← New search

2007 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

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

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,721 reports with mileage · 282 unknown

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

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

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

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

124 crash reports9 fire reports53 injury reports

What owners actually said

2,003 reports
75,000 miles · Sep 12, 2013
Exterior Lighting

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT WOULD GO OUT INTERMITTENTLY. DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WOULD GO OUT INTERMITTENTLY. DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT PERMANENTLY. TOOK CAR TO DEALER WHERE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WAS REPLACED. THREE DAYS LATER PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT. BOUGHT AN HID HEADLIGHT FROM AMAZON AT ONE THIRD THE PRICE AND REPL…

Read full complaint

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT WOULD GO OUT INTERMITTENTLY. DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WOULD GO OUT INTERMITTENTLY. DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT PERMANENTLY. TOOK CAR TO DEALER WHERE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WAS REPLACED. THREE DAYS LATER PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT. BOUGHT AN HID HEADLIGHT FROM AMAZON AT ONE THIRD THE PRICE AND REPLACED PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT. ONE WEEK LATE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT PERMANENTLY THIRTY DAYS AFTER BEING REPLACED BY THE DEALER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10543242

130,000 miles · Sep 9, 2013
SteeringCrashInjury

THE TRAFFIC REPORT SAID I LOST CONTROL ON A CURVE. I WAS KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS AND DO NOT KNOW. SIX DAYS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT MY HUSBAND TOOK THE CAR TO TOYOTA TO REPLACE THE HEADLAMP FOR THE THIRD TIME. HE SAID THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE STEERING PART ?? AND THEY WERE GOING TO REPLACE IT. THEY GAVE US A RECITE THAT THEY HAD REP…

Read full complaint

THE TRAFFIC REPORT SAID I LOST CONTROL ON A CURVE. I WAS KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS AND DO NOT KNOW. SIX DAYS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT MY HUSBAND TOOK THE CAR TO TOYOTA TO REPLACE THE HEADLAMP FOR THE THIRD TIME. HE SAID THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE STEERING PART ?? AND THEY WERE GOING TO REPLACE IT. THEY GAVE US A RECITE THAT THEY HAD REPLACED THE PART WITH THE PART NUMBER. MY HUSBAND SAID THEY ONLY HAD IT BACK THERE FOR LESS THAN 15 MINUTES. SIX DAYS LATER I HAD AN ACCIDENT STATING 'I LOST CONTROL'. *TR*DT*JB

NHTSA ODI #10542722

65,000 miles · Sep 7, 2013
Electrical System

I WAS DRIVING ON A DARK COUNTRY ROAD WHEN BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT. I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT CONTROL OFF AND THEN ON AND THEN THE LIGHTS CAME ON AGAIN. THE CAR HAS A LONG HISTORY OF THE PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT GOING OUT INTERMITTENTLY. WHEN IT WAS JUST ONE LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY GOING OUT, I HAD REPORTED THIS TO THE DEALER AND L…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON A DARK COUNTRY ROAD WHEN BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT. I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT CONTROL OFF AND THEN ON AND THEN THE LIGHTS CAME ON AGAIN. THE CAR HAS A LONG HISTORY OF THE PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT GOING OUT INTERMITTENTLY. WHEN IT WAS JUST ONE LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY GOING OUT, I HAD REPORTED THIS TO THE DEALER AND LATER TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. I WAS TOLD THAT THEY DIDN'T FIND A PROBLEM. AFTER THIS MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH LIGHTS GOING OUT AT THE SAME TIME, MY MECHANIC AGAIN SAID THAT IT WAS NOT HAPPENING WHEN HE TEST DROVE THE CAR. I ASKED HIM TO KEEP IT LONGER FOR MORE TESTING SINCE I WAS AFRAID NOW TO DRIVE THE CAR AT NIGHT. HE KEPT IT LONGER AND DID EXPERIENCE THE DRIVER SIDE HEADLIGHT GOING OUT. HE RECOMMENDED REPLACING BOTH BULBS FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF $548. I CALLED THE TOYOTA DEALER TO ASK WHAT THEY COULD DO FOR ME. SINCE THE CAR IS PAST 50,000 MILES THEY SAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE $475 TO CHANGE BOTH HEADLIGHTS. I RESEARCHED ONLINE AND DISCOVERED THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM IN THE PRIUS. IN MY OPINION IT IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE AND NOT A NORMAL PART MAINTENANCE ISSUE.

NHTSA ODI #10542426

Mileage unknown · Sep 4, 2013
Service BrakesStructure

BRAKE SYSTEM: ABS WARNING MALFUNCTION LIGHT WILL ILLUMINATE WHEN BRAKE IS TAPPED, BUT THERE IS NO MALFUNCTION OR ISSUE. HAVE TO TURN OFF VEHICLE TO RESET IT. HANDLE ON REAR DOOR/HATCHBACK DOOR: HANDLE MELTED INTO A BLACK GOOEY MESS, HATCHBACK COULD NOT BE OPENED. WENT TO DEALERSHIP, THEY WOULD NOT FIX WITHOUT CHARGING ME EVEN T…

Read full complaint

BRAKE SYSTEM: ABS WARNING MALFUNCTION LIGHT WILL ILLUMINATE WHEN BRAKE IS TAPPED, BUT THERE IS NO MALFUNCTION OR ISSUE. HAVE TO TURN OFF VEHICLE TO RESET IT. HANDLE ON REAR DOOR/HATCHBACK DOOR: HANDLE MELTED INTO A BLACK GOOEY MESS, HATCHBACK COULD NOT BE OPENED. WENT TO DEALERSHIP, THEY WOULD NOT FIX WITHOUT CHARGING ME EVEN THOUGH THEY ADMITTED IT WAS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THE VEHICLES. THE FIRST QUOTE WE GOT WAS ALMOST $300 TO FIX, WAITED A COUPLE OF MONTHS, DEALER FINALLY DROPPED TO $138 TO FIX IT. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A KNOWN DEFECTIVE ISSUE--NO ONE SHOULD BE CHARGED ANYTHING. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AS THE DOOR CANNOT BE OPENED IN AN EMERGENCY. WHY TOYOTA WILL NOT FIX THIS WITHOUT CAUSING THEIR CUSTOMER'S POTENTIAL DANGER/HARM SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THEM NOT CARING ABOUT THE CUSTOMER. DASHBOARD WARPING: DASHBOARD ON DRIVER SIDE BUCKLES UP WHERE IT MEETS THE EDGE OF THE WINDSHIELD, WAS TOLD IT WAS IN ISSUE WITH THE MATERIAL THAT THE DASHBOARD WAS MADE FROM. VERY POOR QUALITY TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10541882

30,993 miles · Sep 4, 2013
Structure

THE HATCHBACK HANDLE/RELEASE IS SOFT AND GOOEY AND AT TIMES THE RELEASE TO OPEN THE HATCHBACK WILL NOT WORK. GOOEY BLACK SUBSTANCE GETS ALL OVER HANDS AND FINGERS WHEN YOU TRY TO "POP" THE HATCHBACK. UNABLE TO GET THE TRUNK TO OPEN ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS. THERE IS NO INTERNAL RELEASE SWITCH INSIDE THE CAR. SINCE THE SPARE T…

Read full complaint

THE HATCHBACK HANDLE/RELEASE IS SOFT AND GOOEY AND AT TIMES THE RELEASE TO OPEN THE HATCHBACK WILL NOT WORK. GOOEY BLACK SUBSTANCE GETS ALL OVER HANDS AND FINGERS WHEN YOU TRY TO "POP" THE HATCHBACK. UNABLE TO GET THE TRUNK TO OPEN ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS. THERE IS NO INTERNAL RELEASE SWITCH INSIDE THE CAR. SINCE THE SPARE TIRE IS IN THE TRUNK, THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE NO ACCESS TO THE TIRE. IT WAS DISCOVERED THE DAY AFTER WE BOUGHT THE CAR (USED). CONTACTED DEALER, WHO QUOTED US $300+ TO REPAIR. HAVE NOT HAD IT REPAIRED YET. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10541772

117,000 miles · Sep 3, 2013
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash

I HAVE A 2007 PRIUS. THE CAR WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT ON AUGUST 30, 2013 BECAUSE "NO BRAKE". IT WAS IN A STOP AND GO SITUATION TRAVELING AT ABOUT 20 MILES PER HOUR. THE CAR IN FRONT STOPPED, I SLAMMED ON THE BRAKE AND TOTAL BRAKE FAILURE. MY 16 YEARS OLD SON SITTING IN THE CAR OBSERVED THE "NO BRAKE" SCENARIO. THERE WAS A 2…

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2007 PRIUS. THE CAR WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT ON AUGUST 30, 2013 BECAUSE "NO BRAKE". IT WAS IN A STOP AND GO SITUATION TRAVELING AT ABOUT 20 MILES PER HOUR. THE CAR IN FRONT STOPPED, I SLAMMED ON THE BRAKE AND TOTAL BRAKE FAILURE. MY 16 YEARS OLD SON SITTING IN THE CAR OBSERVED THE "NO BRAKE" SCENARIO. THERE WAS A 25 POUND OF RICE IN THE TRUCK DID NOT EVEN MOVE. NO SKIP MARK... NOTHING. TOOK MY CAR TO LONGO TOYOTA AND FOUND NOTHING WITH THE BRAKE SYSTEM, OTHER THAN THE FRONT PAD WAS THIN, TIRES WERE MARGINAL ETC. NONE OF THE FINDINGS EXPLAINED THE NO BRAKE SCENARIO. FOR SOME REASON I CANNOT MAKE THIS NO BRAKE TO APPEAR AGAIN. I WANT PEOPLE TO AWARE OF THIS AND GATHER INFORMATION. IT APPEARS TO ME THE PRIUS CANNOT RESPONSE TO A QUICK STOP AT SLOW SPEED. SOMEHOW, THE CAR TAKES MORE THAN A SECOND FOR THE BRAKING TO KICK IN - THE REACTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE INSTANTANEOUS. AND IF YOU ARE TOO CLOSE, THAT EXTRA ONE SECOND WAIT WILL CAUSE A COLLISION.

NHTSA ODI #10541724

Mileage unknown · Sep 2, 2013
Latches/locks/linkages

REAR HATCH HANDLE HAS BEEN LEAKING ALMOST FROM THE TIME WE ACQUIRED IT IN 2011. RUBBER HAS DECAYED, LEAKING GOO OR OTHER BLACK STICKY STUFF EVERY TIME IT'S TOUCHED. SINCE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO OPEN THE HATCH, IT'S A PROBLEM. THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMMON ISSUE WITH THIS MODEL, WITNESS YOUR OWN INDEX OF COMPLAINTS, APPENDED BELOW. …

Read full complaint

REAR HATCH HANDLE HAS BEEN LEAKING ALMOST FROM THE TIME WE ACQUIRED IT IN 2011. RUBBER HAS DECAYED, LEAKING GOO OR OTHER BLACK STICKY STUFF EVERY TIME IT'S TOUCHED. SINCE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO OPEN THE HATCH, IT'S A PROBLEM. THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMMON ISSUE WITH THIS MODEL, WITNESS YOUR OWN INDEX OF COMPLAINTS, APPENDED BELOW. LET'S GET TOYOTA TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. [XXXX] [XXXX] [XXXX] FROM THE NHTSA WEBSITE: DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 08/01/2013 COMPONENT(S): EQUIPMENT , LATCHES/LOCKS/LINKAGES DATE OF INCIDENT: 07/25/2013 NHTSA ID NUMBER: 10533059 ALL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS COMPLAINT EXPAND DETAILS CLOSE 0 ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS CRASH:NO FIRE:NO NUMBER OF INJURIES:0 NUMBER OF DEATHS:0 MANUFACTURER: TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO. (VIN): NOT AVAILABLE SUMMARY: THE BACK LATCH OF MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS HAS DEGRADED ("MELTED" ALMOST). IT NO LONGER FUNCTIONS PROPERLY, AND I AM UNABLE TO OPEN THE BACK HATCH DOOR EASILY. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE EFFORT AND PERSEVERANCE TO GET IT OPEN. I AM CONCERNED THAT IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE DOOR OPEN. THIS IS A MAJOR CAUSE FOR CONCERN AND IT IS A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. REQUEST RESEARCH HELP DATE COMPLAINT FILED: 05/10/2013 COMPONENT(S): LATCHES/LOCKS/LINKAGES , STRUCTURE DATE OF INCIDENT: 10/05/2012 NHTSA ID NUMBER: 10511408 (... AND MANY MORE, BUT YOUR FORM WON'T LET ME INCLUDE MORE THAN THIS TEXT ...) *JS

NHTSA ODI #10538394

85,000 miles · Aug 29, 2013
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE STOPPING THE VEHICLE, THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE STOPPING THE VEHICLE, THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000.

NHTSA ODI #10537978

68,000 miles · Aug 29, 2013
Exterior Lighting

THE RH (PASSENGER) HEADLIGHT TURNED OFF. THIS WAS NOT A BURNT OUT BULB, BECAUSE AFTER TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF FOR A FEW SECONDS AND TURNING THEM BACK ON THE HEADLIGHT WOULD COME BACK ON. AFTER DRIVING A LITTLE WHILE IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED MANY TIMES UNTIL THE HID BULB WAS REPLACED, BUT THEN AFTER HAVING A NEW…

Read full complaint

THE RH (PASSENGER) HEADLIGHT TURNED OFF. THIS WAS NOT A BURNT OUT BULB, BECAUSE AFTER TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF FOR A FEW SECONDS AND TURNING THEM BACK ON THE HEADLIGHT WOULD COME BACK ON. AFTER DRIVING A LITTLE WHILE IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED MANY TIMES UNTIL THE HID BULB WAS REPLACED, BUT THEN AFTER HAVING A NEW BULB FOR ABOUT A MONTH THE PROBLEM CAME BACK, BUT THIS TIME TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF THEN BACK ON WOULD NOT TURN THE RH HEADLIGHT BACK ON. THE RH (PASSENGER) HEADLIGHT WILL NOT TURN ON AT ALL NOW.

NHTSA ODI #10537863

140,000 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Unknown Or Other

DRIVERS SIDE OPTIONAL ALL-RUBBER FLOOR MATTES HAVE DEFECT OF WORKMANSHIP OR DESIGN WHICH CAUSES EYELET FOR LEFT HAND FLOOR MATTE HOOK TO BECOME TORN STRETCHING THE HOLE OUT/BREAKING THE HOLE AND SHIFTING THE FRONT EDGE OF FLOOR MATTE TOWARDS THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL.

NHTSA ODI #10537262

Official recalls

4

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

Nov 14, 2012

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

Consequence & remedy

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

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

Additional source detail variants (2)

Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter

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

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

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

Engine And Engine Cooling

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

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

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

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

Nov 14, 2012

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

Consequence & remedy

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

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

Additional source detail variants (2)

Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector

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

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

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

Steering

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

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

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

10V036000 · Equipment:other:labels

Feb 3, 2010

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

Consequence & remedy

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

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

09V388000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal

Oct 5, 2009

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

Consequence & remedy

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

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

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

NHTSA investigations

3

DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds

Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023

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

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

DP13001 · Intermediate Steering Shaft Separation

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Apr 8, 2020

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

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

Additional source detail variants (3)

Steering:column

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

Steering:linkages

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

Steering

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

PE09019 · Headlight Failure

Opened Apr 17, 2009 · Closed Aug 27, 2009

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

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

Additional source detail variants (2)

Exterior Lighting:headlights

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

Exterior Lighting

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