[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10815-10817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4214]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition (Defect Petition DP06-003) submitted on August 24, 2006 by Mr. 
William B. Jeffers III of Garner, North Carolina to NHTSA's Office of 
Defects Investigation (ODI), requesting that the agency commence a 
proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor 
vehicle safety in model year (MY) 2002 to 2006 Toyota Camry and Camry 
Solara vehicles (the ``subject vehicles'') for incidents relating to 
vehicle engine surging.
    After reviewing the concerns raised by the Petitioner and other 
information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the 
agency's investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition 
is not warranted. The agency, accordingly, has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Yon, Vehicle Control 
Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitioner owns a MY 2006 Toyota Camry 
with a 4-cylinder engine that was purchased new in January 2006. The 
Petitioner also previously owned a MY 2005 \1\ Camry. He alleges that 
both vehicles exhibited vehicle engine surging, which he described as a 
short duration (1 to 2 second) increase in engine speed occurring while 
the accelerator pedal is not depressed. In an initial interview, the 
Petitioner estimated that 6 to 8 surge incidents, of varying severity, 
occurred in the MY 2006 vehicle over the course of 10,000 miles and 7 
months of ownership. The Petitioner reports that the brake system is 
effective at overcoming the surge. However, he is concerned about 
reports filed with NHTSA alleging uncontrolled surging in MY 2002 to 
2006 Camry vehicles bringing those vehicles to a high rate of speed (in 
some cases, purportedly, with the brakes applied).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The open resume for DP06-003 incorrectly identified the 
Petitioner's previous vehicle as a MY 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2006, the Petitioner's MY 2006 vehicle was serviced by 
a Toyota dealership. The dealership determined that two diagnostic 
trouble codes (P-codes) related to the operation of the throttle 
actuator,\2\ P2103 and P2111, were stored in the engine control unit's 
memory.\3\ The dealership ordered a new replacement throttle actuator, 
which was installed on the vehicle in October 2006. Thereafter, in 
November 2006, the Petitioner reported that another surge event 
occurred, more severe than his prior occurrences. The Petitioner stated 
that after startup, the vehicle moved forward rapidly when the throttle 
pedal was touched lightly. The Petitioner reports that the tires

[[Page 10816]]

screeched from over-acceleration and the vehicle moved 3 or 4 car 
lengths before he was able to stop the vehicle with the brake. The 
Petitioner noted that the malfunction indication lamp (MIL) was 
illuminated during and after this incident. The vehicle was returned to 
the Toyota dealership, which discovered that P-codes P2111, P2112, and 
P2119 were stored in memory.\4\ These diagnostic codes also relate to 
throttle actuator operation. The invoice for this service visit 
indicates that an electrical connector for the newly installed throttle 
actuator was ``adjusted'' and the ground circuits were checked. No 
crash, injury or property damage incidents are alleged to have occurred 
with regard to either of the Petitioner's vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The throttle actuator is the device that controls air flow 
into the engine and hence power production. On the subject vehicles 
the actuator is controlled electronically, as opposed to 
mechanically (via a cable).
    \3\ The Petitioner does not recall seeing any warning 
indications on the instrument panel nor does he report any 
operational malfunctions, either of which would be expected when the 
stored P-codes were detected.
    \4\ ODI notes that `Freeze Frame' data, which is stored 
information recording vehicle parameters such as vehicle speed, gear 
status, air mass flow, and other conditions present when P-codes are 
detected, were also collected at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 3, 2006 ODI personnel met with the Petitioner in 
Raleigh, NC to assess his current vehicle.\5\ The assessment involved a 
visual inspection, as well as photographing the exterior, interior, and 
under hood areas of the vehicle. ODI test drove the vehicle to make an 
operational assessment of the braking, throttle control, cruise control 
and shift interlock systems. A brake override test was performed \6\ 
confirming that the brake system would stop and restrain the vehicle 
under full engine power.\7\ No anomalies were noted with the vehicle or 
its operation during ODI's test drive. ODI confirmed its understanding 
of the Petitioner's concerns and, through discussion and demonstration, 
attempted to evaluate the magnitude and duration of the surge events he 
had experienced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This meeting took place before the original equipment 
throttle actuator had been replaced.
    \6\ The vehicle could be maintained at rest during wide open 
throttle with 25 to 30 lbs. brake force. The maximum engine speed 
under these conditions was approximately 2,200 RPMs.
    \7\ This situation was demonstrated to the Petitioner since he 
raised concerns regarding reports submitted to NHTSA alleging that 
vehicles accelerated to high speed even when the brakes were fully 
applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the October 2006 meeting, ODI and the Petitioner discussed 
the Toyota dealership's determination that his throttle actuator should 
be replaced. An agreement was made to schedule the next service visit 
so that the removed (suspect) throttle actuator could be retained for 
further analysis. After the repair, ODI arranged with Toyota to have 
the suspect throttle actuator sent to a facility owned by the component 
supplier, Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. An analysis was conducted which 
included a physical inspection (including X-ray), mechanical testing, 
electrical testing, environmental testing, and destructive tear down. 
Aisan's final investigation report,\8\ submitted to NHTSA under request 
for confidentiality by Toyota, concluded that there was no problem 
associated with the component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The report was submitted in response to NHTSA's Information 
Request letter of October 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In late October 2006, ODI issued an Information Request (IR) letter 
\9\ to Toyota requesting subject vehicle production data, and warranty 
claim/parts sales data for the throttle actuator. ODI's review found 
that the overall warranty claim rate for throttle actuators is 
unremarkable.\10\ The primary reasons for warranty replacement of this 
component were: (1) Hesitation/poor acceleration; (2) MIL illumination; 
(3) stalling; and (4) poor/no starting. These reasons do not appear to 
be related to engine surging. No trends are observed when warranty 
claim rates are analyzed on production date, MY or time-in-service 
basis. Parts sales, a possible indication of the scope or a component 
problem, are also unremarkable.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A copy of the letter is available at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov under Defect Investigation DP06-003.
    \10\ The warranty claim rate for subject vehicle throttle 
actuator replacement was less than 0.18%.
    \11\ Parts sales were approximately 5,300 units on a population 
of some 1.9M vehicles, ~0.3%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toyota's IR response \12\ included technical information for the P-
codes stored on the Petitioner's vehicle. The documents describe the 
condition(s) under which the stored P-codes would be set \13\ and the 
resultant effects on vehicle operation. For the codes stored, fault 
detection occurs when parameter thresholds are exceeded for a maximum 
of one second. Where an event lasts more than one second, the codes 
also result in a ``fail safe'' mode of operation during which the 
throttle actuator is de-powered and the throttle blade is mechanically 
fixed to a near-closed position.\14\ With this functionality, any 
engine surge occurring due to a throttle actuator failure should not 
last longer than one second, after which the MIL would be illuminated 
and engine power would be significantly reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Non-confidential portions of the response are available at 
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov under DP06-003.
    \13\ These documents describe the parameters that are monitored 
and the range and time thresholds that when exceeded result in the 
detection of a fault and the setting of a P-code.
    \14\ The vehicle is incapable of making significant power in 
this state since air flow to the engine is reduced; however, the 
vehicle can still be driven at low speed to a safe location for 
parking and occupant departure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI attempted but was unable to conduct an interview with the 
current owner of the Petitioner's MY 2005 Camry to determine if the 
surging happened again. However, that vehicle (which we know by its 
vehicle identification number) does not appear in Toyota's warranty 
claim data or in NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire complaint 
database.
    The electronic throttle control (ETC) system of Toyota vehicles in 
model years immediately prior to that of the Petitioner's current 
vehicle has been the subject of earlier agency investigations and 
petitions. Preliminary Evaluation PE04-021 (prompted by DP04-003), 
which ODI closed without identification of a defect trend, involved 
allegations that the ETC system failed to properly control engine speed 
resulting in vehicle surge.\15\ Unlike DP06-002, no allegations of MIL 
or component replacement in connection with a surge incident were 
received during PE04-021. Defect Petition DP05-003, which the agency 
denied, involved allegations of interrelated brake and acceleration 
problems that allegedly resulted in inappropriate and uncontrollable 
vehicle accelerations in ETC-equipped MY 2002 to 2005 Toyota and Lexus 
vehicles. During DP05-002, ODI reviewed a comprehensive listing of 
reports submitted to the agency by vehicle owners alleging 
uncontrollable engine surging. This review included examination of the 
types of reports about which the Petitioner has expressed concern. 
ODI's assessment of the reports, as well as a discussion of the report 
rates and their relative comparison to other throttle investigations, 
can be found in NHTSA's petition denial notice published in the Federal 
Register on January 3, 2006. Therefore, in addition to its recent 
careful examination of Petitioner's allegations concerning his vehicle, 
ODI has also thoroughly studied all related reports that have been 
submitted to it alleging similar problems in the subject vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The closing report for PE04-021 discusses technical and 
operational aspects of ETC including the specific countermeasures 
the system can implement when a fault is detected. The report, and 
non-confidential portions of Toyota's response, are available at 
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov under PE04-021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, after review and analysis of the available information, 
ODI has not identified a vehicle-based defect that would have produced 
the alleged engine surge in the Petitioner's vehicle, nor was it able 
to witness such an event when road testing the Petitioner's 
vehicle.\16\ Evaluation of a suspect

[[Page 10817]]

throttle actuator removed from the Petitioner's vehicle did not reveal 
a component problem. Warranty and parts sales of the actuator are 
unremarkable. These data do not support the existence of a wide-spread 
defect or ongoing concern. The fault detection and reaction strategy 
described in Toyota's technical documents indicates that a loss of 
throttle control due to a component or system failure would be detected 
within a one second period after which engine power would be limited. 
The Petitioner's MY 2006 vehicle brake system overcomes full engine 
power at easily achievable brake pedal forces. This in no way implies 
that we doubt the Petitioner's reported experiences with his vehicle. 
Rather, the agency simply lacks evidence of a safety related defect in 
his vehicle or a trend of such defects in the subject vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ODI notes that a surge event may not represent a 
significant safety risk if it is of small magnitude and short 
duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an 
order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as 
alleged by the Petitioner in the subject vehicles at the conclusion of 
the requested investigation. 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. This action does not 
constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not 
exist. The agency will take further action if warranted by future 
circumstances.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 5, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-4214 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P