Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP13-001 |
|---|
Topics: Toyota Prius
|
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
9 April 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 69 (Thursday, April 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20023-20027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07400]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0020]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP13-001
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth NHTSA's decision and reasons for
denying a petition, Defect Petition (DP) (DP 13-001), submitted by Mr.
William Rosenbluth (petitioner) in a January 23, 2013 letter to the
Administrator of NHTSA (the ``Agency''). The petitioner requested that
the Agency open an investigation into the decoupling of the steering
intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 from the steering column assembly on
model year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles (the ``Subject
Vehicles''). After reviewing materials furnished by the petitioner, the
manufacturer, and those already in its possession, NHTSA has concluded
that the evidence does not warrant further investigation of the issue
raised in the petition. The Agency accordingly has denied the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Magno, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5226. Email: gregory.magno@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency
begin a proceeding to decide whether to issue an order determining that
a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect that
relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162;
[[Page 20024]]
49 CFR part 552. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency
conducts a review of the petition, material submitted with the
petition, and any additional information. 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR
552.8. The review may consist solely of a review of information already
in the possession of the Agency, or it may include the collection of
information from the motor vehicle manufacturer and/or other sources.
After considering the review and taking into account appropriate
factors, which may include, among others, allocation of Agency
resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of uncovering sufficient
evidence to establish a safety-related defect, and the likelihood of
success in any necessary enforcement litigation, the Agency will grant
or deny the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR 552.8.
II. Petition Background Information
On January 30, 2013, NHTSA received a petition requesting that the
Agency open a defect investigation submitted by Mr. William Rosenbluth
of Automotive Systems Analysis, Inc., located in Reston, Virginia. The
petition requested that the Agency investigate decoupling of the
steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 \1\ from the steering column
assembly in the Subject Vehicles. Mr. Rosenbluth's petition asserted
that his client's MY 2005 Toyota Prius (the ``Petition Vehicle'')
steering column linkage was improperly assembled at the time the
vehicle was manufactured by Toyota. Included with the letter were a
narrative from the Petitioner's client, Mr. Rosenbluth's documentation
relating to the Petition Vehicle, and a comparison to an exemplar
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
(Toyota) used the terms ``intermediate shaft,'' ``steering
intermediate shaft,'' ``steering intermediate shaft assembly,''
``steering intermediate shaft No.2,'' ``steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2,'' and ``intermediate shaft No. 2 (upper)'' to refer
to the same part. The petitioner used the terms ``upper steering
intermediate shaft,'' ``steering upper intermediate shaft #2'',
``steering intermediate shaft No. 2'', ``upper steering column
intermediate shaft #2'' and ``upper steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2'' to refer to the same part. For consistency, the
Agency refers to the subject part as the ``steering intermediate
shaft assembly No. 2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petition Vehicle--2011 Complaint to NHTSA
The owner of the Petition Vehicle previously filed a complaint in a
Vehicle Owner's Questionnaire (VOQ) submitted to NHTSA (ODI Complaint
No. 10437229) on November 25, 2011, that was subsequently amended by a
December 7, 2011 email with attachments from the complainant. The
complainant stated that he heard a snapping sound coming from the
steering wheel while attempting to park at 5 mph on November 23, 2011.
The steering wheel then became loose and he could not steer the
vehicle, and the driver's airbag and all of the steering wheel mounted
controls were disabled.
On October 19, 2012, an ODI investigator contacted the Petition
Vehicle owner by email regarding the VOQ he had filed and requested a
status update. The Agency has no record of receiving a response.
III. Summary of the Petition
The narrative of events relied upon by the petitioner was reported
by the Petition Vehicle owner as follows:
I had just turned left, and was straightening the wheels
(turning the wheel back right) [to enter a parking spot] when I
heard, and felt, a loud `snap' in the steering wheel, immediately
upon which I knew the steering wheel was disconnected and I could no
longer steer the car. Very, very fortunately, and only because I was
already nearly stopped, I was able to stop the vehicle without
incident. However, I immediately recognized that, had this happened
in almost any other scenario than being nearly parked, the outcome
would have been markedly different. The steering wheel is completely
loose, not controlling anything, and all the many steering wheel
controls are equally disconnected, including the driver's air bag
(SRS), something that I would have needed, but wouldn't have worked,
had I crashed into oncoming traffic or an Interstate median.
Had I not decided to run a frivolous and unnecessary errand, I
would have otherwise been on the Interstate, rushing home for
Thanksgiving like many others, but now am merely stranded, in a
motel, far from home in Jacksonville, FL, wondering what to do next.
My low mileage (just 27,773 mi), seven year old Prius is still
parked, undriveable.
On January 4, 2013, at the request of the vehicle owner, the
petitioner inspected the Petition Vehicle and observed that the
steering wheel could rotate multiple turns, in both directions, without
resistance or any change in the angle of the front wheels. Further
inspection revealed that the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2
was decoupled from the steering column assembly. The petitioner
concluded that the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 ``had not
been properly installed on the spline output of the steering column
assembly,'' leading to wear on the internal splines of the steering
intermediate shaft assembly No. 2. According to the petition, the
spline wear, evidenced by shards of spline material, allowed the shaft
to decouple from the steering column assembly.
Subject Power Steering System
The subject power steering system is assisted by an electric motor
linked to the steering column assembly. Steering torque is transmitted
to a manual steering rack via a pair of intermediate shafts and a
sliding yoke assembly. Image 1 below illustrates the Toyota Prius
steering system and the components subjected to the two recalls.
[[Page 20025]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP20.001
Toyota's First Related Recall (06V188--Intermediate Shaft No. 2)
On May 30, 2006, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report to
notify NHTSA of Special Service Campaign (SSC) 60C (NHTSA Recall
06V188) to recall 170,856 MY 2004-2006 Toyota Prius vehicles produced
between August 5, 2003, and November 10, 2005. The ``Description of
Problem'' contained in the report stated as follows:
In the subject Prius vehicles equipped with an electric power
steering system, due to insufficient strength at the steering
intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 and sliding yoke which connects
the steering wheel to the steering gear box, there is a possibility
that the connection at the steering intermediate shaft assembly No.
2 or the intermediate extension shaft may become loose or the
steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 sleeve may develop a
crack under certain operating conditions where a large force is
repeatedly applied to the connection (such as when the wheel is
turned forcefully to the locked position at low speed or the tire
contacts roadside curbs while driving). In the worst case, if the
vehicle continues to be operated in this condition, the connection
may separate or the shaft sleeve may fracture, which could result in
the loss of steering control.
Vehicle owners were notified to return their vehicles to any Toyota
dealer for replacement of the steering intermediate shaft assembly No.
2. The repair under SSC 60C (NHTSA Recall 06V188) required the old
shaft to be decoupled from the steering column assembly so that the new
replacement shaft could be connected to the steering column assembly.
As of Toyota's submission of its sixth and final required quarterly
report in 2007, the completion rate for this recall stood at 90%.
Toyota's Second Related Recall (12V537--Intermediate Shaft No. 1)
On November 14, 2012, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report
to notify NHTSA of Safety Recall C0T (NHTSA Recall 12V537), to recall
669,705 MY 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles produced from August 5,
2003, through March 30, 2009. This recall included vehicles within the
scope of NHTSA Recall 06V188, but also expanded the scope. The
Description of Problem contained in Toyota's submission is as follows:
The steering shaft system of the subject vehicles consists of a
steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2, steering sliding yoke
sub-assembly, and steering intermediate (extension) shaft No. 1. Due
to insufficient hardness of the extension shaft supplied by JTEKT,
the splines which connect the extension shaft to the steering gear
box may deform if the steering wheel is frequently and forcefully
turned to the full-lock position while driving at a slow speed. This
may
[[Page 20026]]
create an increased backlash, and splines may eventually wear out
over time, which could result in loss of steering ability.
Vehicle owners were notified by first-class mail to return their
vehicles to any Toyota dealer, which would ``inspect the extension
shaft, and, if the vehicle is equipped with an extension shaft produced
by JTEKT, the dealer will replace it with an improved one.''
According to the Defect Information Report, only the steering
intermediate extension shaft No. 1 was affected by Safety Recall C0T.
The steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 was not affected and no
repairs to or removal of the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2
were specified in the recall procedure. As of Toyota's submission of
its sixth and final required quarterly report in 2014, the completion
rate for this recall was 78%. The vehicle service history provided by
Toyota to ODI indicates that this corrective action was not completed
on the Petition Vehicle.
IV. Toyota Response to ODI's Information Request
To further assess the scope of the subject problem and to review
the recall remedy procedures for both safety recalls, ODI requested
information from Toyota. On June 4, 2013, ODI sent an Information
Request (IR) letter to Toyota concerning decoupling or separation of
the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 from the steering column
assembly in the Subject Vehicles. The petition and twelve potentially
related VOQs were enclosed. Twelve additional VOQs were received during
the Agency's review of the petition.
With the exception of the vehicles referenced in the twelve ODI
VOQs enclosed with the IR letter and this petition, Toyota's IR
response indicated that it had not located any other information that
indicates a decoupling or separation of the steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 from the steering column assembly in the Subject
Vehicles.
V. ODI's Analysis
To assess whether the Subject Vehicles demonstrate a risk of
steering detachment, ODI's review and analysis of this petition
included the following:
Review of the petition and its enclosures;
Review of the subject steering system layout;
Analysis of the Petition Vehicle's history, including its
repair history;
Review and follow-up of potentially related VOQs;
Review and analysis of NHTSA Recalls 06V188 and 12V537;
and,
Requests for and analysis of complaint, claim, field
report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.
ODI's analysis of these factors is outlined below.
Petition Vehicle History
Oct 2004...................... ................. Vehicle built (from
Petition).
Nov 2004...................... 7 mi............. Shipped to dealer,
titled (from Vehicle
History Report).
Dec 2006...................... 10,623 mi........ Recall 06V188
conducted, unrelated
brake inspection
(from Petition).
Feb 2009...................... 20,666 mi........ ``Body elec- minor''
repairs (from
Petition).
Nov 2010...................... 22,698 mi........ Floor mat recall,
multiple repairs
(from Petition).
Nov 2011...................... 27,773 mi........ Steering incident,
complaint to NHTSA
(from VOQ).
Potentially Related VOQs
Excluding the petition (which duplicates the original complaint),
ODI identified twenty-five potentially related VOQs received from 2011
to date (averaging three annually with three received in 2019).
Eighteen of the complaints cited a complete decoupling between the
steering wheel and steering system. The seven additional complaints
cited precursor symptoms (clanking noises and play in the steering)
without the separation. Four of the seven received dealer diagnoses
that a portion of the steering shaft needed replacement. Two additional
complaints advised that they had experienced the symptom but were
uninterested in seeking repairs. Fourteen of the complaints (all of
which involved separations) were reported during parking maneuvers (at
or below 5 mph) with the remaining separation complaints taking place
at speeds between 10 and 25 mph. The complaints with the precursor
symptoms did not cite a specific vehicle speed. Seven of the most
recent nine complaints (CY16-19) involved vehicles with over 150,000
miles of service or prior collisions or salvage titles.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Specifically, these vehicles had the following mileage/
history: 161,000; 193,000; 217,029; 120,000; 146,000; mileage
unknown (salvage title); 101,000 (previous frontal collision
damage); 140,400 (previous rear collision damage); 186,600 (salvage
title).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the petition vehicle, four complaints (three
separations and one precursor) were attributed to Steering Shaft #2
separation and all took place an average of five years after receiving
the remedy for the 06V188 recall. Three of these occurred between
recall remedies, with the fourth occurring after both recall remedies.
All related incidents were compared (Table 1) to recall remedy dates
for the related safety recalls with no apparent pattern emerging to
point to a particular procedure or set of circumstances.
Table 1--Incident Timing Relative to Recall Remedy Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom
--------------------------------
06V188 performed? Incident timing Precursor Steering wheel Total
(noise/play) free-spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No................................. After 12V537 remedy (no 1 3 4
06V188).
Prior to any remedy........ .............. 4 4
Yes................................ Between 06V188 & 12V537 2 4 6
remedies.
[[Page 20027]]
After both remedies........ 4 7 11
-----------------------------------------------
Total.......................... ........................... 7 18 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three potentially related crashes were considered and excluded from
these figures. The first incident involved a 2007 Prius losing control
on a curve while driving. It occurred in late 2013 not long after
receiving the 12V537 remedy. Multiple ODI follow-ups with the
complainant produced no further information. Circumstances and damage
descriptions of the vehicle indicate that a steering shaft was unlikely
to have caused the incident. The second collision occurred in late 2016
and the driver reported hearing a warning chime while driving followed
by the steering ``seizing to the right,'' leading to frontal impact of
a roadside pole. The subject vehicle was a 2007 Prius and the incident
took place over three years after receiving the 12V537 remedy. A
follow-up interview uncovered no further information. In the third, a
2009 Prius drove off the road in icy conditions in January 2017.
Neither the complaint description nor follow-up information gathered
from the complainant point to a steering shaft separation.
Safety Recall Procedures
Recalls 06V188 and 12V537 were also reviewed to assess whether the
remedy procedures could have contributed to the condition experienced
and to assess the impact of any revisions. No discernible impact to
steering shaft integrity was identified in any of the procedures.
Additional Data From Toyota
In addition to the VOQs, ODI asked Toyota in an IR letter to
identify any additional incidents of steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 having decoupled or separated from the steering column
assembly on MY 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles that were contained in
Toyota's complaint, claim, field report and warranty data. No
additional incidents were identified.
Discussion
A review of the petition indicates that the Petition Vehicle's
coupler for steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 was partially
engaged to the steering column output shaft. The connection between the
output shaft and intermediate shaft No. 2 lacked integrity because the
output shaft was not fully engaged in the coupler and did not capture
the coupler pinch bolt. The petitioner stated that he had no knowledge
of any ``. . . intervening repair to the steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 between the time of vehicle manufacture and my
inspection. The recall procedure [for the lower intermediate steering
shaft No. 1] specifically instructs technicians to avoid any operations
on the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2.'' The petitioner
also stated, ``the steering column intermediate shaft assembly No. 2
separation is not part of the Toyota steering recall 12V537 or any of
its predecessor versions.'' The petitioner concluded, in his opinion,
that ``the Petition Vehicle steering column linkage was improperly
assembled at its original manufacturing point and thus contained a
latent manufacturing defect.''
Toyota's vehicle service history for the Petition Vehicle shows
that NHTSA Recall 06V188 (SSC 60C) for steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 replacement was completed on December 12, 2006. Evidence
from the petition indicates that the coupler joining intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 and the steering column output shaft may have been
improperly installed so the coupler pinch bolt was not engaged in the
corresponding notch in column output shaft when the recall remedy was
performed. This improper installation would lead to the kind of
abnormal and excessive wear shown in photographs attached to the
petition. When this wear reached a certain point, it would allow the
intermediate shaft coupler to separate from the steering column output
shaft. Since this occurred in the Petition Vehicle after performance of
the recall remedy for NHTSA Recall 06V188 and not before, the incident
is likely the result of a poorly performed recall repair and not the
assembly failure asserted by the petitioner.
NHTSA also observes that the rate of related consumer complaints
(twenty-five over an eight-year period from a population of over
600,000 vehicles) is relatively low and does not appear to be
attributable to either recall action. ODI's review of consumer
complaints did not indicate any apparent trend regarding the alleged
failures occurring, relative to when the two recalls were performed, or
the circumstances under which the failures occurred. Post-Recall
12V537, the subject vehicle population has not exhibited a safety
defect trend relating to its steering shaft, with the few complaints
received involving high-mileage or damaged vehicles, suggesting
isolated vehicle repair errors. Given these conditions, the safety
recalls appear to have adequately addressed the safety defects within
the subject vehicles related to the steering shaft assembly, and
further investigation of the issue is not warranted at this time.
VI. Conclusion
NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and
remedy of a defect if the Agency's investigation shows a defect in
design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents
an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 30118. Given the
absence of a defect trend in the complaint data and a thorough
assessment of the potential risks to safety presented in the petition,
it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of
a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened
as a result of granting this petition. Therefore, and upon full
consideration of the information presented in the petition and the
potential risks to safety, the petition is denied.
The Agency retains the authority to revisit these issues if
warranted in the future if conditions change or new evidence arises.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR part 552; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-07400 Filed 4-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P