 
description.
    \14\ A brake system failure that results in brake loss is highly 
likely to be easily detectable after it occurs.
    \15\ For example, two throttle control investigations are 
currently underway. For Engineering Analysis (EA) 05-014 the 
complaint rate is 230/100k, for EA05-021 the rate is 685/100k. One 
of the more notable sudden acceleration investigations involved MY 
1978--1987 Audi products; the complaint rate in this investigation 
was ~600/100k. Also, see complaint rates discussed in the Federal 
Register notices associated with Defect Petitions (DP) 03-003 and 
03-007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining 168 reports (~40%) are similar to those investigated 
during PE04-021 and to the situation that petitioner experienced. These 
reports typically describe incidents where a vehicle equipped with ETC 
is being maneuvered at slow speed in a close quarter situation, such as 
pulling into or out of a parking space, at which point the operator 
alleges that the vehicle accelerates without driver input and 
crashes.\11,16\ The crashes are generally low speed crashes, with minor 
or no injuries. In the aftermath, operators are unsure of whether the 
brakes were applied or not, sometimes stating that there was 
insufficient time to use the brake pedal. The common thread in these 
reports is that the vehicle accelerated, a crash occurred, and the 
operator believes an uncommanded acceleration caused it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ODI notes that driver error is one plausible explanation 
for many of these incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prompted by consumer complaints and DP04-04, PE04-021 investigated 
the ETC system on MY 2002 and 2003 subject vehicles and involved many 
of the same VOQ reports identified by the petitioner. ODI opened the 
investigation to determine if the system could be the cause of 
complaints alleging the engine speed increased, or failed to decrease, 
when the accelerator pedal was not depressed. During the course of the 
investigation, ODI reviewed VOQ and manufacturer reports, inspected two 
complaint vehicles, reviewed relevant Toyota technical documentation, 
analyzed Toyota's responses to an information request letter, conducted 
a limited control pedal assessment and attended a Toyota technical 
presentation that included the assessment of two demonstration 
vehicles. The investigation closed in July, 2004, without the 
identification of a defect trend, and with the agency noting that it 
would take further action if warranted.
    With regard to the 168 reports recently identified by the 
petitioner, ODI has now interviewed \12\ 110 of these 168 complainants 
(65%) including 23 of the 29 (~80%) MY 2004 to 2005 complainants. Here 
again, these interviews revealed that most vehicles were subsequently 
inspected by dealership, manufacturer and/or independent technical 
personnel and no malfunction or failure explaining these incidents was 
identified. Many vehicles involved in these incidents have been placed 
back in service and have accumulated significant service experience 
without any recurrence.\17\ For these 168 reports, the complaint rate 
of 8.8/100k vehicles is comparable to rates for similar vehicles and 
the complaint trend is declining.\18\ None of this evidence suggests 
that a vehicle-based cause may exist. Therefore, the reports have 
ambiguous significance and do not constitute a basis on which any 
further investigative action can be initiated.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This observation does not support the existence of a 
vehicle-based causal explanation.
    \18\ This is partially due to the effects of publicity 
surrounding PE04-021.
    \19\ For this reason, these reports will not be reflected in the 
close resume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an 
order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as 
alleged by the petitioner at the conclusion of the requested 
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. This action does not constitute 
a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The 
agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 23, 2005.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E5-8151 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P