[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16823-16827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06217]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0105]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP18-002
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 on August 7, 2018, by Mr. Gary Weinreich (the
petitioner) to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The
petition requests that the Agency investigate alleged ``premature and
excessive frame corrosion'' in model year (MY) 2002 through 2006 Toyota
4Runner vehicles. The petitioner bases his request upon his own
experience with a MY 2005 Toyota 4Runner, a class action lawsuit
settlement involving other Toyota products, and other complaints of
underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner vehicles that he found in NHTSA's
online complaint database. After reviewing the information provided by
the petitioner regarding his vehicle, facts related to the class action
lawsuit cited by the petitioner, and field data regarding underbody
corrosion in
[[Page 16824]]
Toyota 4Runner vehicles, NHTSA has concluded that there is insufficient
evidence to pursue further action. Accordingly, the Agency has denied
the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Magno, Vehicle Defects
Division--D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-5226).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated August 7, 2018, Mr. Gary
Weinreich (the petitioner) submitted a petition requesting that the
Agency ``perform a high-priority investigation'' of ``premature and
excessive frame corrosion'' in model year (MY) 2002 through 2006 Toyota
4Runner vehicles. The petitioner bases his request upon a corrosion-
related front suspension failure he experienced in his MY 2005 Toyota
4Runner, a class action lawsuit settlement involving other Toyota
products, and other complaints of underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner
vehicles that he found in NHTSA's online complaint database.
On August 17, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)
opened Defect Petition DP18-002 to evaluate the petitioner's request
for an investigation. ODI has reviewed the following information as
part of its evaluation: (1) Information provided by the petitioner
regarding his vehicle; (2) facts related to the class action lawsuit
cited by the petitioner; (3) consumer complaint data regarding
underbody corrosion in third- and fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner
vehicles.
Scope: The petitioner's request for an investigation of premature
frame corrosion in MY 2002 through 2006 Toyota 4Runner vehicles
includes both third- and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles that ranged
from 12 to 17 years in age when the petition was filed. Toyota sold
approximately 745,000 third-generation (MY 1996 through 2002), and
approximately 603,000 fourth-generation (MY 2003 through 2009) 4Runner
vehicles in the United States.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The analysis here will focus on the fourth-generation
vehicles, which includes the Petitioner's vehicle, except where
otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner's vehicle: On May 24, 2018, the petitioner experienced a
front suspension failure while driving on the highway in a 2005 Toyota
4Runner vehicle that was nearing 13 years of service.\2\ He reported
the incident to NHTSA in a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) submitted
on May 26, 2018 (NHTSA ID 11098055):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The front attachment bracket for the left lower control arm
detached from the frame.
Yesterday, my wife and I and two friends riding with us narrowly
escaped a fatal accident when the front suspension separated from
the frame due to the corrosion problem. At highway speed, the
vehicle began shaking violently and the steering was unable to
properly control the vehicle. The vehicle went off the road after
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coming close to hitting an oncoming vehicle.
The petitioner alleged that this failure resulted from premature
and excessive frame corrosion and provided service history information
and photographs as supporting evidence.\3\ ODI reviewed the information
provided by the petitioner, as well as additional details contained in
a lawsuit he filed against Toyota in December 2018.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Gary Weinreich letter to Stephen Ridella, Ph.D., Director,
Office of Defects Investigation, August 28, 2018.
\4\ Gary Weinreich v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:18-cv-03294-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Charleston Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI found that the petitioner's vehicle had a history of general
corrosion concerns throughout the undercarriage that were not isolated
to the frame. The photographs showed that the vehicle undercarriage was
seriously corroded at the time the incident occurred. The information
indicates severe general corrosion of the vehicle undercarriage
consistent with many years of severe use and exposure, but ODI has not
found evidence showing a design or manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
The vehicle service history information that the petitioner
provided supports these observations. Concerns with underbody corrosion
on his vehicle were first noted by a Toyota dealer in a multi-point
vehicle inspection performed on April 28, 2011. The invoice for that
inspection noted ``severe and excessive amount of rust on the
undercarriage and on the drive shaft transmission.'' Two years later,
on October 21, 2013, another multi-point inspection by a Toyota dealer
observed further progression of underbody corrosion damage, noting:
``rust on shocks/struts and other components,'' ``rust on exhaust
system,'' ``both splash shields severely rusted,'' and ``undercarriage
very rusty.'' \5\ On July 17, 2017, approximately 10 months prior to
experiencing the suspension failure incident, an independent repair
facility performing a routine oil change and brake maintenance informed
the petitioner of a concern with ``excessive frame corrosion'' on his
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Records provided by petitioner indicate that Toyota did not
service the vehicle after October 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The service history further indicates that corrosion concerns in
the petitioner's vehicle were first observed in other underbody
components (e.g., drive shaft transmission, exhaust, splash shields)
and grew progressively worse over several years before the observation
of ``excessive frame corrosion'' and subsequent suspension link
failure. Photographs provided by the petitioner show that the vehicle's
underbody was in poor condition when the failure occurred, with heavy
corrosion throughout the vehicle underbody and multiple visible
perforations in frame structural members.
The petitioner lives less than a mile from the ocean, where
exposure to marine salts may lead to increased vehicle corrosion rates
if vehicles are not regularly cleaned. While no information was
provided regarding the use, care, and maintenance of the petitioner's
vehicle, ODI has not received evidence that the vehicle received any
repairs to address the noted corrosion concerns prior to the May 2018
front suspension failure.
Class action lawsuit: The petitioner cites a class action lawsuit
settled by Toyota in 2017 \6\ as evidence of the defect in his vehicle
and states that 4Runner vehicles ``were not included in the class-
action lawsuit simply because there were insufficient complaints known
to the counsel representing the class at the time it was formed.'' ODI
has reviewed the referenced lawsuit and does not agree with the
petitioner's claims. The vehicles covered by the class action were
equipped with frames manufactured by a specific supplier alleged to be
using a defective electrocoating process over a certain manufacturing
period. The subject 4Runner vehicles were not equipped with frames
manufactured by that supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ www.toyotaframesettlement.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting in 2008, Toyota conducted multiple service campaigns and
warranty extension programs to address concerns with premature frame
corrosion in certain vehicles equipped with frames supplied by Dana
Holding Company (Dana).\7\ The combined field actions covered MY 1995
through 2010 Toyota Tacoma, MY 2000 through 2008 Tundra, and MY 2001
through 2007 Sequoia vehicles (``Dana frame
[[Page 16825]]
vehicles'').\8\ Toyota took these actions after identifying quality
concerns with the electrocoating processes in certain frames supplied
by Dana that could lead to premature corrosion failures. In 2011, Dana
settled a lawsuit with Toyota for warranty claim costs related to
premature frame corrosion.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In December 2009, Dana announced its agreement to sell its
Structural Products Business to Metalsa, S.A. de C.V, http://dana.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=26450&item=69875.
\8\ The subject Tacoma, Tundra, and Sequoia vehicles were all
manufactured at assembly plants located in the United States. Dana
did not supply frames for any products manufactured in Japan.
\9\ Dana Holding Corporation Reaches Settlement with Toyota on
Warranty Claims Related to Divested Structural Products Business,
January 12, 2011, http://dana.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=26450&item=69927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These issues were presented in other litigation as well. A class-
action lawsuit filed in Arkansas on October 3, 2014, alleged that MY
2005 through 2009 Toyota Tacoma vehicles lacked adequate rust
protection on the vehicles' frames, leading to premature corrosion
failures.\10\ A separate class-action lawsuit filed in California on
March 24, 2015, made similar claims.\11\ The lawsuits were consolidated
in a second amended complaint filed on November 8, 2016. The
consolidated complaint covered MY 2005 through 2010 Toyota Tacoma, MY
2007 through 2008 Toyota Tundra, and MY 2005 through 2008 Toyota
Sequoia vehicles. The second amended complaint stated that the vehicles
that were the subject of the lawsuit were all equipped with frames
manufactured by Dana using ``the same defective process.'' The
complaint alleged that, ``The frames on the Toyota Vehicles are
materially the same for purposes of this lawsuit and suffer from the
same defect. All of the frames were manufactured by the same
corporation (Dana Holding Corporation) pursuant to the same defective
process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Burns v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., Case No. CV 14-2208
(W.D. Ark.), http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/.
\11\ Brian Warner et al v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02171-FMO-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action was settled in May 2017. The terms of the
settlement included extending warranty coverage to 12 years from first
use for a Frame Inspection and Replacement Program. The settlement was
widely reported by news media.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Reuters, Toyota to settle U.S. truck rust lawsuit for up to
$3.4 billion, November 12, 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-settlement-idUSKBN1370PE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both third and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles were built in
Japan and are not equipped with frames manufactured by Dana. Although
private litigation can be a relevant source of information to consider
in the course of examining a potential vehicle defect in many cases,
the petitioner has not demonstrated that the litigation he cites here
supports the grant of his petition.
Complaint analysis: The petitioner alleged that his analysis of
NHTSA's complaint database revealed evidence supporting his claim of
premature and excessive frame corrosion in MY 2002 through 2006 Toyota
4Runner vehicles, and that differences in field experience between
third- and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles provide further evidence
suggesting a design or manufacturing defect in the fourth-generation
products. The petitioner claims that third-generation Toyota 4Runners
``do not appear to experience the premature and excessive frame
corrosion.'' \13\ The petitioner stated their belief that ``Any frame
specification changes between generations may help identify the root
cause(s) of the problem.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Gary Weinreich letter to Stephen Ridella, Ph.D., Director,
Office of Defects Investigation, August 28, 2018.
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI's analysis of consumer complaint data related to frame
corrosion in fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles has not found
evidence of a failure trend indicating a potential design or
manufacturing defect leading to premature failures. Rather, the data
tends to show complaint trends occurring late in vehicle life in high
corrosion regions. Relatively few complaints involved suspension
detachments, and those that did were spread among multiple suspension
links, each occurring in older vehicles operated in high corrosion
regions. Finally, ODI finds no meaningful difference between frame
corrosion complaint trends and related suspension detachment
allegations in third- and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles.
4Runner complaint trends lag trends for the Dana frame vehicles by
several years. Through the end of 2008, the year of Toyota's first
field action for Dana frame vehicles, NHTSA had received 150 complaints
for Dana frame vehicles and just 3 for 4Runner vehicles (none involving
the subject fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles). By the end of 2010,
NHTSA had received 716 complaints for the Dana frame vehicles and just
36 for 4Runner vehicles (only 5 involving the subject fourth-generation
vehicles).
Figure 1 shows the vehicle age distributions of frame corrosion
complaints to NHTSA for Toyota 4Runner vehicles, Toyota Dana frame
vehicles, and peer body-on-frame vehicles. The chart on the left shows
the distributions for MY 1996 through 2002 vehicles (i.e., third-
generation 4Runner compared with peers) and the chart on the right
shows the distributions for MY 2003 through 2009 vehicles (i.e.,
fourth-generation 4Runner compared with peers).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR22.063
[[Page 16826]]
In both age groups, the complaint age distributions for the Toyota
4Runner vehicles lag the distributions of the Toyota Dana frame and
peer body-on-frame vehicles by several years. The complaints peak at 15
years-in-service for the third-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles, 6
years after the peak for the Dana frame vehicles and 4 years after the
peak for the peer body-on-frame vehicles. The complaints also peak at
15 years-in-service for the fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles,
6 years after the peak for the Toyota Dana frame vehicles and 5 years
after the peak for the peer body-on-frame vehicles.
Figure 2 shows the cumulative age distributions of frame corrosion
complaints to NHTSA for the same vehicle sets. The 4Runner complaints
occur later in the vehicle age than the Toyota Dana frame and peer
body-on-frame complaints. Only about 3 percent of the complaints for
the third-generation 4Runner vehicles occurred within 10 years-in-
service, compared with 43 percent of the Toyota Dana frame vehicle
complaints and 21 percent of the peer body-on-frame vehicle complaints
for the same model year range. For the MY 2003 through 2009 vehicles,
approximately 6 percent of complaints for the Toyota 4Runners occurred
within 10 years, compared with 45 percent for the Toyota Dana frame
vehicles and 47 percent for the peer body-on-frame vehicles.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR22.064
ODI's analysis of consumer complaints received by NHTSA through
March 7, 2022, identified a total of 1,024 records that appear to be
related to frame corrosion in fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner
vehicles, including 70 involving alleged detachments of front or rear
suspension links. Both the overall complaints and those reporting
suspension link detachments primarily involve older vehicles in high-
corrosion states. No patterns or trends were identified for any
specific suspension link. The radiator support bracket was the most
common location for frame perforation damage in reports that included
sufficient information to assess damage location. This part can be
serviced separately and does not present any crash avoidance or
crashworthiness safety concerns. The complaints describe general
underbody corrosion damage indicative of normal, end-of-life wear-out
failures from long duration exposures to severe, corrosive
environments.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the complaints reporting suspension
detachments by the suspension component. The detachment failures
include two minor crashes and no verified injury allegations.
Table 1--Detachments While Driving by Suspension Link
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average age Alleged Alleged
Count (yrs) crashes injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Control Arm, Front........................ 15 13.1 2 0
Lower Control Arm, Rear......................... 38 14.1 0 0
Upper Control Arm, Rear......................... 6 13.3 0 0
Lateral Control Rod, Rear....................... 2 10.5 0 0
Sway Bar, Rear.................................. 2 13.5 0 0
Unknown......................................... 7 16.3 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 70 14.1 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI's analysis of NHTSA complaint data finds similar age-adjusted
trends in the field experience of the third and fourth-generation
4Runner vehicles. The third-generation 4Runner vehicles have more than
double the allegations of suspension link detachments than the fourth-
generation 4Runners. The difference appears to be attributable to the
greater exposure time of the third-generation vehicles. Analysis of
suspension link failures by vehicle age showed similar rates for the
third- and fourth-generation products through 15 years of service. In
both generations, the failures are concentrated in states with the
greatest use of deicing salts to treat road surfaces in winter months.
96 percent of the failures involved vehicles owned or previously
registered in states with the greatest use of deicing salts to treat
road surfaces in winter months (``Salt states'').
Complaints for both generations of 4Runners appear to have been
influenced by news about Toyota's field actions for the Sequoia, Tacoma
and
[[Page 16827]]
Tundra vehicles equipped with frames supplied by Dana. Toyota's field
actions were referenced in 203 of the fourth-generation 4Runner
complaints. Furthermore, 699 or two thirds (68 percent) of the fourth-
generation 4Runner complaints were received after news of NHTSA opening
this defect petition evaluation on August 7, 2018.
Conclusion: After reviewing the available data, ODI has not
identified evidence of a defect trend for premature corrosion-related
failure of frame structural components in the vehicles that the
petitioner has identified. Contrary to the petitioner's primary
allegation, the vehicles are not equipped with frames manufactured by
the same supplier as Toyota products that have been included in
previous field actions by the company addressing frame corrosion
concerns. The frames in those vehicles exhibited failure trends before
reaching 10 years in service, several years prior to the current trends
evident in the subject 4Runner vehicles.
Analysis of the age distributions of corrosion-related suspension
link failures in the subject 4Runner vehicles shows late-life patterns
after well over 10 years of exposure to severe corrosion environments.
Incidents of corrosion damage that have resulted in failure of
underbody components while driving appear to have developed
progressively over many years with ample opportunity for detection and
repair. This appears to be indicative of normal wear and tear failures,
and we have not found evidence of a defect related to premature or
excessive corrosion failures.
ODI has not identified any serious crashes or injuries associated
with corrosion-related failure of frame structural components while
driving in a population of vehicles that currently ranges from 15 to 19
years old. Accordingly, the Agency is denying the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50
and 501.8.
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-06217 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P