HID HEADLIGHT LEVELING SENSOR FAILED DUE TO CORROSION, SENSOR IS EXPOSED UNDER THE CAR AND APPARENTLY LEAKS ROAD SALT SOLUTION.. HEADLIGHTS POINTING DOWN, INADEQUATE VISIBILITY DRIVING AT NIGHT. EXORBITANT COST TO REPLACE, ~$400 US
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Prius years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
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.
What owners actually said
2,003 reportsFAULTY LIFTGATE HANDLE. THE RUBBER MELTS IN WARM WEATHER, LEAVING A STICKY BLACK TAR ON YOUR FINGERS THAT WILL NOT WASH OFF. THIS RUBBER MELTS INTO THE MECHANISM SUCH THAT THE LIFTGATE IS NO LONGER OPERATIONAL. TOYOTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS FAULTY BATCH OF RUBBER THAT WAS USED, BUT SO FAR REFUSES TO RECALL THE FAULTY MECHANISM IN T…
Read full complaint
FAULTY LIFTGATE HANDLE. THE RUBBER MELTS IN WARM WEATHER, LEAVING A STICKY BLACK TAR ON YOUR FINGERS THAT WILL NOT WASH OFF. THIS RUBBER MELTS INTO THE MECHANISM SUCH THAT THE LIFTGATE IS NO LONGER OPERATIONAL. TOYOTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS FAULTY BATCH OF RUBBER THAT WAS USED, BUT SO FAR REFUSES TO RECALL THE FAULTY MECHANISM IN THE US. THE LIFTGATE WOULD ONLY OPEN INTERMITTANTLY, WITH A LOT OF EFFORT ABOUT A YEAR AGO. NOW, IT WILL NOT OPEN AT ALL, SO WE ARE TAKING IT TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIR.
ENGINE OIL DISAPPEARS CONSTANTLY. THERE IS NO APPARENT LEAKAGE OF ENGINE OIL. HAVE TAKEN TO TOYOTA DEALERS DURING SERVICING MANY TIMES SINCE THAN AND MENTIONED THE PROBLEM. THEY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHY IT IS HAPPENING. IN ORDER TO KEEP ENGINE OIL IN RECOMMENDED LEVEL I HAVE BEEN POURING RECOMMENDED GRADE ENGINE OIL (5W30) EVERY …
Read full complaint
ENGINE OIL DISAPPEARS CONSTANTLY. THERE IS NO APPARENT LEAKAGE OF ENGINE OIL. HAVE TAKEN TO TOYOTA DEALERS DURING SERVICING MANY TIMES SINCE THAN AND MENTIONED THE PROBLEM. THEY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHY IT IS HAPPENING. IN ORDER TO KEEP ENGINE OIL IN RECOMMENDED LEVEL I HAVE BEEN POURING RECOMMENDED GRADE ENGINE OIL (5W30) EVERY OTHER WEEK.
I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. THIS REPORT IS REGARDING THE FIRST VEHICLE. I HAVE FILED A SEPARATE REPORT FOR THE SECOND VEHICLE WHICH I STILL HAVE IN MY POSSESSION. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW …
Read full complaint
I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. THIS REPORT IS REGARDING THE FIRST VEHICLE. I HAVE FILED A SEPARATE REPORT FOR THE SECOND VEHICLE WHICH I STILL HAVE IN MY POSSESSION. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW IN 2007. ON DEC 9, 2009, TO AVOID A COLLISION, I FULLY PRESSED THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE HOWEVER THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. I SHOULD EASILY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE IN TIME. AS IT CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD, I COLLIDED WITH THE OTHER CAR. THE SPEED AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT WAS APPROX 25 MPH. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE COST OF REPAIRING THE HYBRID SYSTEM. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE POLICE REPORT. SECOND TOYOTA PRIUS: I PURCHASED AN EXACT REPLACEMENT USED 2007 PRIUS IN DEC 2009. ON OCTOBER 17, 2015, A CAR STOPPED ABRUPTLY IN FRONT OF MY WIFE WHO WAS DRIVING AT APPROX 40 MPH. SHE REPORTED PRESSING ON THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE BUT THAT THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE HIT CAR IN FRONT THEN SWERVED TO THE RIGHT AS THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE STEERED TO THE LEFT INTO THE CENTER MEDIAN AND THE PRIUS STOPPED. THE CAR THEN CAUGHT ON FIRE. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE AND THE POLICE REPORT. I CONTACTED TOYOTA IN NOV 2015. AN INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED. A TOYOTA 'FIELD TECHNICAL SPECIALIST' INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. I SIGNED AN 'EDR CONSENT FORM' FOR TOYOTA TO READ ANY DATA FROM THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER DUE TO THE FIRE, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO READ ANY DATA. ON JANUARY 26, 2016 I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A LEGAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., STATING 'OUR INSPECTION WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM ANY EVIDENCE OF A MANUFACTURING OR DESIGN DEFECT IN YOUR VEHICLE'.
I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW IN 2007. ON DEC 9, 2009, TO AVOID A COLLISION, I FULLY PRESSED THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE HOWEVER THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. …
Read full complaint
I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW IN 2007. ON DEC 9, 2009, TO AVOID A COLLISION, I FULLY PRESSED THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE HOWEVER THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. I SHOULD EASILY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE IN TIME. AS IT CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD, I COLLIDED WITH THE OTHER CAR. THE SPEED AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT WAS APPROX 25 MPH. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE COST OF REPAIRING THE HYBRID SYSTEM. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE POLICE REPORT. SECOND TOYOTA PRIUS: I PURCHASED AN EXACT REPLACEMENT USED 2007 PRIUS IN DEC 2009. ON OCTOBER 17, 2015, A CAR STOPPED ABRUPTLY IN FRONT OF MY WIFE WHO WAS DRIVING AT APPROX 40 MPH. SHE REPORTED PRESSING ON THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE BUT THAT THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE HIT CAR IN FRONT THEN SWERVED TO THE RIGHT AS THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE STEERED TO THE LEFT INTO THE CENTER MEDIAN AND THE PRIUS STOPPED. THE CAR THEN CAUGHT ON FIRE. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE AND THE POLICE REPORT. I CONTACTED TOYOTA IN NOV 2015. AN INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED. A TOYOTA 'FIELD TECHNICAL SPECIALIST' INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. I SIGNED AN 'EDR CONSENT FORM' FOR TOYOTA TO READ ANY DATA FROM THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER DUE TO THE FIRE, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO READ ANY DATA. ON JANUARY 26, 2016 I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A LEGAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., STATING 'OUR INSPECTION WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM ANY EVIDENCE OF A MANUFACTURING OR DESIGN DEFECT IN YOUR VEHICLE'. I CONTINUE TO OWN THE VEHICLE AND HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION AT THIS TIME.
THE REAR HATCH LATCH HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO OPEN. THE EXTERIOR HANDLE RUBBER HAS BEEN SOFTENING, ALMOST MELTING, FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WHEN IT HAS RELEASED IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES IT WAS ONLY A PARTIAL RELEASE, LEAVING THE HATCH LATCHED DOWN. THE HATCH PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF THE LATCH TO THE POI…
Read full complaint
THE REAR HATCH LATCH HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO OPEN. THE EXTERIOR HANDLE RUBBER HAS BEEN SOFTENING, ALMOST MELTING, FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WHEN IT HAS RELEASED IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES IT WAS ONLY A PARTIAL RELEASE, LEAVING THE HATCH LATCHED DOWN. THE HATCH PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF THE LATCH TO THE POINT THAT I CAN NO LONGER OPEN IT AT ALL. I ASKED THE DEALER IF THERE WAS A BULLETIN OR RECALL AFTER SEEING ALL OF THE INTERNET COMPLAINTS AND HE SAID, NO. HE DID SAY THEY GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS/REPAIRS ON THE 2007 HATCH LATCH AND THE PARTS TO REPAIR IT WILL TAKE TIME TO GET IN AS THEY ARE IN DEMAND. INTERNET SEARCHES SHOW THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM THAT CAN INVOLVE SAFETY. MY SPARE TIRE IS BACK THERE AND I CANNOT ACCESS MY TRUNK. HAD TO CRAWL THOUGH THE BACK SEAT TO CHANGE A TAILLIGHT. TOYOTA NEEDS TO RESOLVE THIS KNOWN PROBLEM AND REIMBURSE THOSE WHO HAVE FIXED THE PROBLEM THEMSELVES.
THE REAR HATCH LATCH IS CONTROLLED BY AN EXTERNAL RUBBER BUTTON THAT OVER TIME HAS MELTED INTO A STICKY GOO THAT HAS PREVENTED THE LATCH FROM OPERATING WITH NORMAL FINGER OPERATION. MY WIFE IS UNABLE TO OPEN THE HATCH EVEN THOUGH HER HANDS ARE STRONGER THAN THE AVERAGE WOMAN. NOT ONLY IS THIS A PROBLEM ACCESSING ITEMS IN THE T…
Read full complaint
THE REAR HATCH LATCH IS CONTROLLED BY AN EXTERNAL RUBBER BUTTON THAT OVER TIME HAS MELTED INTO A STICKY GOO THAT HAS PREVENTED THE LATCH FROM OPERATING WITH NORMAL FINGER OPERATION. MY WIFE IS UNABLE TO OPEN THE HATCH EVEN THOUGH HER HANDS ARE STRONGER THAN THE AVERAGE WOMAN. NOT ONLY IS THIS A PROBLEM ACCESSING ITEMS IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR, BUT IT COULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD UNDER SOME EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. TOYOTA HAS RECALLED SIMILAR LATCHES ON SOME SCION MODELS BUT TOLD ME THAT THERE IS NOT A RECALL ON THIS PRIUS MODEL.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, ALL WARNING LIGHTS BEGAN TO ILLUMINATE ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. I…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, ALL WARNING LIGHTS BEGAN TO ILLUMINATE ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 15V449000 (HYBRID PROPULSION SYSTEM). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 148,000.
VEHICLE ONLY HAS 110K MILES ON IT. CHECK ENGINE STARTING GOING ON WHEN ACCELERATING ON UPHILL. FULL UP GAS TANK & LIGHT WOULD GO OFF. THEN CHECK ENGINE WOULD GO ON WHEN LOW GAS LEVEL. TOLD TO CHANGE GASCAP. DID NOT RESOLVE ISSUE. FILLING PULLED CODES IT WAS CATALYTIC CONVERTER. PART COST $1700.00 FOR PART ALONE FOR A PART T…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE ONLY HAS 110K MILES ON IT. CHECK ENGINE STARTING GOING ON WHEN ACCELERATING ON UPHILL. FULL UP GAS TANK & LIGHT WOULD GO OFF. THEN CHECK ENGINE WOULD GO ON WHEN LOW GAS LEVEL. TOLD TO CHANGE GASCAP. DID NOT RESOLVE ISSUE. FILLING PULLED CODES IT WAS CATALYTIC CONVERTER. PART COST $1700.00 FOR PART ALONE FOR A PART THAT IS SUPPOSE TO LAST LIFETIME OF CAR.
"TAKATA RECALL" IN AUG 2014 I WAS INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION WHERE MY AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. ONE OF THE INJURIES SUSTAINED WAS A FRACTURE TO MY RIGHT FIFTH METACARPAL BONE CAUSED BY PROJECTILE SHRAPNEL, MOST LIKELY FROM THE DEPLOYED AIR BAG. THE SHRAPNEL WAS 2MM X 10MM, BLACK AND APPEARED TO BE PLASTIC PER THE OPERATIVE REPO…
Read full complaint
"TAKATA RECALL" IN AUG 2014 I WAS INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION WHERE MY AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. ONE OF THE INJURIES SUSTAINED WAS A FRACTURE TO MY RIGHT FIFTH METACARPAL BONE CAUSED BY PROJECTILE SHRAPNEL, MOST LIKELY FROM THE DEPLOYED AIR BAG. THE SHRAPNEL WAS 2MM X 10MM, BLACK AND APPEARED TO BE PLASTIC PER THE OPERATIVE REPORT BY THE SURGEON WHO REMOVED IT. FOR SUCH A LIGHT PIECE OF PLASTIC TO CAUSE THIS EXTENSIVE A COMMINUTED FRACTURE, THE PROJECTILE MUST HAVE BEEN TRAVELING AT A VERY HIGH VELOCITY MOST LIKELY CAUSED BY THE AIR BAG'S EXPLOSIVE FOR [XXX] 'INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).'
Official recalls
412V536000 · 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
3DP22005 · 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.
Illustration