Document ID: NHTSA-2019-0105-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Motor Vehicle Defect Petition; Denial
Posted Date: 2022-03-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16823-16827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0105]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP18-002

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted on August 7, 2018, by Mr. Gary Weinreich (the 
petitioner) to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The 
petition requests that the Agency investigate alleged ``premature and 
excessive frame corrosion'' in model year (MY) 2002 through 2006 Toyota 
4Runner vehicles. The petitioner bases his request upon his own 
experience with a MY 2005 Toyota 4Runner, a class action lawsuit 
settlement involving other Toyota products, and other complaints of 
underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner vehicles that he found in NHTSA's 
online complaint database. After reviewing the information provided by 
the petitioner regarding his vehicle, facts related to the class action 
lawsuit cited by the petitioner, and field data regarding underbody 
corrosion in

[[Page 16824]]

Toyota 4Runner vehicles, NHTSA has concluded that there is insufficient 
evidence to pursue further action. Accordingly, the Agency has denied 
the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Magno, Vehicle Defects 
Division--D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-5226).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated August 7, 2018, Mr. Gary 
Weinreich (the petitioner) submitted a petition requesting that the 
Agency ``perform a high-priority investigation'' of ``premature and 
excessive frame corrosion'' in model year (MY) 2002 through 2006 Toyota 
4Runner vehicles. The petitioner bases his request upon a corrosion-
related front suspension failure he experienced in his MY 2005 Toyota 
4Runner, a class action lawsuit settlement involving other Toyota 
products, and other complaints of underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner 
vehicles that he found in NHTSA's online complaint database.
    On August 17, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) 
opened Defect Petition DP18-002 to evaluate the petitioner's request 
for an investigation. ODI has reviewed the following information as 
part of its evaluation: (1) Information provided by the petitioner 
regarding his vehicle; (2) facts related to the class action lawsuit 
cited by the petitioner; (3) consumer complaint data regarding 
underbody corrosion in third- and fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner 
vehicles.
    Scope: The petitioner's request for an investigation of premature 
frame corrosion in MY 2002 through 2006 Toyota 4Runner vehicles 
includes both third- and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles that ranged 
from 12 to 17 years in age when the petition was filed. Toyota sold 
approximately 745,000 third-generation (MY 1996 through 2002), and 
approximately 603,000 fourth-generation (MY 2003 through 2009) 4Runner 
vehicles in the United States.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The analysis here will focus on the fourth-generation 
vehicles, which includes the Petitioner's vehicle, except where 
otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner's vehicle: On May 24, 2018, the petitioner experienced a 
front suspension failure while driving on the highway in a 2005 Toyota 
4Runner vehicle that was nearing 13 years of service.\2\ He reported 
the incident to NHTSA in a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) submitted 
on May 26, 2018 (NHTSA ID 11098055):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The front attachment bracket for the left lower control arm 
detached from the frame.

    Yesterday, my wife and I and two friends riding with us narrowly 
escaped a fatal accident when the front suspension separated from 
the frame due to the corrosion problem. At highway speed, the 
vehicle began shaking violently and the steering was unable to 
properly control the vehicle. The vehicle went off the road after 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coming close to hitting an oncoming vehicle.

    The petitioner alleged that this failure resulted from premature 
and excessive frame corrosion and provided service history information 
and photographs as supporting evidence.\3\ ODI reviewed the information 
provided by the petitioner, as well as additional details contained in 
a lawsuit he filed against Toyota in December 2018.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Gary Weinreich letter to Stephen Ridella, Ph.D., Director, 
Office of Defects Investigation, August 28, 2018.
    \4\ Gary Weinreich v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., et al., Case 
No. 2:18-cv-03294-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District 
of South Carolina, Charleston Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI found that the petitioner's vehicle had a history of general 
corrosion concerns throughout the undercarriage that were not isolated 
to the frame. The photographs showed that the vehicle undercarriage was 
seriously corroded at the time the incident occurred. The information 
indicates severe general corrosion of the vehicle undercarriage 
consistent with many years of severe use and exposure, but ODI has not 
found evidence showing a design or manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
    The vehicle service history information that the petitioner 
provided supports these observations. Concerns with underbody corrosion 
on his vehicle were first noted by a Toyota dealer in a multi-point 
vehicle inspection performed on April 28, 2011. The invoice for that 
inspection noted ``severe and excessive amount of rust on the 
undercarriage and on the drive shaft transmission.'' Two years later, 
on October 21, 2013, another multi-point inspection by a Toyota dealer 
observed further progression of underbody corrosion damage, noting: 
``rust on shocks/struts and other components,'' ``rust on exhaust 
system,'' ``both splash shields severely rusted,'' and ``undercarriage 
very rusty.'' \5\ On July 17, 2017, approximately 10 months prior to 
experiencing the suspension failure incident, an independent repair 
facility performing a routine oil change and brake maintenance informed 
the petitioner of a concern with ``excessive frame corrosion'' on his 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Records provided by petitioner indicate that Toyota did not 
service the vehicle after October 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The service history further indicates that corrosion concerns in 
the petitioner's vehicle were first observed in other underbody 
components (e.g., drive shaft transmission, exhaust, splash shields) 
and grew progressively worse over several years before the observation 
of ``excessive frame corrosion'' and subsequent suspension link 
failure. Photographs provided by the petitioner show that the vehicle's 
underbody was in poor condition when the failure occurred, with heavy 
corrosion throughout the vehicle underbody and multiple visible 
perforations in frame structural members.
    The petitioner lives less than a mile from the ocean, where 
exposure to marine salts may lead to increased vehicle corrosion rates 
if vehicles are not regularly cleaned. While no information was 
provided regarding the use, care, and maintenance of the petitioner's 
vehicle, ODI has not received evidence that the vehicle received any 
repairs to address the noted corrosion concerns prior to the May 2018 
front suspension failure.
    Class action lawsuit: The petitioner cites a class action lawsuit 
settled by Toyota in 2017 \6\ as evidence of the defect in his vehicle 
and states that 4Runner vehicles ``were not included in the class-
action lawsuit simply because there were insufficient complaints known 
to the counsel representing the class at the time it was formed.'' ODI 
has reviewed the referenced lawsuit and does not agree with the 
petitioner's claims. The vehicles covered by the class action were 
equipped with frames manufactured by a specific supplier alleged to be 
using a defective electrocoating process over a certain manufacturing 
period. The subject 4Runner vehicles were not equipped with frames 
manufactured by that supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ www.toyotaframesettlement.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting in 2008, Toyota conducted multiple service campaigns and 
warranty extension programs to address concerns with premature frame 
corrosion in certain vehicles equipped with frames supplied by Dana 
Holding Company (Dana).\7\ The combined field actions covered MY 1995 
through 2010 Toyota Tacoma, MY 2000 through 2008 Tundra, and MY 2001 
through 2007 Sequoia vehicles (``Dana frame

[[Page 16825]]

vehicles'').\8\ Toyota took these actions after identifying quality 
concerns with the electrocoating processes in certain frames supplied 
by Dana that could lead to premature corrosion failures. In 2011, Dana 
settled a lawsuit with Toyota for warranty claim costs related to 
premature frame corrosion.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In December 2009, Dana announced its agreement to sell its 
Structural Products Business to Metalsa, S.A. de C.V, http://dana.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=26450&item=69875.
    \8\ The subject Tacoma, Tundra, and Sequoia vehicles were all 
manufactured at assembly plants located in the United States. Dana 
did not supply frames for any products manufactured in Japan.
    \9\ Dana Holding Corporation Reaches Settlement with Toyota on 
Warranty Claims Related to Divested Structural Products Business, 
January 12, 2011, http://dana.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=26450&item=69927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These issues were presented in other litigation as well. A class-
action lawsuit filed in Arkansas on October 3, 2014, alleged that MY 
2005 through 2009 Toyota Tacoma vehicles lacked adequate rust 
protection on the vehicles' frames, leading to premature corrosion 
failures.\10\ A separate class-action lawsuit filed in California on 
March 24, 2015, made similar claims.\11\ The lawsuits were consolidated 
in a second amended complaint filed on November 8, 2016. The 
consolidated complaint covered MY 2005 through 2010 Toyota Tacoma, MY 
2007 through 2008 Toyota Tundra, and MY 2005 through 2008 Toyota 
Sequoia vehicles. The second amended complaint stated that the vehicles 
that were the subject of the lawsuit were all equipped with frames 
manufactured by Dana using ``the same defective process.'' The 
complaint alleged that, ``The frames on the Toyota Vehicles are 
materially the same for purposes of this lawsuit and suffer from the 
same defect. All of the frames were manufactured by the same 
corporation (Dana Holding Corporation) pursuant to the same defective 
process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Burns v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., Case No. CV 14-2208 
(W.D. Ark.), http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/.
    \11\ Brian Warner et al v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., et al., 
Case No. 2:18-cv-02171-FMO-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the 
Central District of California, http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The class action was settled in May 2017. The terms of the 
settlement included extending warranty coverage to 12 years from first 
use for a Frame Inspection and Replacement Program. The settlement was 
widely reported by news media.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Reuters, Toyota to settle U.S. truck rust lawsuit for up to 
$3.4 billion, November 12, 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-settlement-idUSKBN1370PE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both third and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles were built in 
Japan and are not equipped with frames manufactured by Dana. Although 
private litigation can be a relevant source of information to consider 
in the course of examining a potential vehicle defect in many cases, 
the petitioner has not demonstrated that the litigation he cites here 
supports the grant of his petition.
    Complaint analysis: The petitioner alleged that his analysis of 
NHTSA's complaint database revealed evidence supporting his claim of 
premature and excessive frame corrosion in MY 2002 through 2006 Toyota 
4Runner vehicles, and that differences in field experience between 
third- and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles provide further evidence 
suggesting a design or manufacturing defect in the fourth-generation 
products. The petitioner claims that third-generation Toyota 4Runners 
``do not appear to experience the premature and excessive frame 
corrosion.'' \13\ The petitioner stated their belief that ``Any frame 
specification changes between generations may help identify the root 
cause(s) of the problem.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Gary Weinreich letter to Stephen Ridella, Ph.D., Director, 
Office of Defects Investigation, August 28, 2018.
    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI's analysis of consumer complaint data related to frame 
corrosion in fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles has not found 
evidence of a failure trend indicating a potential design or 
manufacturing defect leading to premature failures. Rather, the data 
tends to show complaint trends occurring late in vehicle life in high 
corrosion regions. Relatively few complaints involved suspension 
detachments, and those that did were spread among multiple suspension 
links, each occurring in older vehicles operated in high corrosion 
regions. Finally, ODI finds no meaningful difference between frame 
corrosion complaint trends and related suspension detachment 
allegations in third- and fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles.
    4Runner complaint trends lag trends for the Dana frame vehicles by 
several years. Through the end of 2008, the year of Toyota's first 
field action for Dana frame vehicles, NHTSA had received 150 complaints 
for Dana frame vehicles and just 3 for 4Runner vehicles (none involving 
the subject fourth-generation 4Runner vehicles). By the end of 2010, 
NHTSA had received 716 complaints for the Dana frame vehicles and just 
36 for 4Runner vehicles (only 5 involving the subject fourth-generation 
vehicles).
    Figure 1 shows the vehicle age distributions of frame corrosion 
complaints to NHTSA for Toyota 4Runner vehicles, Toyota Dana frame 
vehicles, and peer body-on-frame vehicles. The chart on the left shows 
the distributions for MY 1996 through 2002 vehicles (i.e., third-
generation 4Runner compared with peers) and the chart on the right 
shows the distributions for MY 2003 through 2009 vehicles (i.e., 
fourth-generation 4Runner compared with peers).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR22.063

[[Page 16826]]

    In both age groups, the complaint age distributions for the Toyota 
4Runner vehicles lag the distributions of the Toyota Dana frame and 
peer body-on-frame vehicles by several years. The complaints peak at 15 
years-in-service for the third-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles, 6 
years after the peak for the Dana frame vehicles and 4 years after the 
peak for the peer body-on-frame vehicles. The complaints also peak at 
15 years-in-service for the fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles, 
6 years after the peak for the Toyota Dana frame vehicles and 5 years 
after the peak for the peer body-on-frame vehicles.
    Figure 2 shows the cumulative age distributions of frame corrosion 
complaints to NHTSA for the same vehicle sets. The 4Runner complaints 
occur later in the vehicle age than the Toyota Dana frame and peer 
body-on-frame complaints. Only about 3 percent of the complaints for 
the third-generation 4Runner vehicles occurred within 10 years-in-
service, compared with 43 percent of the Toyota Dana frame vehicle 
complaints and 21 percent of the peer body-on-frame vehicle complaints 
for the same model year range. For the MY 2003 through 2009 vehicles, 
approximately 6 percent of complaints for the Toyota 4Runners occurred 
within 10 years, compared with 45 percent for the Toyota Dana frame 
vehicles and 47 percent for the peer body-on-frame vehicles.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR22.064

    ODI's analysis of consumer complaints received by NHTSA through 
March 7, 2022, identified a total of 1,024 records that appear to be 
related to frame corrosion in fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner 
vehicles, including 70 involving alleged detachments of front or rear 
suspension links. Both the overall complaints and those reporting 
suspension link detachments primarily involve older vehicles in high-
corrosion states. No patterns or trends were identified for any 
specific suspension link. The radiator support bracket was the most 
common location for frame perforation damage in reports that included 
sufficient information to assess damage location. This part can be 
serviced separately and does not present any crash avoidance or 
crashworthiness safety concerns. The complaints describe general 
underbody corrosion damage indicative of normal, end-of-life wear-out 
failures from long duration exposures to severe, corrosive 
environments.
    Table 1 provides a breakdown of the complaints reporting suspension 
detachments by the suspension component. The detachment failures 
include two minor crashes and no verified injury allegations.

                              Table 1--Detachments While Driving by Suspension Link
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Average age       Alleged         Alleged
                                                       Count           (yrs)          crashes        injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Control Arm, Front........................              15            13.1               2               0
Lower Control Arm, Rear.........................              38            14.1               0               0
Upper Control Arm, Rear.........................               6            13.3               0               0
Lateral Control Rod, Rear.......................               2            10.5               0               0
Sway Bar, Rear..................................               2            13.5               0               0
Unknown.........................................               7            16.3               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................              70            14.1               2               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI's analysis of NHTSA complaint data finds similar age-adjusted 
trends in the field experience of the third and fourth-generation 
4Runner vehicles. The third-generation 4Runner vehicles have more than 
double the allegations of suspension link detachments than the fourth-
generation 4Runners. The difference appears to be attributable to the 
greater exposure time of the third-generation vehicles. Analysis of 
suspension link failures by vehicle age showed similar rates for the 
third- and fourth-generation products through 15 years of service. In 
both generations, the failures are concentrated in states with the 
greatest use of deicing salts to treat road surfaces in winter months. 
96 percent of the failures involved vehicles owned or previously 
registered in states with the greatest use of deicing salts to treat 
road surfaces in winter months (``Salt states'').
    Complaints for both generations of 4Runners appear to have been 
influenced by news about Toyota's field actions for the Sequoia, Tacoma 
and

[[Page 16827]]

Tundra vehicles equipped with frames supplied by Dana. Toyota's field 
actions were referenced in 203 of the fourth-generation 4Runner 
complaints. Furthermore, 699 or two thirds (68 percent) of the fourth-
generation 4Runner complaints were received after news of NHTSA opening 
this defect petition evaluation on August 7, 2018.
    Conclusion: After reviewing the available data, ODI has not 
identified evidence of a defect trend for premature corrosion-related 
failure of frame structural components in the vehicles that the 
petitioner has identified. Contrary to the petitioner's primary 
allegation, the vehicles are not equipped with frames manufactured by 
the same supplier as Toyota products that have been included in 
previous field actions by the company addressing frame corrosion 
concerns. The frames in those vehicles exhibited failure trends before 
reaching 10 years in service, several years prior to the current trends 
evident in the subject 4Runner vehicles.
    Analysis of the age distributions of corrosion-related suspension 
link failures in the subject 4Runner vehicles shows late-life patterns 
after well over 10 years of exposure to severe corrosion environments. 
Incidents of corrosion damage that have resulted in failure of 
underbody components while driving appear to have developed 
progressively over many years with ample opportunity for detection and 
repair. This appears to be indicative of normal wear and tear failures, 
and we have not found evidence of a defect related to premature or 
excessive corrosion failures.
    ODI has not identified any serious crashes or injuries associated 
with corrosion-related failure of frame structural components while 
driving in a population of vehicles that currently ranges from 15 to 19 
years old. Accordingly, the Agency is denying the petition.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 
and 501.8.

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-06217 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P