51556 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 

24We actually reviewed 143 reports but deemed 

10 reports fell outside the scope of the alleged 

defect. 

25As with the VOQ reports, these consumer 

complaints did not contain evidence of a vehicle 

causation but were simply allegations that the 

vehicle had suffered a throttle control systemrelated incident. Based on this analysis, we estimate 

that of the 257 MY 2006 and 2007 Toyota consumer 

complaints, about 40 would be in this category. 

This number will be reflected as the manufacturer 

failure counts in the closing resume for DP08–001. 

26None of the 25 reports contained any specific 

evidence of a failure of the throttle control system. 

TABLE 3—CONSUMER COMPLAINT COUNTS BY MY FROM TOYOTA’S IR RESPONSE

2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 

Consumer Complaints ......................................................... 176 167 90 13 446 

We based our review of the Toyota 

consumer complaints on the 

information provided in the IR 

response. We first note that the trend we 

saw in the VOQ data—that the MY 2006 

and 2007 vehicles were overrepresented (or MY 2005 was under 

represented)—does not appear in the 

consumer complaint data submitted by 

Toyota. In fact, Toyota’s consumer 

complaint data do not suggest any 

identifiable reporting trend for any 

MY(s). 

In reading the consumer complaint 

reports, we noted most were similar to 

the complaints identified in the VOQ 

reports. Accordingly, we followed the 

same approach used for VOQ reports 

and conducted an analysis of a random 

sample of consumer complaints. We 

reviewed 133 reports 24 from MYs 2005 

to 2008 and identified 142 separate 

complaint types. ODI categorized 96 

(about 68%) of the complaints as 

potentially related to the vehicle’s 

throttle control system, 23 (about 16%) 

as not related to the throttle control 

system (or related to a different system 

or component), and 23 (about 16%) as 

not permitting us to identify a cause that 

relates to the vehicle’s throttle control 

system.25 These proportions are similar 

to the VOQ analysis. 

For the crashes and injuries reported 

in the Toyota IR response, we reviewed 

the reports for the MY 2006 and 2007 

Tacoma (since these were the subject of 

the DP request) where a crash or injury 

was alleged. From these reports, we 

identified 33 unique incidents. Eight of 

these incidents, with three injuries, 

were duplicates of reports to ODI that 

we had reviewed. For the remaining 25 

reports unique to the Toyota response, 

we determined that four reports, with 

no injuries, fell outside the scope of the 

alleged defect (these involved brake 

system or other unrelated issues), two 

involved dual pedal application errors, 

and six involved other issues not related 

to the throttle control system. For the 

remaining 13 crash allegations, with one 

injury allegation, we were unable to 

make an assessment of the underlying 

cause of the crash.26

Conclusion 

ODI’s review of the petition, 

assessment of VOQs, interviews of 

persons who filed VOQs, testing, and 

review of Toyota’s IR response reveals 

that about three-quarters of the 

complaints involved various explained 

aspects of the Tacoma’s throttle control 

system that do not seem to present a 

significant safety risk under most 

circumstances, or did not involve a 

failure of the throttle control system. For 

the remaining quarter, although there 

may have been an issue with the throttle 

control system as one possible 

explanation, we have been unable to 

determine a throttle control related or 

any underlying cause that gave rise to 

the complaint. For those vehicles where 

the throttle control system did not 

perform as the owner believes it should 

have, the information suggesting a 

possible defect related to motor vehicle 

safety is quite limited. In our view, 

additional investigation is unlikely to 

result in a finding that a defect related 

to motor vehicle safety exists with 

regard to the Tacoma’s throttle control 

system or a NHTSA order for the 

notification and remedy of a safetyrelated defect as alleged by the 

petitioner 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 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: August 25, 2008. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–19994 Filed 9–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Enhanced-Use Lease of VA Property 

for the Improvement and Operation of 

the Memorial Stadium at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center, Chillicothe, OH 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Enter into an 

Enhanced-Use Lease. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

intends to enter into an enhanced-use 

lease of approximately 4.273 acres of 

underutilized land and improvements at 

the VA Medical Center in Chillicothe, 

Ohio. The selected lessee will finance, 

preserve, improve, design, build, 

operate, manage and maintain the 

property, which includes the VA 

Memorial Stadium and its accessory 

facilities (e.g., bleachers, dressing 

rooms, concession buildings, 

playground, and a grassy area adjacent 

to the stadium). As consideration for the 

lease, the lessee will be required to 

make annual capital improvements, pay 

VA fair market annual rent, and allow 

VA to use the stadium at no cost for 

mission-related events at least 5 times 

annually during the lease term. The 

value of the consideration meets or 

exceeds the net present value of the 

property to be leased. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Bradley, Office of Asset 

Enterprise Management (044C), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–7778 (this is not a tollfree number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 38 

U.S.C. 8161 et seq. states that the 

Secretary may enter into an enhanceduse lease if he determines that 

implementation of a business plan 

proposed by the Under Secretary for 

Health for applying the consideration 

under such a lease for the provision of 

medical care and services would result 

in a demonstrable improvement of 

services to eligible veterans in the 

geographic service-delivery area within 

which the property is located. This 

project meets this requirement. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 51557 

Approved: July 17, 2008. 

James B. Peake, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E8–20373 Filed 9–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES