Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 51551 

2004 and August 31, 2006, as originally 

manufactured, conform to many FMVSS 

in the same manner as their U.S. 

certified counterparts, or are capable of 

being readily altered to conform to those 

standards. 

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

non-U.S. certified 2005–2006 Mercedes 

Benz SLK class (171 chassis) passenger 

cars manufactured between August 31, 

2004 and August 31, 2006 are identical 

to their U.S. certified counterparts with 

respect to compliance with Standard 

Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever 

Sequence, Starter Interlock, and 

Transmission Braking Effect, 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and 

Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 

New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch 

System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 

124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 

Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 

202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering 

Control Rearward Displacement, 205 

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and 

Door Retention Components, 207 

Seating Systems, 212 Windshield 

Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 

216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child 

Restraint Anchorage Systems, and 302 

Flammability of Interior Materials. 

In addition, the petitioner claims that 

the vehicles comply with the Bumper 

Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581. 

The petitioner also contends that the 

vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated: 

Standard No. 101 Controls and 

Displays: (a) Inscription of the word 

‘‘brake’’ on the dash in place of the 

international ECE warning symbol; (b) 

replacement of the speedometer with a 

unit reading in miles per hour, or 

modification of existing speedometer so 

that it reads in miles per hour; and (c) 

installation or activation of U.S.-version 

software in the vehicle’s computer 

system. 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a) 

installation of U.S.-model sidemarker 

lamps and headlamps; and (b) 

inspection of all vehicles and 

installation, on vehicles that are not 

already so equipped, of U.S.-model 

components to meet the requirements of 

this standard. 

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and 

Rims: installation of a tire information 

placard. 

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: 

installation of a U.S.-model passenger 

side rearview mirror, or inscription of 

the required warning statement on the 

face of that mirror. 

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: 

installation of a supplemental key 

warning buzzer, or installation or 

activation of U.S.-version software to 

meet the requirements of this standard. 

Standard No. 118 Power-Operated 

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 

Systems: installation or activation of 

U.S.-version software in the vehicle’s 

computer system to meet the 

requirements of this standard. 

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash 

Protection: inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non U.S.-model 

seat belts, air bag control units, air bags, 

and sensors with U.S.-model 

components on vehicles that are not 

already so equipped; and (b) installation 

or activation of U.S.-version software to 

ensure that the seat belt warning system 

meets the requirements of this standard. 

The petitioner states that the crash 

protection system used in these vehicles 

consists of dual front airbags and 

combination lap and shoulder belts at 

the front outboard seating positions. The 

seat belt systems are described as selftensioning and capable of being released 

by means of a single red push-button. 

Standard No. 209 Seat Belt 

Assemblies: inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non U.S.- 

certified model seat belts with U.S.- 

model components. 

Standard No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages: inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non U.S.-model 

seat belts anchorage components with 

U.S.-model components. 

Standard No. 301 Fuel System 

Integrity: inspection of all vehicles and 

replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel 

system components with U.S.-model 

components. 

Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk 

Release: inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of U.S.-model components 

on vehicles that are not already so 

equipped. 

The petitioner additionally states that 

a vehicle identification plate must be 

affixed to the vehicles near the left 

windshield post to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated above will be considered, and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the above addresses both 

before and after that date. To the extent 

possible, comments filed after the 

closing date will also be considered. 

Notice of final action on the petition 

will be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated below. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: August 27, 2008. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. E8–20397 Filed 9–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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 DP08–001) submitted by 

Mr. William Kronholm to NHTSA’s 

Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) by 

letter dated January 10, 2008, under 49 

U.S.C. 30162. The Petition requests that 

the agency commence a proceeding to 

determine the existence of a defect 

related to motor vehicle safety within 

the electronically actuated throttle 

control system that is allegedly causing 

sudden and uncontrolled acceleration in 

model year (MY) 2006 to 2007 Toyota 

Tacoma pickup trucks (vehicles). 

After conducting a technical review of 

the material cited and provided by the 

petitioner and other information, and 

taking into account several 

considerations, including, among 

others, allocation of agency resources, 

agency priorities, and the likelihood 

that additional investigation would 

result in a finding that a defect related 

to motor vehicle safety exists, NHTSA 

has concluded that further investigation 

of 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, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 

366–0139. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Interested persons may petition 

NHTSA requesting that the agency 

initiate an investigation to determine 

whether a motor vehicle or item of 

replacement equipment does not 

comply with an applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard or 

contains a defect that relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 49 CFR 552.1. Upon 

receipt of a properly filed petition, the 

agency conducts a technical review of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
51552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 

1The design of the Tacoma throttle control 

system is similar to that reviewed in PE04–021. 

Interested persons can refer to this investigation for 

more information on the basic design and operation 

of the system. 

2His wife also recognized that the vehicle was not 

stopping as she had expected, or that something 

was wrong, and she asked her husband what was 

going on. 

3There is a slight grade that would allow the 

vehicle to reverse without accelerator application. 

4The Petitioner states his vehicle’s rear wheels 

were spinning freely as he recalls hearing the sound 

of gravel hitting the inside of the rear wheel wells. 

5See http://www.safercar.gov under VOQ report 

ODI 10214130 to view the 1/25/2008 letter. 

6ODI numbers for MY 2006 Tacoma: 10152011, 

10172030, 10183012, 10184332 (Canadian vehicle), 

10184375, 10184416, 10184759, 10185253, 

10186996, 10191371, 10201595, 10202727, 

10211100, 10212718, 10214130, 10215598. For MY 

2007 Tacoma: 10180652, 10181411, 10181486 

(same complainant as 10180652), 10182045, 

10187789, 10197535, 10198196, 10199820, 

10201655, 10202283, 10207528, 10208120, 

10208868, 10208890, 10212294, 10212602, 

10212656. For non-Toyota products: 10166548, 

10183144, 10199048, 10203722. 

the petition, material submitted with the 

petition, and any additional 

information. § 552.6. After considering 

the technical review and taking into 

account appropriate factors, which may 

include, among others, allocation of 

agency resources, agency priorities, and 

the likelihood of success in litigation 

that might arise from a determination of 

a noncompliance or a defect related to 

motor vehicle safety, the agency will 

grant or deny the petition. § 552.8. 

II. Defect Petition Background 

Information 

The Petitioner, Mr. William Kronholm 

of Helena, Montana, purchased a new 

model year (MY) 2006 Toyota Tacoma 

pickup (VIN 5TEUU42N26Z258969, 

Petitioner’s vehicle) on May 10, 2006. 

The vehicle is equipped with a V6 

engine (4.0 L, 1GR–FE), five speed 

automatic transmission, air conditioning 

(A/C), cruise control, antilock brakes 

(ABS), limited slip rear differential, and 

four-wheel drivetrain (4WD), and was 

manufactured in April 2006. The 

Petitioner’s vehicle is also equipped 

with an electronically actuated throttle 

control system.1 The Petitioner is the 

primary driver of the Petitioner’s 

vehicle and he drove the vehicle for 

approximately 24,500 miles without 

experiencing a problem with the throttle 

control system. 

On the morning of January 5, 2008, 

the Petitioner and his wife drove the 

vehicle to a cross-country skiing area 

about 100 miles from their home. After 

skiing several hours, they returned 

home on Rt. 141. During the return trip, 

the Petitioner pulled off the road and 

stopped briefly at the intersection with 

Rt. 271. The transmission was placed in 

Park and the engine was left running. 

When the Petitioner was ready to 

resume the trip south on Rt. 141, he 

engaged Drive and allowed the vehicle 

to move forward under its own power 

(without accelerator pedal application). 

As he approached the intersection, and 

while braking and checking for 

oncoming traffic, he sensed that the 

vehicle was not slowing as expected 

from the brake application.2 He 

struggled with the vehicle for about 10 

seconds, continuing to press on the 

brake, before regaining control of the 

vehicle. By this time the vehicle had 

moved about 7 to 10 meters beyond 

where the Petitioner had intended to 

stop, coming to rest in the southbound 

lane of Rt. 141. He was alarmed by the 

event and wasn’t quite sure what had 

happened. However, he could not 

identify a specific problem with his 

vehicle, so he continued driving. 

When the Petitioner arrived at his 

home, he began to back the vehicle into 

his short driveway.3 While steering the 

vehicle into the driveway and using the 

brake to regulate the vehicle speed, the 

Petitioner reports that the vehicle began 

to accelerate suddenly in the rearward 

direction. He applied the brakes 

forcefully, which slowed the vehicle,4

but he was concerned that he was 

nearing the garage door. He concluded 

that his vehicle was out of control and, 

fearing a crash, he turned the ignition 

switch off. He estimates the duration of 

this event was approximately 10 

seconds. He subsequently restarted the 

vehicle and it operated normally. 

Due to the similarity with his earlier 

incident, and since both incidents had 

occurred within a two hour period, he 

suspected that a defect with his vehicle 

was the likely cause. He conducted 

some research, including finding some 

related news articles and news 

broadcasts via Web research that 

reported similar occurrences on other 

MY 2006 and 2007 Tacoma vehicles. He 

also found the NHTSA Web site, where 

he filed his Vehicle Owner 

Questionnaire (VOQ) report (ODI 

10214130) and conducted a VOQ search 

for other Tacoma reports similar to his. 

His search identified a number of 

reports for MY 2006 and 2007 Tacoma 

vehicles that he considered similar to 

the incidents he had experienced, as 

well as a small number of reports for 

peer vehicles (non-Toyota) of similar 

age, usage, and design type. 

The Petitioner took his Tacoma to a 

local Toyota dealer on January 7, 2008, 

advised it of the two incidents he had 

experienced, and requested that they 

inspect the vehicle for a potential 

problem or defect that caused the 

unintended accelerations. The 

dealership tested the vehicle, inspected 

the air intake, throttle and accelerator 

pedal wiring, and checked for any 

stored diagnostic codes or service 

messages in the engine control unit. The 

dealer also checked for any pertinent 

bulletins or ‘‘health’’ updates. The 

dealer could not duplicate the 

unintended acceleration, no codes were 

stored and no bulletins or updates were 

available. No repairs were made and the 

vehicle was returned to the Petitioner. 

The Petitioner filed a Defect Petition 

(DP) with NHTSA that was received in 

NHTSA on January 18, 2008. The 

petition identified his previous VOQ 

and discussed his research on Tacoma 

and peer vehicle VOQs with throttle 

control complaints. He requested that 

NHTSA open an investigation into 

sudden and uncontrolled acceleration 

on the MY 2006 and 2007 Toyota 

Tacoma vehicles. In a letter to Toyota 

dated January 25, 2008, the Petitioner 

described the two ‘‘spontaneous and 

uncommanded sudden acceleration 

incidents in the span of less than two 

hours’’ and the results of his search for 

related complaints on the NHTSA Web 

site. The letter takes issue with Toyota’s 

response to his and other complaints of 

sudden acceleration and requests that 

Toyota conduct a ‘‘full and complete 

investigation of the defect’’ in his 

Tacoma.5

ODI contacted the Petitioner on 

January 24, 2008, to advise that we 

received his petition. During this call, 

ODI staff briefly reviewed the specifics 

of the two incidents the Petitioner 

reported and requested that he provide 

the ODI numbers of the reports he 

identified in his petition for both the 

Toyota and non-Toyota vehicles. During 

this conversation, the Petitioner 

confirmed his assessment that during 

both incidents, his vehicle’s brake 

system had functioned properly and 

that the cause of the incidents was a 

failure of the throttle control system, 

specifically that the throttle control 

system opened the throttle without 

accelerator pedal application. In other 

words, the vehicle self-accelerated. In 

his opinion, this acceleration made the 

vehicle difficult to control and unsafe to 

operate. 

The Petitioner provided a list of 37 

VOQ reports via e-mail, 33 for Toyota 

Tacoma, including the Petitioner’s 

report ODI 10214130, and four for nonToyota pickups.6 The Toyota Tacoma 

reports included 16 reports on MY 2006 

and 17 reports on MY 2007 Tacoma. 

ODI notes that two reports (10180652 

and 10181486) were submitted by the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 51553 

7The MY 2004 vehicles are an earlier design 

version that used different engines and body style. 

8This was done to ensure a comprehensive 

sample of the types of complaints Toyota received. 

9Some portions of the response were submitted 

with a request for confidentiality. 

10The five remaining consumers failed to respond 

to requests for an interview, or could not be 

contacted. 

11At MY 2005, the Tacoma vehicle line 

underwent a major design revision from the MY 

2004 vehicle, with a new body style and powertrain 

being introduced. 

12See http://nhthqnwws111.odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

acms/docservlet/Artemis/Public/OVSC/2007/ 

Test%20Reports/TRTR–639126–2007.PDF for 

vehicle specification, test results, and details on 

obtaining more information. 

13This work was completed prior to the opening 

of DP08–001 also. 

same complainant, and one (10184332) 

was submitted by a Canadian consumer. 

In response to the petition, ODI 

opened Defect Petition (DP) 08–001 on 

January 31, 2008. ODI sent an 

Information Request (IR) letter to Toyota 

on February 8, 2008, with a response 

due date of March 28, 2008. The IR 

letter sought information relating to a 

range of potential consumer complaints 

and defined the MY 2004 7 to 2008 

Tacoma models as the subject vehicles.8

Toyota requested and was granted 

extensions to the original response date, 

with partial submissions made on the 

agreed upon dates, and the submission 

was completed on April 25, 2008.9

Toyota also conducted a technical 

meeting with ODI on May 21, 2008. 

III. NHTSA Review—VOQ Data 

ODI began its assessment of the 

petition by attempting to contact each of 

the persons who had submitted a VOQ 

report on a Tacoma, as identified by the 

Petitioner. We interviewed 26 of the 31 

consumers.10 In the interviews, 

consumers described events that could 

be attributed to a throttle control system 

issue. Their concerns stemmed from a 

variety of vehicle operating conditions 

and driving circumstances. Some 

owners described events similar to the 

Petitioner’s allegations, in that 

unintended acceleration occurred on 

vehicles equipped with an automatic 

transmission while slowing or stopped. 

Other complainants described 

unintended acceleration that was minor 

in comparison to the events that the 

Petitioner described. Other owners 

described events that varied 

significantly from what the Petitioner 

reported. For example, some consumers 

described events that occurred on 

manual transmission vehicles at 

highway speeds when the clutch was 

depressed, while others reported that a 

condition only occurred after the 

accelerator pedal had been depressed 

significantly (intentionally) or only 

when the cruise control or A/C system 

was engaged. Some consumers reported 

events occurring when more than one of 

these conditions was present. 

After the initial interviews, ODI 

elected to expand its analysis to include 

a broader representation of Tacoma 

reports in the VOQ complaint database. 

Noting that the DP subject vehicles were 

of a consistent design type (generation) 

from MY 2005 through MY 2008,11 we 

searched the complaint database to 

identify all reports potentially involving 

the throttle control system for MY 2005 

and later Tacoma vehicles. Table 1 

shows the number of Tacoma VOQ 

reports, by MY, that include an 

allegation possibly related to the throttle 

control system. We attempted to 

interview each person who submitted a 

report. We have interviewed 64 of these 

97 consumers (about 66%). 

TABLE 1—UNIQUE TACOMA THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM COMPLAINTS, THROUGH 5/31/2008 

MY ........................................................................................ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Totals 

Complaints ........................................................................... 18 36 38 5 97 

As shown in Table 1, there were fewer 

reports for MY 2005 Tacoma reports 

than for MY 2006 and 2007. When 

vehicles share a common design 

configuration over more than one model 

year, there typically tends to be higher 

rates of reports on the older vehicles 

than the newer ones. The trend found 

here may reflect an abnormal variability 

or another factor such as more recent 

publicity. 

Based on the report descriptions and 

the interviews conducted, ODI 

separated the consumer complaints into 

(1) those that may involve the throttle 

control system, (2) those that did not 

relate to the throttle control system (or 

that relate to a different system or 

component), and (3) those that we could 

not categorize, often because of limited 

information. The analysis revealed that 

some VOQs implicate more than one of 

the above issues, resulting in a total of 

104 discrete complaints in these three 

categories. 

Of the 104 complaints, 59 relate or 

may relate to the throttle control system. 

These complaints include allegations of 

high idle speed on cold start; short 

duration (less than one second), small 

magnitude vehicle surges while the 

vehicle is at rest and in gear (possibly 

related to A/C system operation); 

excessive engine speed and 

transmission downshifts when the 

cruise control is engaged and the 

vehicle encounters an uphill grade; and 

failure of the engine to return to ‘‘idle’’ 

in a normal manner while at highway 

speeds when the clutch is depressed for 

shifting (termed by Toyota as ‘‘catalyst 

protection’’). 

Regarding the vehicle’s throttle 

control system, we note that NHTSA’s 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 

(OVSC) conducted testing on a MY 2007 

Tacoma for compliance with Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 124, Accelerator Controls in 

September 2007. In a November 23, 

2007, report, OVSC indicated that the 

Tacoma throttle control system is 

compliant with the requirements set 

forth in FMVSS No. 124.12 OVSC 

completed this testing prior to the 

opening of DP08–001. 

Of the 59 complaints that may be 

related to the vehicle’s throttle control 

system, two of the complaints (about 

three percent) related to high idle speed 

on cold start. None of these reports 

allege a crash or injury. NHTSA’s 

Vehicle Research and Test Center 

(VRTC) conducted testing to compare 

two MY 2008 Tacoma (four- and sixcylinder engines with automatic 

transmissions) to 15 other non-Tacoma 

vehicles. The objective was to determine 

the engine RPM and the sustaining 

brake pedal force (effort required to 

maintain a stationary position) during 

cold start.13 For the vehicles tested, the 

Tacoma idle speeds and pedal forces 

were both above the average of the 17 

vehicles tested but within the range of 

values measured. 

Thirty-seven of the 59 complaints 

(about 63 percent) related to a short 

duration, small magnitude vehicle surge 

increase while the vehicle is at rest and 

in gear. None of these reports allege a 

crash or injury. In assessing the safety 

consequence of these at-rest surge 

complaints, we note first that these 

events occur only on vehicles equipped 

with automatic transmissions. Like 

many other vehicles, the Tacoma idle 

speed varies depending on whether the 

A/C compressor is engaged. We note 

also that the A/C compressor operates 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
51554 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 

14Some consumer’s have alleged that the 

vehicle’s drivetrain or suspension causes the 

condition. 

15He states that he met with a Toyota technical 

representative and observed the results of test work 

they conducted. The consumer claims that the test 

results verified the system operated in the manner 

described in his report, though he did not obtain 

copies of the test results. 

16See the VOQ report ODI 10183271 for details 

of the near loss of control incident that was alleged. 

17The complainant is an engineer who owns a 

four cylinder Tacoma with automatic transmission. 

18Also, Toyota demonstrated this system to ODI 

during the May 21, 2008, technical meeting. 

when the front windshield defroster is 

enabled, regardless of the state of the A/ 

C compressor switch. 

In our IR to Toyota, we asked the 

company to explain the functionality of 

the Tacoma A/C system and how it 

affects the idle speed. According to 

Toyota’s response, there is a modest 

increase in idle speed when the AC 

compressor engages. With this 

functionality, it is possible for the 

vehicle to inch forward if, after it is 

stopped and in gear, the driver applies 

only enough braking to prevent the 

vehicle from rolling forward under 

normal conditions without the A/C 

engaged and the A/C compressor 

subsequently engages. However, a small 

additional brake force suppresses this 

forward movement. 

Some of these 37 consumers, typically 

those with 4WD, reported that within 

about five seconds after stopping the 

vehicle, they experienced a surge that 

felt like a sharp jolt in the vehicle as 

though a following driver had tapped 

the rear bumper (some consumers 

reported looking in the rearview mirror 

to see if this was the case). The duration 

of the jolt was very short (< 1 second), 

would occur only once per stop, and 

occurred randomly—perhaps on a 

weekly basis or less frequently. 

Consumers did not report a 

simultaneous change in engine speed, 

so it is unclear if this issue involves the 

vehicle’s throttle control system.14 We 

were not able to simulate this event on 

a vehicle. However, to the extent that 

these events could be related to the 

throttle control system, we note that 

consumers reported they easily 

controlled vehicle movement with 

normal brake force. 

Eleven of the 59 complaints (about 

nineteen percent) involve excessive 

engine speed and transmission 

downshifts when the cruise control is 

engaged and the vehicle encounters an 

uphill grade. None of these reports 

allege a crash or injury. We note that 

this occurs only on vehicles equipped 

with automatic transmissions and cruise 

control, and that it appears to be more 

prevalent on the four cylinder models. 

We identified VOQ report ODI 

10183271 that provided detailed 

information regarding this issue. The 

report states that while on the interstate 

with the cruise control engaged and set 

within a speed range of about 65 to 75 

miles per hour, if the vehicle encounters 

an uphill grade, the vehicle will first 

downshift to a lower gear, then apply 

additional throttle, resulting in the 

engine revving to a high RPM.15 The 

VOQ alleges that the combined effect of 

downshifting then opening the throttle 

can cause a yaw or loss of control 

condition and that a crash could result, 

and that a near crash incident occurred 

on one occasion.16

We interviewed this consumer 17 and 

discussed the results of testing 

conducted on his vehicle by a local 

Toyota dealer. He provided a 

description of what he learned from 

Toyota’s testing, and agreed to allow us 

to inspect his vehicle. We met with him 

on March 12, 2008, and test drove the 

vehicle on local interstates where he 

had previously experienced the alleged 

event. We connected a commercially 

available test device to the vehicle’s 

diagnostic connector to monitor throttle 

and transmission data. We confirmed 

that when the vehicle cruise control is 

set to a specific speed range and it 

encounters an incline, the transmission 

will downshift to second gear and the 

engine will rev to a high RPM. However, 

we could not confirm that the 

transmission downshift preceded the 

throttle application. To the contrary, the 

data showed that the transmission 

downshift was in response to throttle 

opening, similar to what would occur if 

the operator were to manually apply the 

accelerator pedal under similar 

circumstances (same speed range, on an 

incline). We do not perceive a 

significant safety risk related to this 

phenomenon. 

Nine of the 59 complaints (about 15 

percent) relate to an alleged failure of 

the engine to return to ‘‘idle’ in a normal 

manner while at highway speeds when 

the clutch is depressed for shifting 

(what Toyota describes as catalyst 

protection). One of these reports alleges 

a crash with no injury, as discussed 

below. We note first that this event only 

occurs on vehicles equipped with four 

cylinder engines and manual 

transmission. The condition is typically 

described in reports as a failure of the 

engine to return to normal idle speed 

and an increase in engine speed that 

occurs when the clutch is depressed 

while shifting from 4th to 5th gear (see 

ODI 10150731, 10157923, 10175527, 

and 10208505). 

In its IR response, Toyota described 

the system used on four cylinder 

vehicles to protect the long-term 

durability of the catalytic converter, a 

component of the emissions control 

system. Toyota reported that under 

certain operating conditions and when 

the accelerator pedal is not being 

depressed (i.e., an overrun condition), 

the vehicle’s catalytic converter can be 

damaged if there is inadequate air flow 

through the engine. In simplified terms, 

the throttle control system opens the 

throttle without driver input to provide 

a minimal airflow through the engine. 

This can produce a temporary elevated 

idle speed if the clutch is depressed. 

However, according to Toyota’s IR 

response, the air flow increase by the 

throttle control system is limited so that 

it does not result in a net power output 

to the vehicle. Toyota advised that 

while increased air flow diminishes 

engine braking (deceleration caused by 

engine drag in an overrun condition), it 

cannot produce vehicle acceleration. 

VRTC testing of a MY 2006 Tacoma 

equipped with a four cylinder engine 

and manual transmission verified that 

the catalyst protection feature operated 

as Toyota described.18 We confirmed 

that the strategy is only implemented 

when the transmission is in 4th or 5th 

gear and note that when the clutch was 

depressed we observed free-wheel 

engine speeds as high as 3,000 RPMs. 

However, at the road speeds where this 

occurred (60 to 75 MPH), and with the 

limited amount of airflow involved, the 

effect on vehicle control, though 

perhaps annoying to consumers, did not 

appear to be consequential. 

One VOQ report (ODI 10152011) 

alleged that this operation caused the 

operator to lose control of his vehicle 

and crash on a rural/semi-urban 

Colorado roadway. However, the road 

was snow-covered at the time of the 

crash. Based on the information in the 

report, the vehicle was travelling at a 

high speed when the crash occurred (70 

MPH on a snow-covered rural/semiurban road). Since speed and road 

conditions may have been a factor, the 

incident described in this report is of 

little probative value with regard to the 

alleged defect described in the petition. 

Beyond the 59 reports, ODI identified 

19 reports that did not relate to the 

throttle control system, or that relate to 

a different system or component. 

Fourteen of these appear to have been 

caused by floor mat interference with 

the accelerator pedal, including 4 

crashes and 3 injuries. The other five 

reports were related to dual pedal 

application, where the operator 

inadvertently depresses both the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Notices 51555 

19This is the difference in the height (distance) 

of the pedals from the floor board. 

20The toe of the Petitioner’s foot is oriented to the 

right of his heel when he applies either the brake 

or gas pedal. 

21As an example of the type of analysis possible, 

for the Petitioner’s vehicle, we have interviewed the 

Petitioner (multiple times), interviewed his wife 

(she was a passenger for one of the incidents), 

conducted a physical inspection of the Petitioner’s 

vehicle, reviewed the Petitioner’s vehicle service 

and warranty history, test driven the Petitioner’s 

vehicle, and monitored the Petitioner’s vehicle 

diagnostic/control system using a commercially 

available diagnostic tool; the Petitioner’s vehicle 

has not exhibited another incident as of this date. 

23The legal claims were duplicative of the 

consumer reports, which were also reviewed. 

accelerator pedal and the brake pedal 

when intending to apply the brake only. 

One of these reports alleges a minor 

crash with no injury (ODI 10221144). 

These five complaints involve vehicles 

equipped with automatic transmissions. 

When dual pedal application occurs, the 

vehicle moves forward further than the 

driver intends. During ODI interviews, 

complainants reported that they had 

inadvertently applied both the brake 

and gas pedals at the same time. Three 

complainants determined this prior to 

filing VOQs (ODI 10210488, 10221144, 

and 10223599), one concluded it after 

filing and disclosed it during the 

interview (ODI 10208868), and one 

mentioned that this may have been a 

factor during our interview (ODI 

10198196). To the extent that causes are 

identified that are not related to the 

electronic throttle control system but 

which may raise possible safety defect 

issues, such as floor mat interference or 

pedal placement, ODI will continue to 

examine them as part of our regular 

screening process and will open 

investigations if warranted. 

In a few reports, consumers 

questioned the design of the pedal 

configuration, suggesting that the pedals 

were too close to one another (lateral 

separation) or that there was insufficient 

step-over 19 clearance. We note that, 

dimensionally speaking, the pedal 

configuration of the MY 2005 to 2008 

Tacoma is typical of other light trucks 

and passenger vehicles. Some 

complainants noted that they had been 

wearing larger or stiffer than usual 

shoes, such as work boots, when the 

dual pedal application occurred, and 

they reported that this was a factor in 

the occurrence. 

Related to this topic, ODI interviewed 

the Petitioner and inspected his Tacoma 

at his home on March 26, 2008. In an 

earlier interview, the Petitioner advised 

that he was wearing his cross-country 

ski boots (shoes) when his two incidents 

occurred, so we took this opportunity to 

look at them. The cross country ski 

shoes (Merrell brand, men’s size 91⁄2), 

unlike down-hill ski boots, are similar 

in size and width to a work boot with 

the exception of an extension at the toe 

of the boot that acts as a binding for the 

ski. The binding is of the same thickness 

as the sole of the shoe and it extends 

forward (outward) from the shoe about 

5⁄8 of an inch. During a test drive, we 

noted that the Petitioner used his right 

foot to operate the brake and gas pedal, 

and that he lifts and relocates his foot 

when he transitions from one pedal to 

another.20

Considering that the shoes may have 

played a role in his incidents, we 

discussed the issue of dual pedal 

application with the Petitioner. He 

noted that he skied two to three times 

per year, that he typically drove with 

his ski shoes on to save time at the ski 

facility, and that he had never had a 

problem before. Additionally, he noted 

that he had made this same trip using 

the Tacoma a few times the prior ski 

season without incident. We asked the 

Petitioner to assess the vehicle with his 

ski shoes on to see if he could apply 

both pedals at the same time and to 

advise us of his findings. He 

subsequently reported that it was 

possible for him to inadvertently hit 

both pedals while wearing the ski shoes 

but that his foot had to be in an 

abnormal orientation for this to occur, 

one that would be plainly obvious to 

him. In his estimation this was not the 

cause of his two incidents. 

Finally, for the remaining 26 

complaints, these are reports where we 

have assessed the available information 

from the complainants, yet we are 

unable to identify a cause that may be 

related to the vehicle’s throttle control 

system or, in many cases, any specific 

cause or explanation. These reports 

allege 13 crashes with four injury 

allegations (one minor, two moderate, 

one severe). In some cases, the VOQ was 

inconclusive and the consumer filing 

the VOQ could not be contacted for an 

interview. However, in no instances did 

the complainants report or allege a 

specific component failure or 

replacement, the illumination of a 

warning indicator, the detection of a 

stored trouble or fault code, or the 

identification of any other physical 

evidence supporting a vehicle-based 

problem. The incidents occur randomly 

and are therefore unable to be 

reproduced for testing or further 

analysis.21

IV. NHTSA Review—Toyota IR 

Response Data 

ODI reviewed the information Toyota 

provided in its IR response for the MY 

2005 to 2008 vehicles.22 We reviewed 

the population data and provide the 

number of vehicles by MY and 

transmission type in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—VEHICLE POPULATION BY MY AND TRANSMISSION TYPE

2005 2006 2007 2008* Totals 

Auto .................................................................. 111,625 152,727 134,665 83,828 482,845 

Manual ............................................................. 40,013 42,441 31,156 19,105 132,715 

Totals ........................................................ 151,638 195,168 165,821 102,933 615,560 

*—partial MY. 

We reviewed Toyota’s responses to 

several other questions to ensure we 

fully understood any product or design 

changes, the studies of issues relevant to 

the alleged defect conducted by Toyota, 

the design and operation of the systems 

that interact with the throttle control 

system, and Toyota’s assessment of the 

possible problem with the Tacoma 

throttle control system. We did not 

identify any information indicating a 

product- or component-based issue that 

could explain or cause a throttle control 

system failure. 

We conducted a limited review of the 

responses to questions regarding the 

complaint and warranty data. Our 

review of the field report, legal claim,23

and warranty claim data did not identify 

any concern or trend. We also 

conducted an analysis of the consumer 

complaints as described below. Table 3 

shows the count of consumer 

complaints by MY. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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