THE TAILGATE SWITCH HAD A RUBBER COVER THAT IS MELTING AND BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL AT TIMES. ACCORDING TO TOYOTA SERVICE DEPARTMENT, THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON MANY PRIUS. THE BREAKDOWN STARTS AFTER WARRANTY RUNS OUT IN MANY CARS. *TR
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 reportsDRIVERS SIDE HEADLIGHT AND PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT WILL GO OUT RANDOMLY AT ANYTIME BUT SO FAR BOTH HAVEN'T GONE OUT AT ONCE... HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY THE POLICE NUMEROUS TIMES FOR THIS. WHEN I TURN THE HEADLIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN THEN THEY COME BACK ON. THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE WINTER AND AGAIN THIS SUMMER. SOMETHING NEE…
Read full complaint
DRIVERS SIDE HEADLIGHT AND PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT WILL GO OUT RANDOMLY AT ANYTIME BUT SO FAR BOTH HAVEN'T GONE OUT AT ONCE... HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY THE POLICE NUMEROUS TIMES FOR THIS. WHEN I TURN THE HEADLIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN THEN THEY COME BACK ON. THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE WINTER AND AGAIN THIS SUMMER. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AS IT IS VERY ANNOYING AND DANGEROUS ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT. *TR
I WAS DRIVING IN HEAVY TRAFFIC ABOUT 20 OR 25 MPH THE CARS IN FRONT OF ME STOPPED, WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKE NOTHING HAPPENED, MY CAR CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. THE TIME WAS ABOUT 2:30PM JULY 10/2012 THE CAR HAD JUST BEEN SERVICED BY A TOYOTA DEALER ON JUNE 28TH/2012 FOR THE 30,000 MILE CHECK UP. WE LIVE IN…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING IN HEAVY TRAFFIC ABOUT 20 OR 25 MPH THE CARS IN FRONT OF ME STOPPED, WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKE NOTHING HAPPENED, MY CAR CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. THE TIME WAS ABOUT 2:30PM JULY 10/2012 THE CAR HAD JUST BEEN SERVICED BY A TOYOTA DEALER ON JUNE 28TH/2012 FOR THE 30,000 MILE CHECK UP. WE LIVE IN WEST LOS ANGELES. *TR
THIS IS A WELL PUBLICIZED PROBLEM. THIS PROBLEM NOW OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES EVERY DAY> I TOOK POSSESSION OF THIS VEHICLE IN MARCH, 2011 AT ABOUT 40,000 MILES. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO VERIFY THAT THE PROBLEM WAS OR WAS NOT OCCURRING FROM THE FIRST DAY I HAD THE VEHICLE.. I FIRST NOTICED THE RANDOM AND VARIABLE HEADLIGHT F…
Read full complaint
THIS IS A WELL PUBLICIZED PROBLEM. THIS PROBLEM NOW OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES EVERY DAY> I TOOK POSSESSION OF THIS VEHICLE IN MARCH, 2011 AT ABOUT 40,000 MILES. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO VERIFY THAT THE PROBLEM WAS OR WAS NOT OCCURRING FROM THE FIRST DAY I HAD THE VEHICLE.. I FIRST NOTICED THE RANDOM AND VARIABLE HEADLIGHT FAILURE ABOUT FOUR MONTHS AGO... IT OCCURS ON A REGULAR BASIS NOW.... AND IS TEMPORARILY "FIXED" BY CYCLING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH.... IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME HEADLIGHT THAT FAILS, WHICH SHOULD TELL YOU IT IS NOT THE BULB... WHICH SO MANY DEALERS ARE HAPPILY CHARGING TO REPLACE. MY VEHICLE NOW HAS OVER 84000 MILES ON IT AND THE PROBLEM PERSISTS.... SO WHOEVER DECIDED THAT 50,000 MILES IS A REASONABLE CUT-OFF FOR TOYOTA'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROBLEM.... I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING... THOUSANDS OF CARS DO NOT FAIL OVER 5 MODEL YEARS STARTING AT AS LOW AS 20,000 MILES FROM "NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AGING AND FAILURE".... THIS IS A SERIOUS AND INEXCUSABLE DESIGN FLAW WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LONG LIST OF RECALLS WHICH TODAY'S TOYOTA IS COMING TO BE KNOWN FOR.... THEY RESISTED A RECALL BECAUSE EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPENT ALMOST $2,000 FOR THE DEALER TO FIX THIS ISSUE HAVE REPORTED THAT IT RECURS AFTER THE SO-CALLED "FIX". TOYOTA MUST KNOW THAT THERE IS NO EASY FIX, AND IS NOT WILLING TO TAKE THE HIT FOR CORRECTING THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN. I GUESS IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL WRONGFUL DEATHS DUE TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE BEFORE THIS ISSUE CAN BE RAISED TO A NEW LEVEL OF INTERVENTION.... THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WAS AN EXERCISE IN MORONIC IRRESPONSIBILITY... MOSTLY BY THE COURTS FOR ALLOWING SUCH A PITIFUL AND INEFFECTIVE RULING. ONE MORE EXHIBIT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT CORPORATIONS RUN THE WORLD TODAY.... NOT GOVERNMENTS..... PATHETIC...... *TR
THE 2007 PRIUS ENGINE AND SAFETY WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON WHILE DRIVING AND THE CAR STALLED ON THE HIGHWAY. THIS HAS OCCURRED 4 TO 5 TIMES IN THE LAST 4 MONTHS. WE HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP, WHERE THEY HAVE DRIVEN IT, KEPT IT OVERNIGHT, AND COULD NOT DETERMINE THE PROBLEM. THE THIRD TIME, THE DEALER SAID IT WAS THE 12…
Read full complaint
THE 2007 PRIUS ENGINE AND SAFETY WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON WHILE DRIVING AND THE CAR STALLED ON THE HIGHWAY. THIS HAS OCCURRED 4 TO 5 TIMES IN THE LAST 4 MONTHS. WE HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP, WHERE THEY HAVE DRIVEN IT, KEPT IT OVERNIGHT, AND COULD NOT DETERMINE THE PROBLEM. THE THIRD TIME, THE DEALER SAID IT WAS THE 12 VOLT BATTERY, WHICH WE REPLACED FOR $348.85. THE CAR STALLED AGAIN - SAME SAFETY CONCERNS - STALLED WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. LUCKILY THE CAR BEHIND ME DID NOT HIT ME AND I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO A SIDE STREET. THERE WAS NOT ANY POWER. THE WINDOWS AND AIR CONDITIONING WERE NOT WORKING AS WELL. I SAT IN THE ARIZONA HEAT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES AND THAN GOT IT TO START BY PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK OVER AND OVER. ALL SAFETY WARNING LIGHTS WERE ON, AS I DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. I WAS SHAKING AND IN TEARS, FEARFUL FOR MY LIFE AND THE LIFE OF OTHERS AS I DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP LESS THAN TWO MONTHS SINCE THE 12 VOLT BATTERY HAD BEEN REPLACED. I HAVE GOTTEN THE CAR SERVICED AT THE DEALERSHIP AS STATED IN THE MANUAL - EVERYTIME. THE STALLING OF THE ENGINE WHILE DRIVING AND THE LACK OF THE DEALER TO FIX THE PROBLEM IS OF GRAVE CONCERN. I AM VERY LUCKY THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN REAR-ENDED OR KILLED WHEN THE CAR HAS STALLED. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AND IT APPEARS THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED IN MANY PRIUS VEHICLES. THE DEALERSHIP KEEPS SAYING THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS THE PROBLEM. SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO PROTECT AMERICANS THAT DRIVE THESE CARS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THE AIR BAG WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE DRIVERS SEAT AIR BAG FAILED AS A RESULT AND THE AIR BAG NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THE AIR BAG WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE DRIVERS SEAT AIR BAG FAILED AS A RESULT AND THE AIR BAG NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 33,623 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 33,724. ...UPDATED 08-10-12 *BF UPDATED 08/14/2012 *JS
ON THE TRUNK IS A DOOR LATCH WITH A PLASTIC COVER. THE PLASTIC COVER HAS MELTED OR IS DISINTEGRATING. THERE ARE MANY POSTS ON GOOGLE IF YOU SEARCH FOR THE TERMS "PRIUS TRUNK LATCH MELT". CONSIDERING I DON'T DRIVE VERY OFTEN MY CAR IS ALMOST ALWAYS COVERED IN THE GARAGE. PLUS I LIVE IN HAWAII SO HEAT SHOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH O…
Read full complaint
ON THE TRUNK IS A DOOR LATCH WITH A PLASTIC COVER. THE PLASTIC COVER HAS MELTED OR IS DISINTEGRATING. THERE ARE MANY POSTS ON GOOGLE IF YOU SEARCH FOR THE TERMS "PRIUS TRUNK LATCH MELT". CONSIDERING I DON'T DRIVE VERY OFTEN MY CAR IS ALMOST ALWAYS COVERED IN THE GARAGE. PLUS I LIVE IN HAWAII SO HEAT SHOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE LIKE OTHER STATES. THIS ISN'T MY PICTURE BUT IT SHOWS WHAT MINES LOOKS LIKE. HTTP://PRIUSCHAT.COM/ATTACHMENTS/P1000894-JPG.22615/. *TR
WHEN DRIVING I NOTICED MY HEADLIGHT TURNED OFF FOR NO APPARENT REASON. I TURNED THE HEAD LIGHT SWITCH OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN AND ABOUT 20 MINS LATER MY LEFT HEAD LIGHT TURNED OFF. BY TURNING MY HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN WILL FIX THE PROBLEM BUT ONLY FOR A SHORT WHILE. I HAVE HAD THIS PROBLEM BEFORE AND TOOK MY CAR TO THE …
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING I NOTICED MY HEADLIGHT TURNED OFF FOR NO APPARENT REASON. I TURNED THE HEAD LIGHT SWITCH OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN AND ABOUT 20 MINS LATER MY LEFT HEAD LIGHT TURNED OFF. BY TURNING MY HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN WILL FIX THE PROBLEM BUT ONLY FOR A SHORT WHILE. I HAVE HAD THIS PROBLEM BEFORE AND TOOK MY CAR TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WHERE I BOUGHT THE CAR. THEY REPLACED THE HEADLIGHT, ONE ON 12/16/2008 AND THE OPPOSITE HEADLIGHT ON 6/13/2009. NOW THE PROBLEM HAS STARTED ALL OVER AGAIN. BACK IN 2008 I LOGGED MY COMPLAINT HERE ABOUT THE HEADLIGHTS AND JUST WANTED TO LET ALL THE PRIUS OWNERS THAT IT MAY HAPPEN AGAIN. *TR
MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS HEADLIGHTS KEEP BURNING OUT AT RANDOM AND MUCH FASTER THAN ANY HEADLIGHT SHOULD, AND HAVE ALSO DONE SO WHILE I'M DRIVING. MY FIRST HEADLIGHT BURNED OUT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE LAST OCTOBER, WHICH TO ME SEEMED NORMAL, THE CAR WAS THEN 5 YEARS OLD. I BOUGHT AND REPLACED THE HEADLIGHT THE NEXT DAY. SINCE OCTO…
Read full complaint
MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS HEADLIGHTS KEEP BURNING OUT AT RANDOM AND MUCH FASTER THAN ANY HEADLIGHT SHOULD, AND HAVE ALSO DONE SO WHILE I'M DRIVING. MY FIRST HEADLIGHT BURNED OUT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE LAST OCTOBER, WHICH TO ME SEEMED NORMAL, THE CAR WAS THEN 5 YEARS OLD. I BOUGHT AND REPLACED THE HEADLIGHT THE NEXT DAY. SINCE OCTOBER 2011 TO PRESENT DAY (9 MONTHS) I HAVE NOW HAD TO REPLACE BOTH PASSENGER SIDE AND DRIVER SIDE HEADLIGHTS 7 TIMES COMBINED. I HAVE TRIED NUMEROUS DIFFERENT BRANDS OF LIGHTS, AND ALSO HAD A DEALERSHIP CHECK OUT MY WIRING TO BE SURE THERE WERE NO SHORTS OR ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE SETUP, AND THEY CONCLUDED THERE WAS NONE. THE LIGHTS GO OUT AT COMPLETELY RANDOM INTERVALS, ON 2 OCCASIONS THE LIGHT WENT OUT WHILE I WAS DRIVING. AS BOTH PASSENGER AND DRIVER SIDE LIGHTS ARE GOING OUT THIS IS A CLEAR SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE WHILE THEY HAVE NOT YET GONE OUT SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE TIMINGS ARE SO OFTEN AND RANDOM THAT I FEAR THEY WILL BOTH GO OUT BEFORE I AM ABLE TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT IS OUT. AS I HAVE USED EVERY BRAND OF LIGHT THAT IS AVAILABLE, AND HAD A TOYOTA DEALER CONFIRM THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HOW I INSTALLED THE LIGHTS OR THE WIRING, ITS VERY CLEAR THERE IS SOME KIND OF ISSUE WITH THE PRIUS LIGHTING SYSTEM ITSELF CAUSING THE LIGHTS TO GO OUT. *TR
SUFFERING FROM THE COMMONLY REPORTED HID HEADLIGHT INTERMITTENT OUTAGES. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE COST OF REPLACING A SINGLE HEADLIGHT IS OVER $400 AT THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER. THE VEHICLE AGE DOES NOT EXCEED THE NORMAL MTBF FOR THE BULB. I HAVE ALREADY REPLACED THE LEFT HEADLIGHT AND NOW THE RIGHT ONE HAS GONE OUT. I RE…
Read full complaint
SUFFERING FROM THE COMMONLY REPORTED HID HEADLIGHT INTERMITTENT OUTAGES. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE COST OF REPLACING A SINGLE HEADLIGHT IS OVER $400 AT THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER. THE VEHICLE AGE DOES NOT EXCEED THE NORMAL MTBF FOR THE BULB. I HAVE ALREADY REPLACED THE LEFT HEADLIGHT AND NOW THE RIGHT ONE HAS GONE OUT. I REPLACED 1 HEADLIGHT IN 45 YEARS OF DRIVING BEFORE I BOUGHT THIS PRIUS. NOW 2 HEADIGHTS GO OUT. THIS IS A DESIGN DEFECT. AND CAN GO OUT WHILE DRIVING. THE FAILURE MODE IS INTERMITTENT BEFORE TOTAL FAILURE. *TR
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