# 8 – 2009 TOYOTA CAMRY, SPEED CONTROL
The 2009 Toyota Camry is part of the 2007-2011 model range.
NHTSA investigations and recalls related to “Speed Control”
Recall 09V388, Filed October 5, 2009, Certain Toyota and Lexus Vehicles Potential Floor Mat Interference with Accelerator Pedal, 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.
Recall 10v017, filed January 21, 2010, accelerator pedal assembly issue on certain vehicles, Toyota is recalling certain model year 2005-2010 Avalon, model year 2007-2010 Camry, model year 2009-2010 Corolla, Corolla Matrix, Rav4, model year 2010 Highlander, model year 2008-2010 Sequoia, and model year 2007-2010 Tundra vehicles. Due to the manner in which the friction lever interacts with the sliding surface of the accelerator pedal inside the pedal sensor assembly, the sliding surface of the lever may become smooth during vehicle operation. In this condition, if condensation occurs on the surface, as may occur from heater operation (without a/c) when the pedal assembly is cold, the friction when the accelerator pedal is operated may increase, which may result in the accelerator pedal becoming harder to depress, slower to return, or, in the worst case, mechanically stuck in a partially depressed position.
TQ10-001 Unintended and Uncontrollable Acceleration Due to Interference Between the Accelerator Pedal and the Driver’s Side Floor Mat
Opened February 4, 2010 Closed January 21, 2011
Upon further review of the defect information reports and the recalls, NHTSA requires additional information from Toyota to more fully understand and evaluate, among other things, when Toyota first learned of the possibility of an issue of floor mat interference with the accelerator pedals installed on its vehicles, the chronology of events leading up to Toyota’s defect decisions, Toyota’s responses to problems with floor mats and accelerator pedals and the timing of those responses, and the timeliness of Toyota’s submissions of its Part 573 reports. Accordingly, we have opened a Timeliness Query (TQ) to investigate these matters.
After review of Toyota’s submissions relating to the timeliness of the pedal entrapment safety recalls, NHTSA concluded it had a potential civil penalty claim against Toyota for violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act) and its implementing regulations. Toyota denied its actions violated the Safety Act. However, in order to settle this matter, Toyota agreed to pay the statutory maximum civil penalty of $16,375,000.00.
TQ10-002 Sticking Accelerator Pedals Opened February 15, 2010 Closed August 23, 2010
On January 21, 2010, Toyota filed a Defect Information Report and notified NHTSA that certain Toyota and Pontiac Vibe vehicles contained a safety defect in the accelerator pedal assembly that may cause the accelerator pedal to become harder to depress, slower to return, or in the worst case, mechanically stuck in a partially depressed position. NHTSA designated the recall concerning the Toyota vehicles 10V017, and the recall of the Pontiac Vibe vehicles, which NHTSA understands to be a product of New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. Which had been a venture between Toyota and General Motors Corporation, 10V-018.
NHTSA reviewed Toyota’s submissions and, on April 5, 2010, sent a letter notifying Toyota’s counsel that the agency had tentatively concluded that Toyota was liable for civil penalties for violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act) and its implementing regulations. A copy of that letter is in this investigation repository. NHTSA notified Toyota of this conclusion in its letter and demanded the statutory maximum civil penalty amount of $16,375,000. Toyota denied its actions were untimely and that it had violated the Safety Act or its implementing regulations, but agreed to pay the penalty in interests of avoiding a protracted dispute with the agency and possible litigation.