← New search

2007 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

Owner complaints for the 2007 Toyota Prius are substantially higher than the model-year median of 164.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,721 reports with mileage · 282 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 1,060 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 248 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 184 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

124 crash reports9 fire reports53 injury reports

What owners actually said

2,003 reports
140,000 miles · Jul 25, 2015
Exterior Lighting

RIGHT HEADLIGHT FAILED. I HAD THIS HEADLIGHT REPLACED ABOUT 20K MILES AGO, ALONG WITH THE OTHER ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE PREVIOUS REPLACEMENT WAS DUE TO LIGHTS FLICKERING OFF WHILE DRIVING; A VERY UNSAFE CONDITION TO DEVELOP WHILE NIGHT DRIVING. INTERMITTENT LIGHTING CONTINUED UNTIL THE HEADLAMPS WERE REPLACED. NOW, 20K MILES L…

Read full complaint

RIGHT HEADLIGHT FAILED. I HAD THIS HEADLIGHT REPLACED ABOUT 20K MILES AGO, ALONG WITH THE OTHER ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE PREVIOUS REPLACEMENT WAS DUE TO LIGHTS FLICKERING OFF WHILE DRIVING; A VERY UNSAFE CONDITION TO DEVELOP WHILE NIGHT DRIVING. INTERMITTENT LIGHTING CONTINUED UNTIL THE HEADLAMPS WERE REPLACED. NOW, 20K MILES LATER, THE HEADLAMPS ARE FAILING AGAIN. THIS IS NEITHER SAFE NOR CONSUMER FRIENDLY.

NHTSA ODI #10743436

125,149 miles · Jul 14, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed Control

ON MAY 16, 2015, WHILE DRIVING MY SECOND-GENERATION 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS ON THE FREEWAY, I EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER, ALONG WITH THE ILLUMINATION ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL OF THE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LIGHT, MASTER WARNING LIGHT AND HYBRID WARNING LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SUMMON EMERG…

Read full complaint

ON MAY 16, 2015, WHILE DRIVING MY SECOND-GENERATION 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS ON THE FREEWAY, I EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER, ALONG WITH THE ILLUMINATION ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL OF THE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LIGHT, MASTER WARNING LIGHT AND HYBRID WARNING LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SUMMON EMERGENCY HELP. A NEARBY TOYOTA DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE HYBRID INVERTER WATER PUMP, WHICH FIXED THE PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE DEALERSHIP DID NOT ADVISE ME OF A SAFETY RECALL. TOYOTA CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER TODAY STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL HYBRID INVERTER WATER PUMP WAS REPLACED ON APRIL 7, 2011, UNDER TOYOTA LIMITED SERVICE NOTICE A0N; HENCE, TOYOTA REFUSED MY PHONE REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MY MAY, 2015, REPAIR EXPENSE. THE 2011 "A0N" REPLACEMENT PUMP APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED BY THE SAME FAILURE MECHANISM LEADING TO RECALL CAMPAIGN "C0U", WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE A0N FAILURE MECHANISM.

NHTSA ODI #10734085

91,000 miles · Jul 8, 2015
Exterior Lighting

THE HEADLIGHTS ON THE VEHICLE CONTINUE TO FAIL, DAY IN AND DAY OUT. NOW BOTH HEADLIGHTS SHUT OFF AND WON'T STAY ON FOR LONGER THAN A MINUTE.

NHTSA ODI #10732832

255,000 miles · Jul 6, 2015
Exterior Lighting

HEAD LAMPS RANDOMLY SHUT OFF. SOMETIMES IT IS ONE LIGHT AND OTHER TIMES IS IT BOTH LIGHTS. VERY DANGEROUS FOR MY PREGNANT WIFE TO BE ON THE ROAD AND HAVE THE HEADLIGHTS SHUT OFF!

NHTSA ODI #10732334

91,000 miles · Jul 6, 2015
Exterior Lighting

ONE HEADLIGHT STARTED TO FLICKER AND THEN BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT WHILE DRIVING. TRIED TO TURN OFF AND BACK ON AND WENT ON FOR A FEW SECONDS AND THEN THEY WERE DONE. HAD TO DRIVE BACK IN THE DARK. WE WERE OUT OF STATE AND IT HAPPENED DURING THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY WEEKEND SO WE HAD TO CUT THE TRIP SHORT AND GET EXTRA HOTEL…

Read full complaint

ONE HEADLIGHT STARTED TO FLICKER AND THEN BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT WHILE DRIVING. TRIED TO TURN OFF AND BACK ON AND WENT ON FOR A FEW SECONDS AND THEN THEY WERE DONE. HAD TO DRIVE BACK IN THE DARK. WE WERE OUT OF STATE AND IT HAPPENED DURING THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY WEEKEND SO WE HAD TO CUT THE TRIP SHORT AND GET EXTRA HOTEL NIGHTS AS WE COULD NO LONGER TRAVEL AT NIGHT.

NHTSA ODI #10732061

60,000 miles · Jul 1, 2015
Exterior Lighting

THE LEFT HEAD LIGHT FUNCTIONS INTERMITTENTLY. IT WILL TURN OFF WHILE DRIVING SMOOTHLY, FAST OR SLOW. I CAN DRIVE OVER BUMPS AND UNEVEN ROADS AND HAVE THE LIGHT ON THE ENTIRE TIME, OR SOMETIMES IT SHUTS OFF. MY CAR HAS NEW BULBS AND THE CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN CHECKED FOR CORRECT INSTALLATION. AFTER READING MANY FORUMS,I'VE HEARD T…

Read full complaint

THE LEFT HEAD LIGHT FUNCTIONS INTERMITTENTLY. IT WILL TURN OFF WHILE DRIVING SMOOTHLY, FAST OR SLOW. I CAN DRIVE OVER BUMPS AND UNEVEN ROADS AND HAVE THE LIGHT ON THE ENTIRE TIME, OR SOMETIMES IT SHUTS OFF. MY CAR HAS NEW BULBS AND THE CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN CHECKED FOR CORRECT INSTALLATION. AFTER READING MANY FORUMS,I'VE HEARD THAT THE DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE COMPUTER, LIGHT BULB AND LIGHT ASSEMBLY FOR AT LEAST 2600$. CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR FUNCTIONING LIGHT ASSEMBLIES. PLEASE LOOK IVY THIS PROBLEM.

NHTSA ODI #10731599

Mileage unknown · Jun 21, 2015
Structure

THE GAS TANK DESIGN TOYOTA PRIUS FROM AT LEAST 2007 AND UNTIL 2010, CONTAINS NO ACTUAL FUEL GAUGE. IN THE NORTHERN STATES WITH SEVERE WINTERS THIS RESULTS IN OWNERS FREQUENTLY RUNNING OUT OF GAS WHEN THEY THINK THEY STILL HAVE AMPLE FUEL AS SHOWN BY MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FOUND ON THE INTERNET, AND FOR US ON A TRIP IN FEBRUARY TO …

Read full complaint

THE GAS TANK DESIGN TOYOTA PRIUS FROM AT LEAST 2007 AND UNTIL 2010, CONTAINS NO ACTUAL FUEL GAUGE. IN THE NORTHERN STATES WITH SEVERE WINTERS THIS RESULTS IN OWNERS FREQUENTLY RUNNING OUT OF GAS WHEN THEY THINK THEY STILL HAVE AMPLE FUEL AS SHOWN BY MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FOUND ON THE INTERNET, AND FOR US ON A TRIP IN FEBRUARY TO MARCH 2015 WE WERE IN SERIOUS FEAR OF RUNNING OUT OF GAS WHEN IN FACT IF THE SPECIFICATION FOR CAPACITY HAS ANY MEANING WE STILL HAD OVER 4 GALLONS OF FUEL. WE GOT SO WORRIED, WE STOPPED AT A BROTHEL IN NEVADA SO MY WIFE COULD ASK HOW FAR TO THE NEAREST GAS STATION. WHEN WE GOT TO THE GAS STATION THE FUEL PUMP INDICATOR WAS EVEN BLINKING TO INDICATE WE WERE IN DANGER OF RUNNING OUT OF FUEL, YET THE CAR FILLED UP WITH ONLY 65% OF ITS RATED FUEL CAPACITY. RUNNING OUT OF GAS UNEXPECTEDLY IS ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS IN THE TOYOTA PRIUS BECAUSE SO MUCH DEPENDS ON ELECTRICITY INCLUDING THE STEERING TO GET THE CAR OFF THE ROAD. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE IT CANNOT HAPPEN WHEN THE BATTERY IS ALREADY AT MAXIMUM DEPLETION OR THE MAIN BATTERY ITSELF HAS FAILED BUT NOT YET BEEN REPLACED IN WHICH CASE THE CAR IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON CONTINUOUS FUEL FLOW. IT CERTAINLY CAME AS A SHOCK TO ME TO LEARN THAT WHAT IS DISPLAYED IS NO BETTER THAN A GROSSLY INACCURATE ESTIMATE OF REMAINING FUEL, OR ABOUT TO RUN OUT FUEL LEVEL. TOYOTA SHOULD BE FORCED TO RECALL ALL OF THESE VEHICLES FOR FUEL SYSTEM REPLACEMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY AND KEEPING PEOPLE FROM BEING KILLED FOR RUNNING OUT OF GAS AT THE WRONG TIME AND STOPPING DEAD ON THE HIGHWAY. AS THESE CARS AGE, THEY BECOME MORE DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEY WILL BE DRIVEN WITH A BYPASS OF A DEFECTIVE MAIN BATTERY, BUT EPA REGULATIONS PREVENTING ALTERATION OF ANYTHING EMISSIONS RELATED WILL MAKE THESE CARS ROAD HAZARDS ACROSS THE NATION IF THE PROBLEM IS NOT DEALT WITH.

NHTSA ODI #10726406

185 miles · Jun 21, 2015
Service Brakes

I WAS NOT THE DRIVER, BUT THE PASSENGER WHO WAS ASLEEP UNTIL THE CAR FELT LIKE IT HIT A POT HOLE. THE ACCIDENT WAS NEARLY FATAL. THIS IS AN UPDATE OF AN INITIAL REPORT BASED ON WHAT I NOW BELIEVE. WE WERE EAST ON I-80 AT NEAR MILE 21, WHICH HAS NO EXIT (AS REPORTED BY TOW TRUCK DRIVER). SINCE MY INITIAL REPORT I USED SATELL…

Read full complaint

I WAS NOT THE DRIVER, BUT THE PASSENGER WHO WAS ASLEEP UNTIL THE CAR FELT LIKE IT HIT A POT HOLE. THE ACCIDENT WAS NEARLY FATAL. THIS IS AN UPDATE OF AN INITIAL REPORT BASED ON WHAT I NOW BELIEVE. WE WERE EAST ON I-80 AT NEAR MILE 21, WHICH HAS NO EXIT (AS REPORTED BY TOW TRUCK DRIVER). SINCE MY INITIAL REPORT I USED SATELLITE IMAGES TO VERIFY THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF HIGHWAY TO MATCH WHAT I SAW WHEN I WOKE UP AFTER EXPERIENCING THE CAR DOING WHAT FELT LIKE HITTING A POT HOLE, BUT WHICH I NOW BELIEVE WAS A NEW RUN OFFSET RUN OF PARTIAL SHOULDER. SPEED IS AN ESTIMATE. MY WIFE WAS LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PULL OVER AND CHANGE DRIVERS ON THE SHOULDER. I THINK SHE DID PULL ON THE SHOULDER AND THE ABS BRAKES ENGAGED ON THE DIRT SIDE OF THE PARTIAL SHOULDER AND STEERED THE CAR OFF THE HIGHWAY. WHEN I OPENED MY EYES I COULD SEE THE CAR WAS HEADING BACK TO THE HIGHWAY, BUT THE CAR WAS AT SMALL SLOPE OF PERHAPS 20 OR SO DEGREES. SHE WIFE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED ON THE GRASS FOLLOWING THE CONTOUR DOWN THE SLOPE BUT FOLLOWED REFLEXES TRYING TO GET BACK ON THE HIGHWAY. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE ROLL OVER, BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED HAD THE CAR STAYED ON THE PAVEMENT. ABS SHOULD NEVER ENGAGE WHEN THE CAR IS MOVING IN A STRAIGHT LINE. IT ONLY HELPS WHEN TURNING AND OTHERWISE HARMS. IN THE PRIUS EVERYTHING IS COMPUTER CONTROLLED AND THIS COULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. I HAD ONE OTHER INCIDENT WHERE ABS BRAKES FROM TOYOTA CAUSED MY PRISM TO SPIN OFF THE HIGHWAY ON ICE WHEN I WAS DRIVING STRAIGHT AHEAD. THE PRIUS COMPUTER SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED TO RESTRICT THE STEERING RADIUS BASED ON THE CAR'S SPEED AND SIDE DIRECTIONAL SLOPE. THIS WAS A DOUBLY DESIGN PREVENTABLE ACCIDENT THAT NEARLY KILLED MY WIFE, WHO HAS NO RECALL OF THE ACCIDENT BEFORE RESCUE DUE TO INJURIES. WITHOUT REDESIGN ABS BRAKES SHOULD BE BANNED ESPECIALLY WITH BAD SHOULDERS.

NHTSA ODI #10726404

96,000 miles · Jun 20, 2015
Exterior Lighting

LIKE SO MANY OTHERS HAVE REPORTED, ONE OF THE HID HEADLIGHTS WILL SUDDENLY STOP WORKING. TURNING THE LIGHTS OFF AND THEN ON AGAIN "FIXES" THE PROBLEM FOR THAT MOMENT. BUT THE PROBLEM CAN REOCCUR WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS PROBLEM MOST EVERY TIME I HAVE DRIVEN THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT SINCE THE INITIAL INCIDENT. G…

Read full complaint

LIKE SO MANY OTHERS HAVE REPORTED, ONE OF THE HID HEADLIGHTS WILL SUDDENLY STOP WORKING. TURNING THE LIGHTS OFF AND THEN ON AGAIN "FIXES" THE PROBLEM FOR THAT MOMENT. BUT THE PROBLEM CAN REOCCUR WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS PROBLEM MOST EVERY TIME I HAVE DRIVEN THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT SINCE THE INITIAL INCIDENT. GIVEN ALL THE OTHER COMPLAINTS, AND THE 2011 CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ON THIS ISSUE WHICH TOYOTA SETTLED WITHOUT ADMITTING GUILT, THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE WELL-KNOWN TO TOYOTA. EVIDENCE SHOWS THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE LIGHT BULBS BUT THE ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT (ECU) OR OTHER ELECTRICAL ISSUE. I HAVE ENQUIRED TO TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE. THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND SAY MY VEHICLE QUALIFIES UNDER THE LAWSUIT, BUT THEY WILL NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIXING THE PROBLEM. THE BEST THEY OFFER IS FOR ME TO PAY TO GET NEW LIGHT BULBS AND THEN SUBMIT MY RECEIPTS TO THEM FOR POSSIBLE REIMBURSEMENT. GIVEN THE MANY COMMENTS BY OTHERS THAT THE PROBLEM CONTINUED EVEN WITH NEW BULBS, THIS "RESOLUTION" BY TOYOTA SEEMS HARDLY ADEQUATE. NHTSA MUST AND SHOULD TAKE ACTION AND DEMAND TOYOTA PROPERLY REPAIR/RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. I BOUGHT THIS USED VEHICLE IN OCTOBER 2014 AT A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP IN THE PHOENIX AREA.

NHTSA ODI #10726376

75,000 miles · Jun 17, 2015
Exterior Lighting

DATE AND MILEAGE ARE APPROXIMATE. WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT MY HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT COMPLETELY. SINCE THEN, THEY CONTINUALLY GO OUT RANDOMLY. SOMETIMES IT WILL BEGIN WITH ONE OR THE OTHER GOING OUT AND THEN BOTH. AT THIS POINT, I AM ABLE TO TURN THEM OFF AND ON AGAIN AND THEY COME BACK ON FOR AWHILE....I AM QUITE CONCERNED ABOU…

Read full complaint

DATE AND MILEAGE ARE APPROXIMATE. WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT MY HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT COMPLETELY. SINCE THEN, THEY CONTINUALLY GO OUT RANDOMLY. SOMETIMES IT WILL BEGIN WITH ONE OR THE OTHER GOING OUT AND THEN BOTH. AT THIS POINT, I AM ABLE TO TURN THEM OFF AND ON AGAIN AND THEY COME BACK ON FOR AWHILE....I AM QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AS SUDDEN DARKNESS WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT IS A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. DOES AN ACCIDENT AND/OR DEATH NEED TO HAPPEN BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN?... I AM ALSO QUITE CONFUSED THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RECALL AS THIS PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE QUITE COMMON.......UPDATED 08/20/15 *BF UPDATED 12/10/15 *JS

NHTSA ODI #10725677

Official recalls

4

12V536000 · 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.

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

3

DP22005 · 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.