[m21sniper]

‘Certainly, We Talked’

Twenty days after the probe began, NHTSA investigator Yon determined that the agency wouldn’t investigate “longer duration incidents involving uncontrollable acceleration where brake pedal application allegedly had no effect,” according to a document provided in the Michigan lawsuit.

“But that was after talking with you and Mr. Tinto, correct?” Heiskell asked during the deposition.

“Certainly, we talked to them in that time period,” Santucci said.

NHSTA opted to limit the investigation to unintended acceleration events that lasted less than a second and those where the brake could be used to control the vehicle, or about 11 incidents with 5 crashes. In Toyota’s initial response, Tinto identified 114 similar cases, according to NHTSA documents. The case was closed July 22, 2004, agency records show.

The agency decided to limit the cases to eliminate instances where a driver may have used the wrong pedal, the Transportation Department’s Alair said.

No Social Relationship

Santucci didn’t work on unintended acceleration cases involving Toyota while at NHTSA and doesn’t have a social relationship with former co-workers, he said in his deposition.

The second NHTSA-Toyota case settled with the automaker’s input was a 2005 investigation requested by the owner of a 2002 Toyota Camry who reported two instances of unintended acceleration, one involving a crash. The owner cited eight other complaints from other Toyota drivers about similar episodes, without identifying the vehicle make and model.

Toyota said dealer representatives investigated 59 of 100 vehicles whose owners complained.

“In each of these vehicles, no evidence of a system or component failure was found and the vehicles were operating as designed,” Tinto wrote in a Nov. 15 letter to NHSTA. He also cited the findings that ended the Camry investigation in 2004.

Water Corrosion

NHTSA ended its probe of the 2002 Camry in January 2006, citing lack of evidence of a problem and the agency’s need to allocate “limited resources” to other investigations.

Tinto also weighed in on a broader August 2006 complaint about the Camry, this time covering model years 2002 to 2006. In that case, Tinto wrote that Toyota had found no abnormality in the throttle actuator, or controller, which the petitioner blamed. In the defect investigation notice, NHSTA noted 3,546 cases where Toyota had replaced throttle actuators under warranty terms.

The automaker did find evidence that returned actuators had corroded due to water intrusion caused by circumstances “such as driving through a flooded road, in the heavy rain or a hurricane” and a drain hose was modified to prevent future water intrusion, Tinto wrote in a Dec. 20, 2006, letter to the agency.

NHTSA decided not to pursue the investigation, telling the owner “after reviewing the concerns raised by the petitioner and other information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency’s investigative issues raised by the petition in not warranted.”

Tacoma Pickups

In the fourth case, in 2008, Tinto told NHTSA the automaker couldn’t find enough evidence to support allegations of unintended acceleration in 2006-2007 Toyota Tacoma pickup trucks.

The owner reported two incidents of unintended acceleration in his 2006 Tacoma and pointed to 32 similar complaints in the NHTSA database.

Toyota itself received complaints of 478 incidents involving 431 Tacomas, for model years 2004 to 2008, that allegedly increased engine speed when the accelerator pedal wasn’t pushed, according to an April 25, 2008, memo by Tinto. Of those incidents, 49 resulted in a crash and 9 had injuries, he said.

After a review, Tinto said he disagreed that the complaints to NHSTA “in and of themselves justify opening an investigation” and said media attention to driver complaints contributed to the allegations.

“In Toyota’s view, neither the consumer complaints nor the field study indicate the existence of any defect in the subject vehicles, much less a safety-related defect,” he wrote.

Request Denied

NHTSA closed the investigation on Aug. 27, 2008, after an eight-month review, saying that “we have been unable to determine a cause related to throttle control or any underlying cause that gave rise to the complaint.”

Tinto also may have helped thwart an attempt by the owner of a 2007 Lexus ES350 to reopen a NHTSA investigation that resulted in a 55,000-unit recall for floor mat problems.

The owner, Jeffrey Pepski of Plymouth, Minnesota, said he experienced an unintended acceleration incident in February 2009 and wanted the agency to probe other possible causes, such as the electronic throttle.

Tinto’s response to NHTSA last May said the incident was Pepski’s fault because his floor mat wasn’t secured and that there was no need for a new investigation because the “limited number of such incidents does not suggest the existence of a safety-related defect in these vehicles.”

Seeking Toyoda

U.S. Transportation Department, NHTSA and Toyota officials have been asked to appear on Feb. 24 before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Feb. 25 before the House Energy and Commerce Committee to talk about the recalls. The Senate Commerce Committee plans a hearing March 2.

“At the heart of the matter is determining whether Toyota acted as quickly as possible to notify regulators there was a problem and whether or not government acted as quickly and diligently as possible to investigate and act,” Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a statement this week.

Issa called on Toyota President Akio Toyoda to appear before the Senate panel. “I would fully support the issuance of a subpoena” if Toyoda doesn’t cooperate, Issa said in a statement yesterday.

For Related News and Information: Legal news about Toyota: 7203 JT TCNI LAW Automaker earnings stories: TNI ERN AUT Toyota financial analysis: 7203 JT FA AUTO U.S. auto-industry fundamentals: IFS3