Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP13-002, 44487-44491 [2014-17983]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices trend was not identified. The closing resume summary of PE04–020 stated: ‘‘Nissan and Ford found that the original equipment headlight stainless steel bulb terminals may over time cause elevated contact resistance and overheat the electrical connector housing. This can result in a headlight flickering, bulb outage and heat deformation to the headlight connector. This problem can affect independently either headlight but does not cause simultaneous failure of both headlights. The problem also does not affect front parking lamps. As a result, the complaints typically report single failure of one headlight. There were no crashes or loss of vehicle control reported.’’ In another previous investigation of headlamp harness failure (PE05–007), the closing resume summary stated: ‘‘Improper installation of the original equipment headlight connector can cause increased terminal resistance and overheat the headlight connector. This problem can affect independently either headlight but does not cause simultaneous failure of both headlights. The problem also does not affect front parking lamps. As a result, the complaints typically report single failure of one headlight. There were no crashes or loss of vehicle control reported.’’ Technical Service Bulletin In May of 2009, General Motors Corporation (GM) issued Technical Bulletin #09–08–42–004 applicable to the MY 2007–2009 Saturn Outlook vehicles. The Subject: ‘‘Low Beam Headlamp Replacement/Diagnosis (Inspect Fuse, Bulb, Harness, Replace Harness and Fill Connector Cavity for Low Beam Bulb Connector with Nyogel Grease).’’ The bulletin provides corrective actions to address the condition that some customers describe as the low beam headlamp bulb being inoperative. A reduction of consumer complaints accompanied release of this bulletin, suggesting that the repair cost concerns on the part of many of the complainants were addressed. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES —Reported thermal damage was limited to melting of the headlamp harness and/or the headlamp housing. —Frequently, a headlamp would intermittently fail to illuminate or flickered before becoming completely inoperative. For the seventeen complaints that alleged simultaneous failure of both headlamps while attempting to turn them on or while driving, the headlamp failures likely had occurred one at a time—the subject vehicle’s headlamps are connected in a parallel circuit and each circuit is fused independently. Therefore, failure of one headlamp or its harness is very unlikely to affect the other headlamp’s operation. Furthermore, during the agency’s headlamp failure investigation PE09– 019, a random sample of consumers was contacted by ODI in a telephone survey to verify their experiences. Though the consumers stated in complaints to the manufacturer that both headlamps failed at the same time, ODI discovered through its interviews of these complainants that, in fact, one headlamp would begin to flicker and then cut off while the other headlamp remained operational. In a few cases where no action was taken by the complainants, the second headlamp failed several months later; however none of those surveyed could confirm that both headlamps failed to illuminate simultaneously. There is no reason to believe this is not applicable to the subject vehicles as well. In December of 2011, GM issued a Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP), Bulletin No. 11055 that applies to the subject vehicles. GM notified the owners to bring their vehicles to a GM dealer to have the headlamp connectors and the low beam headlamp bulbs replaced at no charge through 2013. Shortly after issuance of the more recent GM bulletin, related complaints to NHTSA decreased significantly from over a hundred annually to 21 for calendar year (CY) 2012, 33 for CY 2013 and only 11 (year-to-date) as of July 16, 2014. Investigation Precedent ODI previously opened two defect investigations concerning inoperative headlamps due to overheating and melting of headlamp harness—failures very similar to those described by owner of the subject vehicle. Both investigations were closed without a recall because a safety-related defect VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:56 Jul 30, 2014 Jkt 232001 Customer Satisfaction Program Conclusion Based on the information currently available, NHTSA does not believe that the headlamp condition as alleged by the petitioner indicates the likelihood of a safety-related defect that would warrant a formal investigation. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied. PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44487 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Nancy Lummen Lewis, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2014–17984 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP13–002 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. AGENCY: This notice states the reasons for denying a Defect Petition (DP) (DP 13–002) submitted under 49 CFR parts 552 by Ms. Jessie A. Powell of Middleboro, MA (petitioner) in a January, 2013 letter to the Administrator of NHTSA (the ‘‘Agency’’). The petitioner requested that the Agency open an investigation into software and brake failures on model year (MY) 2012 Toyota Prius C vehicles (the ‘‘Subject Vehicles’’). After reviewing materials in-hand, those furnished by the petitioner, and upon completing an inspection of her vehicle, NHTSA sees no indication that additional investigation would lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists. NHTSA has concluded that further investigation of the issue raised in the petition is not warranted. The Agency accordingly has denied the petition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Price, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–5410. Email: jeffrey.price@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Introduction Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.1, interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review (§ 552.6) of the petition, material submitted with the petition, and any appropriate additional information. After considering the technical review and taking into E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1 44488 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices account appropriate factors, which may include, among others, allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might arise from a determination of noncompliance or a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the Agency will grant or deny the petition (§ 552.8). • Review of the petition and its enclosures; • Assessment of petition vehicle history; • Inspection of the Petitioners vehicle on April 4, 2013; • Inspection of an additional complaint vehicle in June of 2013; and Review of potentially related VOQs. Background Information Powell Vehicle History Mar 3, 2012—Build Date (DTC History) Apr 23, 2012—10 mi Date of First Use (DTC History/Vehicle History Report) Apr 27, 2013—110 mi Passed Safety Inspection (Vehicle History Report) May 8, 2012—Rough transition from battery to motor (Petition) May 15, 2012—Brake pedal to floor, dashboard warning light, behavior repeated at home, and vehicle towed to dealership (Petition) 1 May 17, 2012 841 mi—DTC pulled: U0151, U0293, U0100, P3000, U0101 Same brake symptoms as previous, at dealership (Petition) Apr 4, 2013 831 mi—Vehicle inspection by NHTSA and Toyota representatives On Apr 4, 2013, ODI met with the petitioner, representatives from Toyota, and legal counsel for both parties at a Toyota dealership. Included in the visit were an interview of the petitioner, basic inspection of the subject vehicle, and test drives of the subject vehicle and an exemplar. Ms. Powell was interviewed to collect specific details concerning her complaint and then accompanied by NHTSA personnel while she test-drove her vehicle in the same dealership Petition Overview On January 3, 2013, NHTSA received a letter (ODI No. 10487746) from Ms. Jessie A. Powell petitioning the agency to investigate drivability and braking concerns in the subject vehicle. Petition Main Points The petition expressed two concerns: 1. ‘‘The first software problem was when the vehicle shifted from battery to motor and caused such impact, I initially believed the vehicle had been struck in the rear.’’ 2. ‘‘The next more alarming problem was NO BRAKES. The brake pedal traveled to the floor and a dashboard warning light flashed.’’ This symptom occurred twice, leading to the vehicle being towed to the dealership, the second time in the dealership parking lot after diagnostics of the first incident. ODI Analysis of the Defect Petition Request BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 1 Note—Improper mileage of 841 entered by Dealership on May 15, 2012. Correct mileage 831 VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:56 Jul 30, 2014 Jkt 232001 miles on May 15, 2012 and inspection date Apr 4, 2013. PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1 EN31JY14.000</GPH> wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ODI’s petition review included the following; parking lot, duplicating the complaint condition. NHTSA personnel also drove the vehicle with Ms. Powell present and experienced the complaint condition. Specifically, the vehicle was test driven according to the same driving cycle described by the owner. The condition was found to be normal operation of the ‘‘hill holder’’ feature of the vehicle. The dashboard warning light Ms. Powell referred to in her complaint was the flashing light described in the ‘‘Hill Holder’’ operation section of the owner’s manual. This function allows the vehicle brake system to apply brakes to keep the vehicle from rolling backwards while on a hill. This vehicle feature was explained to Ms. Powell by NHTSA personnel. Ms. Powell neither accepted nor denied the explanation of what was occurring in her vehicle. At no time was there any ‘‘jolt’’ from the battery during the transition from battery to gas engine operation. The vehicle was then put on a hoist where the vehicle powertrain, brake systems and complete electrical system were checked. All computer systems were checked for Diagnostic Trouble Codes. The codes found were due to a discharged battery. This vehicle had been parked and unused for many months, requiring a jump start to move it into position for the inspection. Hill Assist Control (HAC), a feature intended to prevent the vehicle from rolling backwards when starting from a stationary position on an incline, is described in the Prius C Quick Start Guide and Owner’s Manual: 44489 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices Assists with starting off .and temporarily maintains braking power even if the foot is removed from the brake pedal when starting off on an incline or a slippery slope. To engage hill-start assist controt, further depress the brake pedal the vehicle as stopped completely. A buzzer sound once system also start Hm-start assist control operating conditions system operates the follow·ing situations: • The shift ,Jever is in a position other than P.. • The parking brake is not applied. • The accelerator pedal is not depressed. Hill-start assist control cannot be operated vvhile the slip indicator light Hm-start assist control hill-start assist control is operating, the brakes remain automatiapplied after the driver releases the brake pedal. The stop lights and the high mounted stoplight tum on. Hill-start assist control operates for about 2 seconds after the is released. pedal BILLING CODE 4910–59–C VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:56 Jul 30, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1 EN31JY14.001</GPH> wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES If the slip does not flash and the buzzer does not sound the brake pedal is depressed, reduce the pressure on the not the vehicle to then brake pedal depress it again. If the system still does operate, check that the operating conditions explained above have been met 44490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices All 133 consumer complaints filed with NHTSA as of July 16, 2014 for the three MY 2012 Prius variants 2 (only four pertained to the Prius C variant subject to this petition) were reviewed for signs of the jolting symptom cited early in the petition. None of them indicated experiencing jolting sensations in routine driving similar to those reported by the petitioner. Further review identified no trend of the brake behavior reported by the petitioner (brake pedal to the floor along with the VSC light). Discussion After a test drive and vehicle inspection, no actionable problem was found within the petitioner’s vehicle. 2 Prius, Prius C, Prius V. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:56 Jul 30, 2014 Jkt 232001 The braking concern reported turned out to be normal vehicle operation. Broader review of the consumer complaints reported for all variants of the subject vehicle showed no indication that either the reported jolting sensation or the brake performance concerns reported are occurring in this vehicle population at a level that would require investigative action by NHTSA. The petitioner identified other complaints of poor braking performance and low brake pedal received by NHTSA concerning Prius models. The following recalls by Toyota were to address many of these complaints. Neither of these recalls is applicable to Ms. Powell’s 2012 Prius C. 1. Recall 10V–039 March 5, 2010— Reprogramming ABS ECU—Improve PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Antilock brake function over bumpy surfaces. 2. Recall 13V–235 August 7, 2013— Replace Brake Booster/Pump assembly—Low brake pedal due to nitrogen bubble in hydraulic portion of brake system. Conclusion In the Agency’s view, additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA limited resources to best accomplish the Agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances. E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1 EN31JY14.002</GPH> wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES VOQs Pertaining to the 2012 Prius Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, or bruce.sharp@fiscal.treasury.gov. Nancy Lummen Lewis, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies should be directed to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Helen Reilly, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106– 1328, (304) 480–6179, or helen.reilly@ fiscal.treasury.gov. [FR Doc. 2014–17983 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bureau of the Fiscal Service Proposed Collection of Information: TreasuryDirect System Notice and request for comments. ACTION: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the electronic process for selling/issuing, servicing, and making payments on or redeeming U.S. Treasury securities. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before September 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4–A, wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:56 Jul 30, 2014 Jkt 232001 Title: TreasuryDirect. OMB Number: 1535–0138. Abstract: The information collected in the electronic system is requested to establish a new account and process any associated transactions. Current Actions: The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) offers Americans the opportunity to buy and hold Treasury securities directly with the Department of the Treasury. The retail program is geared toward small investors, most of them individuals who buy savings bonds and marketable Treasury securities. Investors create and manage electronic accounts via the Fiscal Service TreasuryDirect system. Fiscal Service is exploring a strategy to reach new customers, develop new and innovative product delivery streams, and increase the number of available product offerings. In support of this strategy, Fiscal Service will introduce the Treasury Retail Investment Manager (TRIM) that will eventually replace the current TreasuryDirect system. TRIM will be more flexible and responsive to changing business needs for delivering digital investing needs. PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 44491 Type of Review: Revision of a previously approved collection. Affected Public: Individuals or Households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.06 million. Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 97,000De. Request For Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: July 28, 2014. Bruce A. Sharp, Bureau Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2014–18052 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–39–P E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44487-44491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP13-002

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice states the reasons for denying a Defect Petition 
(DP) (DP 13-002) submitted under 49 CFR parts 552 by Ms. Jessie A. 
Powell of Middleboro, MA (petitioner) in a January, 2013 letter to the 
Administrator of NHTSA (the ``Agency''). The petitioner requested that 
the Agency open an investigation into software and brake failures on 
model year (MY) 2012 Toyota Prius C vehicles (the ``Subject 
Vehicles'').
    After reviewing materials in-hand, those furnished by the 
petitioner, and upon completing an inspection of her vehicle, NHTSA 
sees no indication that additional investigation would lead to a 
finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists. NHTSA has 
concluded that further investigation of the issue raised in the 
petition is not warranted. The Agency accordingly has denied the 
petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Price, Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5410. Email: jeffrey.price@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.1, interested persons may petition NHTSA 
requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine 
whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment does not 
comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a 
defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Upon receipt of a properly 
filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review (Sec.  552.6) of 
the petition, material submitted with the petition, and any appropriate 
additional information. After considering the technical review and 
taking into

[[Page 44488]]

account appropriate factors, which may include, among others, 
allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, and the likelihood 
of success in litigation that might arise from a determination of 
noncompliance or a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the Agency 
will grant or deny the petition (Sec.  552.8).

Background Information

Petition Overview

    On January 3, 2013, NHTSA received a letter (ODI No. 10487746) from 
Ms. Jessie A. Powell petitioning the agency to investigate drivability 
and braking concerns in the subject vehicle.

Petition Main Points

    The petition expressed two concerns:
    1. ``The first software problem was when the vehicle shifted from 
battery to motor and caused such impact, I initially believed the 
vehicle had been struck in the rear.''
    2. ``The next more alarming problem was NO BRAKES. The brake pedal 
traveled to the floor and a dashboard warning light flashed.''
    This symptom occurred twice, leading to the vehicle being towed to 
the dealership, the second time in the dealership parking lot after 
diagnostics of the first incident.

ODI Analysis of the Defect Petition Request

    ODI's petition review included the following;
     Review of the petition and its enclosures;
     Assessment of petition vehicle history;
     Inspection of the Petitioners vehicle on April 4, 2013;
     Inspection of an additional complaint vehicle in June of 
2013; and Review of potentially related VOQs.

Powell Vehicle History

Mar 3, 2012--Build Date (DTC History)
Apr 23, 2012--10 mi Date of First Use (DTC History/Vehicle History 
Report)
Apr 27, 2013--110 mi Passed Safety Inspection (Vehicle History Report)
May 8, 2012--Rough transition from battery to motor (Petition)
May 15, 2012--Brake pedal to floor, dashboard warning light, behavior 
repeated at home, and vehicle towed to dealership (Petition) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note--Improper mileage of 841 entered by Dealership on May 
15, 2012. Correct mileage 831 miles on May 15, 2012 and inspection 
date Apr 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 17, 2012 841 mi--DTC pulled: U0151, U0293, U0100, P3000, U0101 Same 
brake symptoms as previous, at dealership (Petition)
Apr 4, 2013 831 mi--Vehicle inspection by NHTSA and Toyota 
representatives

    On Apr 4, 2013, ODI met with the petitioner, representatives from 
Toyota, and legal counsel for both parties at a Toyota dealership. 
Included in the visit were an interview of the petitioner, basic 
inspection of the subject vehicle, and test drives of the subject 
vehicle and an exemplar.
    Ms. Powell was interviewed to collect specific details concerning 
her complaint and then accompanied by NHTSA personnel while she test-
drove her vehicle in the same dealership parking lot, duplicating the 
complaint condition. NHTSA personnel also drove the vehicle with Ms. 
Powell present and experienced the complaint condition. Specifically, 
the vehicle was test driven according to the same driving cycle 
described by the owner. The condition was found to be normal operation 
of the ``hill holder'' feature of the vehicle. The dashboard warning 
light Ms. Powell referred to in her complaint was the flashing light 
described in the ``Hill Holder'' operation section of the owner's 
manual. This function allows the vehicle brake system to apply brakes 
to keep the vehicle from rolling backwards while on a hill. This 
vehicle feature was explained to Ms. Powell by NHTSA personnel. Ms. 
Powell neither accepted nor denied the explanation of what was 
occurring in her vehicle. At no time was there any ``jolt'' from the 
battery during the transition from battery to gas engine operation. The 
vehicle was then put on a hoist where the vehicle powertrain, brake 
systems and complete electrical system were checked. All computer 
systems were checked for Diagnostic Trouble Codes. The codes found were 
due to a discharged battery. This vehicle had been parked and unused 
for many months, requiring a jump start to move it into position for 
the inspection.
    Hill Assist Control (HAC), a feature intended to prevent the 
vehicle from rolling backwards when starting from a stationary position 
on an incline, is described in the Prius C Quick Start Guide and 
Owner's Manual:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY14.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 44489]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY14.001

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 44490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY14.002

VOQs Pertaining to the 2012 Prius

    All 133 consumer complaints filed with NHTSA as of July 16, 2014 
for the three MY 2012 Prius variants \2\ (only four pertained to the 
Prius C variant subject to this petition) were reviewed for signs of 
the jolting symptom cited early in the petition. None of them indicated 
experiencing jolting sensations in routine driving similar to those 
reported by the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prius, Prius C, Prius V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further review identified no trend of the brake behavior reported 
by the petitioner (brake pedal to the floor along with the VSC light).

Discussion

    After a test drive and vehicle inspection, no actionable problem 
was found within the petitioner's vehicle. The braking concern reported 
turned out to be normal vehicle operation. Broader review of the 
consumer complaints reported for all variants of the subject vehicle 
showed no indication that either the reported jolting sensation or the 
brake performance concerns reported are occurring in this vehicle 
population at a level that would require investigative action by NHTSA.
    The petitioner identified other complaints of poor braking 
performance and low brake pedal received by NHTSA concerning Prius 
models. The following recalls by Toyota were to address many of these 
complaints. Neither of these recalls is applicable to Ms. Powell's 2012 
Prius C.
    1. Recall 10V-039 March 5, 2010--Reprogramming ABS ECU--Improve 
Antilock brake function over bumpy surfaces.
    2. Recall 13V-235 August 7, 2013--Replace Brake Booster/Pump 
assembly--Low brake pedal due to nitrogen bubble in hydraulic portion 
of brake system.

Conclusion

    In the Agency's view, additional investigation is unlikely to 
result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety 
exists. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA 
limited resources to best accomplish the Agency's safety mission, the 
petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA 
that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will take 
further action if warranted by future circumstances.


[[Page 44491]]


    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.95 and 501.8.

Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-17983 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.