IllustrationI HAVE A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS AND HAVE TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHTS THREE TIMES IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS. THE DEALER HAS ADVISED THAT THE REPLACEMENT IS VERY EXPENSIVE - OVER $400. WOULD LIKE TOYOTA TO RECALL AND FIX THIS PROBLEM. *TR
2006 Toyota Prius
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Prius years
Owner complaints for the 2006 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
1410–25K
46225–50K
31850–75K
12875–100K
116100–150K
88150K+
1,253 reports with mileage · 186 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 941 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 152 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 94 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
82 crash reports5 fire reports38 injury reports
Exterior Lighting complaints
941 reportsHEADLIGHT ON 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS INTERMITTENTLY GO ON AND OFF. THE COMPUTER AND BULB HAVE BOTH BEEN REPLACED TWICE, BUT THE PROBLEM CONTINUES TO OCCUR. THIS HAS BEEN CONTINUOUS FOR TWO YEARS, DESPITE THE CONSTANT REPLACEMENT OF PARTS. *TR
1. NO SPECIAL EVENT LED TO FAILURE. FIRST FAILURE OCCURRED AT ABOUT 35,400 MILES (ODOMETER). 2. TWO HEADLIGHTS GO OUT SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE DRIVING ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS. EACH HEADLIGHT CAN ALSO GO OUT WHILE DRIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER. 3. POWERING OFF /ON THE CAR RESOLVES THE PROBLEM. TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF AND …
Read full complaint
1. NO SPECIAL EVENT LED TO FAILURE. FIRST FAILURE OCCURRED AT ABOUT 35,400 MILES (ODOMETER). 2. TWO HEADLIGHTS GO OUT SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE DRIVING ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS. EACH HEADLIGHT CAN ALSO GO OUT WHILE DRIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER. 3. POWERING OFF /ON THE CAR RESOLVES THE PROBLEM. TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF AND ON AGAIN SOLVES THE PROBLEM. THE REPAIR SHOP (DEALER) COULD NOT RECREATE THE PROBLEM AND SO DID NOT REPLACE ANY PARTS AT MY FIRST VISIT. I AM ABOUT TO GO BACK AND TRY AGAIN. *TR
A YEAR AGO, MY 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS' RIGHT HEADLAMP WOULD GO OUT INTERMITTENTLY. TOYOTA REPLACED THE BULB AND BULB COMPUTER AT A COST OF JUST UNDER $1000.00. THAT TIME WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I HAD APPROX. 30K MILES ON THE CAR. NOW, IN FEB. 2008, I'M HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE LEFT HEADLAMP. SINCE THERE IS NO LONGER WAR…
Read full complaint
A YEAR AGO, MY 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS' RIGHT HEADLAMP WOULD GO OUT INTERMITTENTLY. TOYOTA REPLACED THE BULB AND BULB COMPUTER AT A COST OF JUST UNDER $1000.00. THAT TIME WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I HAD APPROX. 30K MILES ON THE CAR. NOW, IN FEB. 2008, I'M HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE LEFT HEADLAMP. SINCE THERE IS NO LONGER WARRANTY COVERAGE, I COMPLAINED TO TOYOTA HEADQUARTERS. THEY ADMITTED THAT THE OLDER BULBS WERE NO GOOD AND AGREED TO REPLACE THE BULB BUT NOT PAY FOR THE LABOR. SINCE THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE, I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY THE $280.00 LABOR COST. THERE IS NOW 45K MILES ON THE CAR. *TR
MY DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT OCCASIONALLY TURNS OFF. I HAVE A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS WITH HID HEADLIGHTS. THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE 06 AND NEWER PRIUS AND IS AFFECTING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. SOME HAVE HAD BOTH LIGHTS FAIL LEAVING THEM WITH NO HEADLIGHTS. IF YOU TURN THE LIGHTS OFF AND THEN BACK ON THE LIGHT OR LIGHTS WILL TUR…
Read full complaint
MY DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT OCCASIONALLY TURNS OFF. I HAVE A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS WITH HID HEADLIGHTS. THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE 06 AND NEWER PRIUS AND IS AFFECTING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. SOME HAVE HAD BOTH LIGHTS FAIL LEAVING THEM WITH NO HEADLIGHTS. IF YOU TURN THE LIGHTS OFF AND THEN BACK ON THE LIGHT OR LIGHTS WILL TURN BACK FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THIS IS CLEARLY A SAFETY ISSUE AND INSTEAD OF FIXING THE PROBLEM FOR FREE, TOYOTA IS CHARGING AN ABSURD AMOUNT TO FIX THE PROBLEM WHICH COULD BE TEMPORARY. MANY HAVE HAD THE HEADLIGHTS FAIL AGAIN. THIS PROBLEM IS VERY COMMON AND CAN BE EASILY FOUND ON CHAT ROOMS AND FORUMS ONLINE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAS HID (HIGH INTENSITY LIGHTS) THAT WOULD NOT OPERATE CORRECTLY. THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WOULD OPERATE MOMENTARILY WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED, BUT THEN DIM AFTER A MATTER OF MINUTES. THE DEALER ESTIMATED THE REPAIR COST TO BE OVER $600. THE C…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAS HID (HIGH INTENSITY LIGHTS) THAT WOULD NOT OPERATE CORRECTLY. THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT WOULD OPERATE MOMENTARILY WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED, BUT THEN DIM AFTER A MATTER OF MINUTES. THE DEALER ESTIMATED THE REPAIR COST TO BE OVER $600. THE CONTACT ALSO FILED A CLAIM WITH THE MANUFACTURER AND IS AWAITING A DECISION. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 58,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 64,000.
I OWN A 2006 PRIUS WITH HID HEADLIGHTS. AFTER 50,000 MILES, THE PASSENGER SIDE BULB WILL GO OUT AFTER BEING ON FOR 20 MINUTES OR SO. IF I TURN THE LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON, THE BULB LIGHTS UP RIGHT AWAY AND THEN BLINKS OFF APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES LATER. IF I WAS GOING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHT, THIS WOULD BE A SAFELY HAZARD. …
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2006 PRIUS WITH HID HEADLIGHTS. AFTER 50,000 MILES, THE PASSENGER SIDE BULB WILL GO OUT AFTER BEING ON FOR 20 MINUTES OR SO. IF I TURN THE LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON, THE BULB LIGHTS UP RIGHT AWAY AND THEN BLINKS OFF APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES LATER. IF I WAS GOING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHT, THIS WOULD BE A SAFELY HAZARD. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE. THEY SAID THIS IS A KNOW ISSUE, BUT NO RECALL HAS BEEN DOWN YET. THEY STATED THAT AS OF 1/2008, THE BULBS HAVE BEEN REDESIGNED TO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THEY SAID SINCE MY CAR WAS OUT OF WARRANTY THAT THEY WOULD PAY FOR THE BULB (APPROXIMATELY $150), AND I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR LABOR. LABOR, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU GET THE REPAIR DONE, COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM $50 TO $300, JUST FOR ONE HEADLIGHT REPLACEMENT. SINCE I DIDN'T BUY THE EXTENDED WARRANTY THIS ISSUE WAS NOT COVERED. I AGREED THAT TOYOTA WOULD PAY FOR THE BULB. I HAD THE BULB REPLACED. I PAID FOR THE LABOR AND THEY PAID FOR THE BULB. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL ON THE OLD BULBS! *TR
TOYOTA HAS A MAJOR ISSUE WITH HEADLAMPS FAILING INTERMITTENTLY ON 2006 AND NEW PRIUSES RATHER THAN FIXING THE ISSUE, THEY'RE CHARGING CUSTOMERS UPWARDS OF A $1000 TO REPLACE (2) *DEFECTIVE* HEADLAMP BULBS. IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A MAJOR ISSUE, HOWEVER I ALMOST GOT IN AN ACCIDENT WITH ANOTHER PRIUS OWNER ON THE FREEWAY, WHO WAS D…
Read full complaint
TOYOTA HAS A MAJOR ISSUE WITH HEADLAMPS FAILING INTERMITTENTLY ON 2006 AND NEW PRIUSES RATHER THAN FIXING THE ISSUE, THEY'RE CHARGING CUSTOMERS UPWARDS OF A $1000 TO REPLACE (2) *DEFECTIVE* HEADLAMP BULBS. IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A MAJOR ISSUE, HOWEVER I ALMOST GOT IN AN ACCIDENT WITH ANOTHER PRIUS OWNER ON THE FREEWAY, WHO WAS DRIVING BOTH LIGHTS OUT. AFTER EXPERIENCING THE SAME EXACT THING IN MY OWN PRIUS, IT'S A VERY SCARY SCENARIO. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES: HTTP://PRIUSCHAT.COM/FORUMS/CARE-MAINTENANCE-TROUBLESHOOTING/34584-HEADLIGHT-PROBLEM.HTML HTTP://FORUMS.MERCURYNEWS.COM/TOPIC/ROADSHOW-COST-TO-REPLACE-ON-AND-OFF-PRIUS-HEADLIGHTS-CAN-RUN-950-MDASH-OR-NOTHING PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW TOYOTA TO KEEP SCREWING CONSUMERS INTO PAYING FOR $1000 BULB REPLACEMENTS. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE GAMBLING WITH INTERMITTENT LAMPS DUE TO THE HIGH REPLACEMENT COST. *TR
JUST A FEW HUNDRED MILES SHY OF THE 36,000 MILE WARRANTY (JUST ON THE HEADLIGHTS), MY LEFT SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT. WHEN FLIPPING THE HIGH BEAMS ON DID NOT LIGHT THE OFFENDING BULB (I DID NOT AT THE TIME REALIZE THAT HID HEADLAMPS DO NOT HAVE SEPARATE HIGH AND LOW BEAM FILAMENTS, BUT SIMPLY CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE ONE HID CAPSUL…
Read full complaint
JUST A FEW HUNDRED MILES SHY OF THE 36,000 MILE WARRANTY (JUST ON THE HEADLIGHTS), MY LEFT SIDE HEADLIGHT WENT OUT. WHEN FLIPPING THE HIGH BEAMS ON DID NOT LIGHT THE OFFENDING BULB (I DID NOT AT THE TIME REALIZE THAT HID HEADLAMPS DO NOT HAVE SEPARATE HIGH AND LOW BEAM FILAMENTS, BUT SIMPLY CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE ONE HID CAPSULE.), I IMMEDIATELY STOPPED INTO A PARTS STORE AND BOUGHT A REPLACEMENT BULB (NON-HID). I DID THINK IT STRANGE THAT THE LIGHTS BOTH WENT BACK ON WHEN I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR, BUT I DECIDED THAT I SHOULD REPLACE IT ANYWAY. ON THE NEXT DAY, I REMOVED THE OFFENDING BULB (NOT AS DIFFICULT AS SOME PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK) AND DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS SOME SORT OF RARE-EARTH DISCHARGE LAMP. BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF ILLUMINATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE VERY RELIABLE (THERE BEING NO FRAGILE FILAMENT TO FATIGUE AND BREAK), I FIGURED THAT I JUST HAD THE BAD FORTUNE TO RUN INTO A RARE CASE OF INFANT MORTALITY, OR JUST A DEFECTIVE BULB TO BEGIN WITH. ALTHOUGH THE BULB CAN BE RELIGHTED (BY SWITCHING HEADLIGHTS OFF AND ON), IT MUST BE DISTRACTING TO OTHER DRIVERS, NOT TO MENTION: WHAT IF I TURN OFF THE LIGHTS TO RELIGHT ONE AND BOTH DECIDE NOT TO REIGNITE. WHAT THEN? THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE! FORTUNATELY, I GOT BOTH LIGHTS REPLACED (THE RIGHT SIDE WENT SHORTLY THEREAFTER) UNDER WARRANTY. (PLUS $80 LABOR) NOW, AT 82K MILES, HERE WE GO AGAIN. THIS TIME, I CALLED TOYOTA. I COULD GET ABSOLUTELY NO COMMITMENT OUT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE, BUT HE INSISTED THAT MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP MUST DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM BEFORE HE COULD MAKE A DECISION ON A "POSSIBLE REIMBURSEMENT." I TOOK THE CAR IN YESTERDAY, WITH THE HEADLIGHT OUT. THEY CLEANED THE CONTACTS AND SENT ME ON MY WAY. BEFORE I ARRIVED HOME, THE LIGHT WAS OUT, SO I DROVE RIGHT BACK. THEY LOOKED AND SAID: "YUP, IT'S OUT." SO I LEFT. NOW THE REP SAYS I SHOULD HAVE STAYED! *TR
JUST LIKE IT SEEMS THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS OWNERS. I HAVE BEEN HAVING INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT FAILURES FOR MANY MONTHS. INITIALLY IT WAS ONLY IN THE PASSENGER SIDE. NOW IT ALSO OCCURS ON THE DRIVERS SIDE OR EVEN MORE DANGEROUS ON BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS HAPPENING WITH MORE AND MORE FREQUENCY. THE FIRST…
Read full complaint
JUST LIKE IT SEEMS THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS OWNERS. I HAVE BEEN HAVING INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT FAILURES FOR MANY MONTHS. INITIALLY IT WAS ONLY IN THE PASSENGER SIDE. NOW IT ALSO OCCURS ON THE DRIVERS SIDE OR EVEN MORE DANGEROUS ON BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS HAPPENING WITH MORE AND MORE FREQUENCY. THE FIRST TIME I HAD THE DEALER LOOK AT THE PROBLEM, THEY FOUND NOTHING, JUST RECOMMENDED REPLACING A VERY EXPENSIVE BULB. I TOOK IT BACK A FEW MONTHS LATER AND THEY SAID THEY FOUND SOMETHING IN THE PASSENGER SIDE (NOT THE DRIVERS ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW HAPPENING ON BOTH). ONCE AGAIN THEY RECOMMENDED REPLACING THE BULB. THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY CONFIDENCE THAT IT WOULD RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT SEEMS TO ME WITH THIS MANY COMPLAINTS SPANNING THAT CONTINUE TO COME IN, SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE. DOES THERE NEED TO BE A SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH BEFORE SOMEONE TAKES ACTION TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON AND RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. I'M AFRAID TO DRIVE MY CAR IN BAD WEATHER, OR IN THE DARK BECAUSE I NEVER KNOW WHEN THE HEADLIGHTS ARE GOING TO GO OUT. YESTERDAY I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE IT OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY BEFORE THEY WENT OUT (THEY WOULD NOT COME BACK ON WHEN I TURNED THEM OFF THEN ON). *TR
Official recalls
612V536000 · 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.
06V188000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System
May 31, 2006
THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND SLIDING YOKE IN THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM CAN CRACK WHEN LARGE FORCES ARE APPLIED AND THE CONNECTION MAY SEPARATE OR THE SLEEVE MAY FRACTURE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL REPLACE THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND INSPECT THE SLIDING YOKE AND REPLACE IT IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 9, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
06V096000 · Air Bags
Apr 3, 2006
ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE AIR BAG INFLATOR, WHICH IS USED IN THE SIDE AIR BAG, THE CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAG, AND THE KNEE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY, SOME INFLATORS WERE PRODUCED WITH AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THE HEATING AGENTS NECESSARY FOR PROPER AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. IN THIS CONDITION, THE EXPANSION FORCE OF THE GAS MAY BE INSUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY INFLATE THE AIR BAG WHEN THE SRS SYSTEM IS ACTIVATED DURING A CRASH.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT IN THE INVOLVED SEATING POSITION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SPECIFIC SRS AIR BAG. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 6, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-888-270-9371, SCION AT 1-866-548-1851, OR 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.