← New search

2006 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

Owner complaints for the 2006 Toyota Prius are substantially higher than the model-year median of 164.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,253 reports with mileage · 186 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 941 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 152 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 94 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

82 crash reports5 fire reports38 injury reports

What owners actually said

1,439 reports
120,000 miles · Sep 17, 2014
Unknown Or Other

ON OCCASION, WHEN I STEP ON THE BRAKE TO STOP MY CAR (USUALLY WHEN DRIVING UNDER 30 MPH), IT FEELS AS THOUGH THE VEHICLE TRIES TO ACCELERATE. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE ELECTRONIC PORTION OF THE VEHICLE IS TRYING TO ENGAGE AND BRIEFLY ACCELERATES WHEN I AM TRYING TO STOP THE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10637135

75,000 miles · Sep 13, 2014
Exterior Lighting

FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS MY PRIUS' PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT TURNS OFF AND ON INDISCRIMINATELY. I'VE REPLACE BULBS, I'VE REPLACED FUSES, AND EVEN THE WHOLE LIGHT ASSEMBLY AT A TOTAL COST OF CLOSE TO $3000. I STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM TO THIS DAY. I GET PULLED OVER ABOUT EVERY TWO WEEKS OR SO FROM POLICE AND FOR MY JOB THE CAR DOES N…

Read full complaint

FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS MY PRIUS' PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT TURNS OFF AND ON INDISCRIMINATELY. I'VE REPLACE BULBS, I'VE REPLACED FUSES, AND EVEN THE WHOLE LIGHT ASSEMBLY AT A TOTAL COST OF CLOSE TO $3000. I STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM TO THIS DAY. I GET PULLED OVER ABOUT EVERY TWO WEEKS OR SO FROM POLICE AND FOR MY JOB THE CAR DOES NOT PASS THE INTERNAL INSPECTION OF MY COMPANY. I HAVE READ ON MANY SITES THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS MODEL OF PRIUS JUSTIFYING A RECALL. THANK YOU *TR

NHTSA ODI #10632937

124,000 miles · Sep 4, 2014
Exterior Lighting

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT GOES ON AND OFF INTERMITTENTLY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10630564

80,000 miles · Sep 2, 2014
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED A USED 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. AFTER ABOUT 6 MONTHS ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD GO OUT. WE COULD CYCLE THE SWITCH AND THE HEADLIGHT WOULD WORK AGAIN. AFTER REPLACING THE BULB WITH A ORIGINAL BULB. BOTH HEADLIGHT HAVE GONE OUT. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO OUR LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THEY QUOTED A REPAIR OF $3800. I BEGAN LO…

Read full complaint

MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED A USED 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. AFTER ABOUT 6 MONTHS ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD GO OUT. WE COULD CYCLE THE SWITCH AND THE HEADLIGHT WOULD WORK AGAIN. AFTER REPLACING THE BULB WITH A ORIGINAL BULB. BOTH HEADLIGHT HAVE GONE OUT. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO OUR LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THEY QUOTED A REPAIR OF $3800. I BEGAN LOOKING FOR A LEES EXPENSIVE SHOP TO DO THE REPAIRS, WHEN THE OWNER OF A SHOP[ INFORMED ME THAT TOYOTA HAD SETTLED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CONCERNING THE HID ( HIGH INTENSITY DISPLAY) UNITS. THAT SETTLEMENT HAS NOW PASSED THE DATE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM. ALL CLAIMS HAD TO BE SUBMITTED BY MAY 30TH 2011. WE HAD NOT PURCHASED OUR VEHICLE AT THAT TIME. WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN A RECALL DONE ON THESE VEHICLES? OBVIOUSLY TOYOTA IS AWARE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH IN THE SYSTEM OR THEY WOULD NOT OF SETTLED THE CLASS ACTION SUIT. WE NOW HAVE A VEHICLE THAT WE PAID $15000 FOR THAT CAN NOT BE DRIVEN AT NIGHT OR WHEN IT IS RAINING OUT, BECAUSE THE FAULTY HEADLIGHT INSTALLED BY THE MANUFACTURE. HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT ALLOW A MAJOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURE TO ALLOW THESE CARS TO STAY ON THE ROAD, AND RISK SERIOUS INJURY? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10630168

1,190,000 miles · Aug 22, 2014
Structure

I BEGIN TO NOTICE BLACK MARKS ON MY FINGERS. IT TOOK ME AWHILE TO LEARN THAT THE LATCH COVER WAS DISINTEGRATING. I ASKED OUR LOCAL MECHANIC TO LOOK INTO GETTING IT REPLACED. HE REPORTED BACK THAT HE CALLED TWO TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS. ONE DEALER WANTED $500 FOR THE DEFECTIVE PART AND ANOTHER DEALER SAID THE PART WAS BEING CHANGE TO P…

Read full complaint

I BEGIN TO NOTICE BLACK MARKS ON MY FINGERS. IT TOOK ME AWHILE TO LEARN THAT THE LATCH COVER WAS DISINTEGRATING. I ASKED OUR LOCAL MECHANIC TO LOOK INTO GETTING IT REPLACED. HE REPORTED BACK THAT HE CALLED TWO TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS. ONE DEALER WANTED $500 FOR THE DEFECTIVE PART AND ANOTHER DEALER SAID THE PART WAS BEING CHANGE TO PLASTIC BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM AND WANTED $230 FOR THE PART. SINCE THIS SEEMS TO BE A DEFECT IN THE MATERIAL USED, I BELIEVE TOYOTA SHOULD RECALL THE CAR AND PAY FOR THE REPLACEMENT. CAN YOU ASSIST WITH MY REQUEST? [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10627464

60,000 miles · Aug 20, 2014
Electrical SystemSeatsCrashFireInjury

ON 05/22/2009, MY HUSBAND AND HIS [XXX] HAD A CAR ACCIDENT. MY HUSBAND'S CAR WAS HIT FROM BEHIND WHEN HE WAS DRIVING A TOYOTA PRIUS WITH HIS FRIEND SITTING IN THE FRONT PASSAGE SEAT. THE BACKS OF THE CHAIRS OF THE DRIVER SEAT AND FRONT PASSAGE SEAT WERE MOVE AND BROKEN.THE SEAT BACK SHAFT DAMAGE FAILURE. MY HUSBAND AND HIS FRIEN…

Read full complaint

ON 05/22/2009, MY HUSBAND AND HIS [XXX] HAD A CAR ACCIDENT. MY HUSBAND'S CAR WAS HIT FROM BEHIND WHEN HE WAS DRIVING A TOYOTA PRIUS WITH HIS FRIEND SITTING IN THE FRONT PASSAGE SEAT. THE BACKS OF THE CHAIRS OF THE DRIVER SEAT AND FRONT PASSAGE SEAT WERE MOVE AND BROKEN.THE SEAT BACK SHAFT DAMAGE FAILURE. MY HUSBAND AND HIS FRIEND BOTH GOT HURT, AND MY HUSBAND WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR 6 DAYS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10626606

66,000 miles · Aug 17, 2014
Exterior Lighting

AS I WAS DRIVING MY 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS AT NIGHT, I NOTICED THE ROAD SEEMED "DIM" ON THE RIGHT SIDE. I TURNED THE LIGHTS OFF THEN BACK ON AND IT WAS BRIGHTER. LATER I NOTICED THE SAME THING AND PULLED OFF THE ROAD TO FIND THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT WAS NOT ON, BUT IT CAME BACK ON AFTER TURNING THE SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPEN…

Read full complaint

AS I WAS DRIVING MY 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS AT NIGHT, I NOTICED THE ROAD SEEMED "DIM" ON THE RIGHT SIDE. I TURNED THE LIGHTS OFF THEN BACK ON AND IT WAS BRIGHTER. LATER I NOTICED THE SAME THING AND PULLED OFF THE ROAD TO FIND THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT WAS NOT ON, BUT IT CAME BACK ON AFTER TURNING THE SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, SOMETIMES AFFECTING THE LEFT HEADLIGHT AS WELL. ONCE, LAST MONTH, AS I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY, BOTH HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF! FORTUNATELY I WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY FLIP THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON TO REMEDY THE SITUATION. THE HEADLIGHT BULBS HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND DO NOT SEEM TO BE THE PROBLEM. HELP! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10625863

147,848 miles · Jul 26, 2014
Steering

I WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 5 NORTH TO LOS ANGELES LATE EVENING AROUND 9:00PM. THE STEERING COLUMN BEGAN MAKING A GRINDING NOISE AND VIBRATING. EACH TIME I TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL EITHER TO THE LEFT OR TO THE RIGHT THE CAR MADE A VIBRATION AND GRINDING NOISE AND FELT STIFF. THE JARRING WAS FELT IN THE ACCELERATION PAD…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 5 NORTH TO LOS ANGELES LATE EVENING AROUND 9:00PM. THE STEERING COLUMN BEGAN MAKING A GRINDING NOISE AND VIBRATING. EACH TIME I TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL EITHER TO THE LEFT OR TO THE RIGHT THE CAR MADE A VIBRATION AND GRINDING NOISE AND FELT STIFF. THE JARRING WAS FELT IN THE ACCELERATION PAD AND IN THE BRAKE PADS EACH TIME I EITHER ACCELERATED OR BRAKED. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER WHERE I SERVICE MY CAR ON JULY 5TH 2014. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WAS ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE EXACT COMPLAINT I HAD. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT GAVE ME AN INVOICE INFORMING ME THAT THE CHARGES TO FIX THE STEERING COLUMN AND THE ELECTRIC MOTOR INSIDE WOULD COST ME OVER $2000.00. I CALLED TOYOTA ON 14TH JULY TO ASK IF THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE. I WAS INFORMED BY TOYOTA ON JULY 18TH, THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER THIS BECAUSE IT WAS OUT OF WARRANTY, AND THE CAR HAD 148,000 MILES, AND THE RECALL WORK HAD BEEN DONE IN 2012 ON THIS VEHICLE. AS A PEACE OFFERING THEY SAID THEY COULD GIVE ME 700$ TO FIX IT OR BUY A NEW VEHICLE. THE DEALER, WHERE I WENT TO GET THE PROBLEM RESOLVED, SAID THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS WAS A DIFFERENT ISSUE FROM THE RECALL???? I NOW HAVE A VEHICLE THAT IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE WHICH I AM BEING TOLD IS NOT COVERED BY THE COMPANY. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A STEERING COLUMN FAILING. I WAS NOT AWARE THAT MY VEHICLE EVEN HAD A RECALL. I HAD NO INTIMATION FROM ANYONE. AND NO I DID NOT REALIZE THAT IN LATE 2012 THE DEALER HAD DONE SOME WORK ON THE RECALL. WHAT IS THERE TO SHOW THAT THE WORK WAS DONE CORRECTLY AND THAT THIS IS A COMMON FAILURE PROBLEM IN ALL VEHICLES?? I HAVE HAD VEHICLES THAT I HAVE USED FOR OVER 200,000 MILES WITH NO MISHAPS INCLUDING A SAAB AND AN ACURA. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10616560

125,000 miles · Jul 3, 2014
Exterior Lighting

MY HEADLIGHT GOES OUT. I ALERTED THE DEALER WHEN PURCHASING THE CAR. THEY SAID IT JUST NEEDED REPLACED. THEY DIDN'T TELL ME THIS WAS COMMON PROBLEM, NOR DID THEY OFFER TO CORRECT IT. I FOUND OTHER COMPLAINTS OF THIS PROBLEM ON THIS WEBSITE. NO NOTIFICATION WAS GIVEN TO CONSUMER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10608027

123,900 miles · Jun 12, 2014
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

THIS COMPLAINT HAS NOT BEEN QC'D. THE CONTACT SUBMITTED AN EMAIL AND REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICIAL IVOQ BE WRITTEN VERBATIM TO THE EMAIL. KMJ I HAVE MULTIPLE SITUATIONS WITH MY TOYOTA PRIUS 2006 IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY 2014 I A LOUD BEEPING NOISE FILLED THE CAR. THE SYSTEM HAD MULTIPLE LIGHTS DISPLAYING SHOWING INCLUDING THE E…

Read full complaint

THIS COMPLAINT HAS NOT BEEN QC'D. THE CONTACT SUBMITTED AN EMAIL AND REQUESTED THAT THE OFFICIAL IVOQ BE WRITTEN VERBATIM TO THE EMAIL. KMJ I HAVE MULTIPLE SITUATIONS WITH MY TOYOTA PRIUS 2006 IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY 2014 I A LOUD BEEPING NOISE FILLED THE CAR. THE SYSTEM HAD MULTIPLE LIGHTS DISPLAYING SHOWING INCLUDING THE EMERGENCY BRAKE LIGHT ( WHILE I WAS DRIVING), ABS,VSC, A RED TRIANGLE WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT IN THE MIDDLE, ETC. AS, THIS WAS HAPPENING CAR IMMEDIATELY STARTED SLOWING DOWN AND I WAS FORCED TO PULL IT TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. THIS SAME THING HAPPENED TO ME THREE OTHER TIMES WHILE I WAS ON THE FREEWAY. ONE TIME I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AND MY CAR AGAIN STARTED DECELERATING WHILE I HAD MULTIPLE CARS AROUND ME ON THE FREEWAY. ALL OF THE LIGHTS WERE DISPLAYING, I PUT MY HAZARDS ON AND WAS FORCED TO MOVE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHILE I WAS ALMOST HIT BY THE CAR BEHIND ME BECAUSE MY CAR WAS RAPIDLY SLOWING DOWN. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE CENTER AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. THEY DID A DIAGNOSTIC TEST, MULTIPLE TEST DRIVES, BUT AT THAT TIME THEY DIDN'T KNOW. SO THEY TOLD ME TO DRIVE THE CAR HOME AND COME BACK IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN. WITHIN THE WEEK I WAS EXITING OFF OF THE FREEWAY WITH MY CHILDREN WHEN I START HEARING THE LOUD BEEPING NOISE, ALL THE LAMP LIGHTS CAME ON, AND AS I AM WAITING IN LINE TO EXIT THE FREEWAY ONTO A BUSY STREET THE CAR STOPS. I PANICKED, PUT ON THE HAZARDS, THE CAR WOULDN'T ALLOW ME TO SHIFT IT INTO DRIVE IT HAD MOVED TO NEUTRAL ON ITS OWN. I TURNED OFF THE CAR, TURNED IT BACK ON AND WAS SLOWLY ABLE TO MOVE THE CAR. THIS TIME I TOOK PICTURES OF THE LAMP DISPLAY TO SHOW THE SERVICE MEMBERS AS WELL. MY CHILDREN, MYSELF, AND OTHER DRIVERS COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY HURT! THE TOYOTA SERVICE CENTER TOLD US WE HAVE A BAD COMPUTER, THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE ECU, AND THE CAR WENT INTO A FAIL SAFE MODE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10597905

Official recalls

6

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.

06V188000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 31, 2006

THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND SLIDING YOKE IN THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM CAN CRACK WHEN LARGE FORCES ARE APPLIED AND THE CONNECTION MAY SEPARATE OR THE SLEEVE MAY FRACTURE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.

Remedy: TOYOTA WILL REPLACE THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND INSPECT THE SLIDING YOKE AND REPLACE IT IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 9, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.

06V096000 · Air Bags

Apr 3, 2006

ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE AIR BAG INFLATOR, WHICH IS USED IN THE SIDE AIR BAG, THE CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAG, AND THE KNEE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY, SOME INFLATORS WERE PRODUCED WITH AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THE HEATING AGENTS NECESSARY FOR PROPER AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. IN THIS CONDITION, THE EXPANSION FORCE OF THE GAS MAY BE INSUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY INFLATE THE AIR BAG WHEN THE SRS SYSTEM IS ACTIVATED DURING A CRASH.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT IN THE INVOLVED SEATING POSITION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SPECIFIC SRS AIR BAG. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 6, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-888-270-9371, SCION AT 1-866-548-1851, OR 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.