Sabtu, 26 Desember 2009

plus 4, Fulton County pays dearly for jobs effort - Toledo Blade

plus 4, Fulton County pays dearly for jobs effort - Toledo Blade

Fulton County pays dearly for jobs effort - Toledo Blade

Posted: 26 Dec 2009 02:08 PM PST

LYONS, Ohio - The vision in Fulton County was to turn water into jobs and tax receipts.

The way to do that was a 12-inch pipeline to run nearly three miles from the village of Lyons to the Teleflex automotive component plant, a white-metal-sided building encircled by corn and soybean fields along State Rt. 120 in Royalton Township.

Teleflex, which at the time in the late 1990s already had about 100 employees, said it needed the waterline for its planned $5.9 million expansion project that would create an additional 40 jobs. And the company warned that if it didn't get the line, it would close the plant.

Fulton County commissioners agreed to construct the waterline, an undertaking of about $730,000 to be financed in part by grant funds and by borrowing from the state. They also gave the business a 10-year tax abatement.

All the pieces were in place - for awhile: The water started flowing, the plant was expand-ed, and by 2003, the jobs were created.

But in the end, the Teleflex deal wound up shorter-lived and costlier for Fulton County than first imagined. The county was left with a vacant building and few prospective tenants, a pricey yet underutilized waterline, and the embarrassment of having lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for low and moderate-income households because of a little-known penalty levied by the state for mishandling paperwork.

"It was unfortunate," said Fulton County Commissioner Paul Barnaby. "But you can't pin down a business and say, 'You have to stay here for ever and ever.'"

The fatal dose of bad news hit in the summer of 2007, when Teleflex's new owner, DriveSol Worldwide Inc., a unit of a Florida-based private-equity firm specializing in deeply distressed companies, reported plans to shutter the plant and lay off all 169 workers.

DriveSol underwent voluntary liquidation last year, citing "market conditions," and currently owes the county nearly $125,000 in back taxes, including arrearage from a penalty provision in the tax-abatement agreement.

The closure also scuttled the county's plan to recoup its share of construction costs for the waterline from future Teleflex and DriveSol tax revenues. So the county plans to dip into its general fund next month to make the second of two unrecouped loan repayments to the state, soon to total nearly $47,000, according to Fulton County Administrator Vond Hall.

A costly situation

Even before DriveSol closed its doors, an earlier and arguably messier setback for Fulton County occurred in 2004 after an Ohio Department of Development worker noticed a misstep in the county's paperwork for the waterline grant.

The cost of that mistake, initially levied at $384,443 in cash but later amended to $457,000 in grant money sanctions, rose by an additional $200,000 as a five-county regional planning organization - the Maumee Valley Planning Organization - took some responsibility for the error and started paying the county reparations from its own accounts with fees received from Williams, Defiance, Henry, Paulding, and Fulton counties.

Ultimately, the waterline cost Fulton and surrounding counties $657,000 more than it should have.

"We felt the state lost the paperwork and we were taking the blame," said Thomas Kime, a member of the planning organization's board and a Defiance County commissioner.

However, the Department of Development insists it didn't receive the paperwork until it was too late. The state faulted Maumee Valley Planning Organization and penalized Fulton County, which hired the planning organization to administer the grant.

"Ultimately the county is responsible because they're the grantee," said William Graves, director of the state agency's community development division. "We ended up getting more than the actual grant amount [in penalties], but we did want to send a message that we really need to follow these requirements."

Finally, and with little fanfare, the planning organization in August made its last scheduled payment to Fulton County for the error - 1 1/2 years after the auto parts plant shut down.

All the while, the general public remained largely unaware that the state had penalized Fulton County and that the five-county organization was transferring money as restitution.

The planning agency

The Maumee Valley Planning Organization is a regional agency headquartered in Defiance that operates in the background of its local government clients. It represents government in five counties - Fulton, Williams, Henry, Defiance, and Paulding - with goals of fostering development, coordinating planning, and solving common problems.

It currently has a $775,000 yearly budget, the majority of its revenues deriving from service fees for administering counties' and cities' grant programs and revolving loan funds. The organization is governed by a 62-member policy board and 15-member executive council that meets quarterly. Board members are mostly elected officials from villages, townships, cities, and counties.

Dennis Miller has been the organization's executive director for close to 25 years and has worked for the agency since the late 1970s. He serves at the pleasure of the board, and board members largely look to him for guidance.

"I'm not that familiar with the day-to-day operations," said Harry Wiebe, chairman of the executive council and the village administrator of Paulding. "We depend on the director to … kind of shepherd us through."

Paperwork woes

The paperwork glitch in the Teleflex project concerned a document called "Request for Release of Funds." The Community Development Block Grant, a federal program, required that the state receive and process the funds-release request from the county before construction began.

In an interview, Mr. Miller claimed that his staff sent in the paperwork before the construction work started in late April, 2000. But the state says it didn't receive the necessary paperwork for another month and didn't issue the go-ahead until June.

Mr. Miller insists to this day that his staff sent in the paperwork on time. But he concedes that they didn't confirm whether the document arrived in Columbus. To prevent such mishaps from occurring again, the office now uses certified mail, he said.

"The particular staff people I had at the time didn't check to see that that final release came back, and that's our fault for not making sure that we received that piece of paper before we proceeded," Mr. Miller said. "We manage millions of dollars worth of grants and that's the only time we've ever had a problem."

Paying up

State development officials didn't notice the error until closing out the grant in 2004. The state at first penalized Fulton County by ordering it to pay back the approximately $385,000 waterline grant. But after hearing the pleadings of Mr. Hall, the county's administrator, state officials agreed to a compromise in which the county would instead forgo future grant funding.

The penalties:

•A cut of $272,000 in Community Development Block Grant program dollars for 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. The grant money is commonly used for county projects such as sewer upgrades, town hall renovations, sidewalk repair, and road resurfacing.

•Giving $50,000 of county income from its block grant revolving loan fund to a future state economic development project. The revolving loan fund is to assist county businesses.

•A $125,000 reduction in housing rehabilitation program funds (CHIP) aimed at low and moderate-income households. The county shifted unused dollars from a similar housing program to make up the shortfall, officials said.

•A requirement that the Maumee Valley Planning Organization remit $10,000 to the state as an administrative fee.

After the penalties came down, Mr. Miller offered to Mr. Hall that the planning agency give the county $200,000 to help make up for the penalties. The county and planning organization signed a "memorandum of understanding" in September, 2005, agreeing to the reparations.

"Our agency felt that we should stand behind Fulton County and help them resolve the problem," Mr. Miller said. Fulton County "did nothing wrong, and my board didn't want to see them punished."

Mr. Barnaby, a Fulton county commissioner and planning agency board member, said he knew of no hard feelings toward the planning organization's management over the mistake.

"They took responsibility. What more could you ask from a group?" he said.

The agency's reparations trickled in in payments of mostly $8,333 over more than four years. The money came from the agency's cash reserves, which are regularly used to front money for projects while awaiting state reimbursement.

Mr. Miller said the reparation payments "strained our budget a little bit," but allowed Fulton County's government to still fund some projects.

Indeed, the county reported contributing $100,000 in 2005 toward both a sewer and street project in Lyons and a sanitary sewer project in the Elmira-Burlington area. In 2006, the final year of the state penalty, records show the county gave $100,000 toward both the Lyons project and a community center in Chesterfield Township.

"Our full intent was to make sure that the communities of Fulton County did not suffer," Mr. Miller said.

Mr. Hall said that despite the sanctions, the county "did not miss a beat" in helping fund projects. County government dipped into its general fund for the work and was later repaid by the planning agency, he said.

However, Fulton County still lost out on more than $250,000 of additional grant money because of the sanctions. It's unclear what specific projects, if any, suffered.

The planning organization made its final payment to the county this past August.

The company

The paperwork drama percolating at the planning agency and Fulton County's offices had little bearing on Teleflex, with its waterline, work force, and tax agreements well in place.

Workers there made electronic throttle controls, including accelerator pedals for trucks and sport utility vehicles. The big customers were Ford, Chrysler, and GM.

In 2005, private-equity firm Sun Capital Partners of Boca Raton, Fla., purchased the automotive pedal division of Teleflex Inc., which operated the Fulton County plant. Sun Capital says it specializes in acquiring underperforming small and midsized companies, turning them around, and then selling them for a profit.

Other companies in the firm's portfolio include restaurant chain Boston Market Corp., Bruegger's Enterprises, known for its bagels, and electrical and mechanical contractor The Fairfield Co.

The former Teleflex also got a new name: DriveSol Worldwide Inc. There were some management changes at the Fulton County plant, although day-to-day work continued much as it did under Teleflex, recalled Crystal Miller, 49, who worked in accounting.

Still, the new owners did seem to penny-pinch and micromanage, often pushing for lower terms from the plant's vendors.

"We had to send checks to Florida for them to review and sign. They kept a very tight rein," she said.

Mrs. Miller, whose husband, Dan Miller, is mayor of Delta, said working conditions were good in the plant. There were a number of parent-child combos on the payroll, including Mrs. Miller and her son, Morgan Tedrick, who worked on the manufacturing line.

The human toll

Many in the plant were surprised by DriveSol's 2007 closing announcement. Some production work moved to a larger DriveSol plant in Kendallville, Ind. Other work went to Mexico, where Mrs. Miller's son traveled to train his replacement before he was let go in January, 2008.

Mrs. Miller left DriveSol at the time of the closing announcement and has since found a new job in accounting. Not everyone was as fortunate. Her son is among the former employees still looking for full-time work. Fulton County's unemployment rate was 13 percent in November, the most recent figure available.

"To the people who worked at the plant, [DriveSol's severance package] sounded like a lot of money," she said, "but what they don't realize is that when you stay till the very end to get the severance package, if there were any jobs, they're gone."

DriveSol Worldwide initiated an out-of-court liquidation in mid-2008. Its Fulton county property is listed by Binswanger commercial realty for $525,000.

Mr. Hall, the county administrator, said he still hopes to recoup some of the nearly $125,000 in unpaid taxes.

"It is my understanding the county is put first in line to what is likely a long line of people that is owed money from the company," he said in an e-mail.

The waterline

Still in the ground is the county's Teleflex waterline, once a talisman for hopes of economic growth. Yet payments on the waterline have outlived the purpose for which it was installed.

A cement business and 14 residential customers have since tapped into the line, which runs to Lyons but receives city of Wauseon water. One customer is Allison Eppink, whose family farm sits across the highway from the now-empty auto parts plant, and whose ex-husband lost his job when it shut down.

"It's city water - it's really good," she said.

Contact JC Reindl at:
jreindl@theblade.com
or 419-724-6065.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

High-tech vehicles pose trouble for some mechanics - MLive.com

Posted: 26 Dec 2009 01:33 PM PST

By The Associated Press

December 26, 2009, 4:12PM

garage.jpgThe Associated PressIndependent garages are struggling to handle more technically advanced cars.LOS ANGELES -- A sign inside the Humming Motors auto repair shop says, "We do the worrying so you don't have to."

These days, owner David Baur spends a lot of time worrying in his full-service garage near downtown Los Angeles.

As cars become vastly more complicated than models made just a few years ago, Baur is often turning down jobs and referring customers to auto dealer shops. Like many other independent mechanics, he does not have the thousands of dollars to purchase the online manuals and specialized tools needed to fix the computer-controlled machines.

Baur says the dilemma has left customers with fewer options for repair work and given automakers an unfair advantage.

"When I was younger, I kept going until I solved the problem," the weary mechanic said as he wiped grease from his hands while taking a break. "Lately I find myself backing out. I'm more reluctant to take complex jobs on."

Access to repair information is at the heart of a debate over a congressional bill called the Right to Repair Act. Supporters of the proposal say automakers are trying to monopolize the parts and repair industry by only sharing crucial tools and data with their dealership shops. The bill, which has been sent to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, would require automakers to provide all information to diagnose and service vehicles.

Automakers say they spend millions in research and development and aren't willing to give away their intellectual property. They say the auto parts and repair industry wants the bill passed so it can get patented information to make its own parts and sell them for less.

"Coke doesn't give away the recipe for Coke," said Charlie Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "What this bill seeks to get is the recipe for Coke."

Many new vehicles come equipped with multiple computers controlling everything from the brakes to steering wheel, and automakers hold the key to diagnosing a vehicle's problem. In many instances, replacing a part requires reprogramming the computers — a difficult task without the software codes or diagrams of the vehicle's electrical wires.

Mechanics say repair information gets constantly updated so they must know how to find answers amid the sometimes overwhelming amount of data. Keeping up with technology has become almost a part-time job and requires thousands of dollars to get the right tools and online manuals for each model.

"Doctors have it easy because the human body doesn't change model every year," said Paul Brow, owner of All-Car Specialists, a 30-year-old shop in suburban San Gabriel.

The technology wave has made even the simplest tasks difficult for some ill-equipped mechanics. Baur, for instance, said he couldn't turn off the "check tire pressure" light after fixing a 2008 Mercury Grand Marquis because he lacked the roughly $1,000 tool to reset the tire pressure monitor.

The customer said he has to visit the dealer shop to complete the job.

"The tires are fine, for some reason the light just stays on," Louis Ontiveros, 42, said. "I haven't had the time to deal with it."

Dealership shops may be reaping profits from the technological advancements. A study released in March by the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association found vehicle repairs cost an average of 34 percent more at new car dealerships than at independent repair shops, resulting in $11.7 billion in additional costs for consumers annually.

The association, whose members include Autozone, Jiffy Lube and other companies that provide replacement parts and accessories, contend automakers want the bill rejected so they can continue charging consumers more money.

"You pay all this money for your car, you should be able to decide where to get it repaired," said Aaron Lowe, the association's vice president of government affairs.

Opponents of the bill counter that the information and tools to repair the vehicles are available to those willing to buy them. They say any mechanic who can't get what they're looking for can file a complaint with the National Automotive Service Task Force. The nonprofit takes the complaints to carmakers and tries to resolve them through a voluntary arbitration process. Of the 44 complaints filed last year, all were resolved, according to the organization.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., has been stalled in the House committee since April but has attracted 51 co-sponsors. It's unclear when or if the committee will vote on the matter.

Not all independent mechanics want to see the proposal approved.

Donny Seyfer, owner of a repair shop in Wheat Ridge, Colo., said the bill gives the impression that mechanics are unable to fix cars unless Congress steps in.

"I am so upset they're out there telling my customers that I can't do my job," said Seyfer, who leads training classes for mechanics. He said the modern mechanic must take regular training classes and spend hours reading and networking with other mechanics to share the latest repair information.

Seyfer said mechanics can't afford to work on all types of cars because vehicles are increasingly built with unique specifications and require their own set of tools. Mechanics must specialize in a select number of models to stay competitive, he said.

Baur said specialization is a luxury he can't afford. He said he bought the garage 20 years ago from a former boss who serviced all kinds of cars.

"What are you going to do? Refuse service to the people who've been coming here all these years?" he said.

Carolyn Coquillette, owner of a 2-year-old shop in downtown San Francisco that specializes in hybrid vehicles, said she spends about $11,000 a year on diagnostic tools and subscriptions to online databases. She said she passes the cost down to the customer but can compete with dealer shops by offering better deals.

She said her shop offers another advantage: Her team of mechanics can modify technical features and convert the hybrids — which are powered by battery and gasoline — into plug-ins.

"Cars present a challenge to me," Coquillette said. "I can think it's a pain in my butt, or I can think this is why I'm paid to do this job."

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

Tripp's Auto Shop dedicated to pleasing its clientele - MLive.com

Posted: 26 Dec 2009 01:54 PM PST

Don't have an account?

Register now for free, or sign in using your AIM or Google account!

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

Prepare Your Car For Colder Weather - WGAL

Posted: 26 Dec 2009 10:48 AM PST

If you were to ask your car where it would want to live, and it just so happened to be a talking car, it would most likely say "Southern California. It's warm there, the roads are fairly decent, and I might get to see a movie star."

If you were to ask it where it wouldn't want to live, it would probaby reply "Detroit."

Or in a broader sense, it wouldn't want to live where it's cold, snowy and just generally yucky. But many of us do live in those conditions, or at least visit.

Winter is very unfriendly to a vehicle. Cold temperatures make it harder for the engine to work properly. Snow and ice limit traction. Potholes damage wheels and tires. Salt causes rust and gravel pits the paint.

But there are things you can do to help your vehicle in this time of duress. The following are easy steps to winterize your car. In fact, they are so easy, a talking car could figure them out! Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

  1. Consider using snow tires, where appropriate
  2. Check the tire pressure
  3. Make sure your vehicle's four-wheel drive system is working properly
  4. Change engine oil and adjust the viscosity grade.
  5. Inspect belts and hoses
  6. Inspect wipers and wiper fluid
  7. Check the battery
  8. Check antifreeze mixture
  9. Carry an emergency kit inside your car

Consider using snow tires

The condition of your car's tires is critical during the winter. If the tires are worn -- or if they are high-performance tires -- braking, acceleration and handling are all negatively affected while driving on slippery roads. Because of reduced vehicle capabilities, the likelihood of a crash increases.

If you have the cash, consider buying a set of winter tires. Winter tires are optimized for snow and ice. They aren't magic tires; even with winter tires, your car will still handle worse on slick roads than dry ones. But winter tires help improve traction on slick surfaces more than all-season tires.

Check the tire pressure

Tire pressure is especially important during the winter. Traction is often at a minimum due to wet or snowy conditions. It is critical to have properly inflated tires, as this guarantees the best possible contact between the tire and the road. A properly inflated tire will also help protect against wheel damage that might occur as the vehicle is driven over potholes. Read your owner's manual to find the correct tire pressures.

Because of winter's lower temperatures, the air pressure in a cold tire will drop. Why? Because air is a gas that contracts when it cools. Keep this in mind if you are checking tire pressures. Generally, for every 10 degree Fahrenheit change in ambient temperature, your tire's inflation pressure will change by about 1 pound per square inch (up with higher temperatures and down with lower temperatures).

Make sure your vehicle's four-wheel-drive system is working properly

A big selling point for sport utility vehicles is that they offer four-wheel drive, which improves traction in slippery conditions. But most people don't use their four-wheel drive systems during the summer. And while a four-wheel drive system requires minimal maintenance, it's still a good idea to check that it works properly before the onset of winter.

Make sure the system engages and disengages smoothly, and that there are no strange noises emanating from the drive train when the system is in use. Check to make sure that the transmission and gear oil levels are correct.

If there are multiple drivers for your SUV, make sure each of them knows how to operate the 4WD system. The owner's manual will state at what speeds and in which environments the 4WD can be activated.

Change the engine oil and adjust the viscosity grade

This isn't nearly as hard as it sounds. Viscosity simply refers to how thick or thin the oil is. Tar has a higher viscosity than orange juice, for example. Engine oils are sold with different levels of viscosity. When winter arrives, the outside temperature drops. And just like you, the oil inside your vehicle's engine isn't feeling too perky after sitting in the cold all night.

The colder an oil is, the thicker it will be. A thicker oil doesn't circulate as well in an engine during start-up as a thinner oil would. If the oil is too thick, the engine doesn't get the proper lubrication. Also, dirty oil doesn't circulate as well as clean oil.

To solve this wintertime problem, you can change your vehicle's engine oil to one that is thinner to begin with. Even when the thinner oil is cold, it is still not too thick for proper engine lubrication.

Keep in mind that an engine oil can be too thin.

Determining what type of oil your car should have during the winter is easy. Simply read your vehicle's owner's manual. The manual will list the manufacturer's oil recommendations for different climates. If you have a dealership or local garage perform the oil change, you can ask the manager what type and viscosity of oil they are putting into your vehicle. Pretty much all modern cars have recommended oil grades of 5W-30, 10W-30 or 10W-40. For more information on what these numbers mean, check out www.engineoilinfo.com.

Inspect the belts and hoses

The belts and hoses in modern cars lead long lives. But that doesn't mean that they don't die. Cold temperatures can accelerate the demise of a belt or hose. Before winter starts, have the belts and hoses inspected on your vehicle.

Inspect the wipers and wiper fluid

Visibility is particularly key in winter, as it is often compromised by precipitation, salt buildup on the windshield and reduced daylight. The life expectancy of a wiper blade is one year. If your car's blades are older, replace them.

Also check and fill your wiper-fluid reservoir. A harsh winter storm is the worst possible time to run out of wiper fluid or to discover your blades aren't performing properly.

Check the battery

A battery gives little notice before it kicks off. And it absolutely loves to croak when you can least afford it doing so. Very cold temperatures can reduce a vehicle's battery power by up to 50 percent. If your vehicle battery is older than three years, have it tested at a certified automotive repair facility. Also, make sure the posts and connections are free of corrosion.

Check antifreeze mixture

The ideal mixture of antifreeze (coolant) and water inside your vehicle's radiator is equal parts of each. If the mixture deviates from this norm, then hot- and cold-weather performance can be compromised.

If you were to put pure water in your vehicle's radiator, it would freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. But if you combine the water with an equal amount of antifreeze, the new mixture won't freeze until minus34 degrees Fahrenheit.

You can check the composition of a radiator's mixture by using an antifreeze tester. You can find these at all auto parts stores, and they are inexpensive and easy to use. If the mixture is off, adjust it by adding either coolant or water.

Carry an emergency kit inside the car.

Wintertime requires you to load more junk into the back of your vehicle. But better safe than sorry, right? Things you might want to consider carrying include:

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

Toyota responds to L.A. Times article - autoblog

Posted: 26 Dec 2009 09:36 AM PST

TOYOTA RESPONSE TO THE LA TIMES ARTICLE

Setting the Record Straight

Today the Los Angeles Times published an article that wrongly and unfairly attacks Toyota's integrity and reputation.

While outraged by the Times' attack, we were not totally surprised. The tone of the article was foreshadowed by the phrasing of a lengthy list of detailed questions that the Times emailed to us recently. The questions were couched in accusatory terms.

Despite the tone, we answered each of the many questions and sent them to the Times. Needless to say, we were disappointed by the article that appeared today, and in particular by the fact that so little of our response to the questions appeared in the article and much of what was used was distorted.

Toyota has a well-earned reputation for integrity and we will vigorously defend it.

For a more complete and accurate picture of the issues raised by the Times, [see below] to read the Times' questions and the full text of Toyota's answers.

Irv Miller
Group Vice President, Environmental & Public Affairs
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

LA Times Questions and Toyota Answers

Toyota has a long history of building safe, reliable and high quality vehicles, and we are committed to the highest levels of consumer safety and satisfaction with our products. Toyota vehicles are carefully and rigorously tested, and are all engineered to meet or exceed the high standards set by Federal regulators.

We cooperate fully with all investigating and regulatory agencies who request information and data about Toyota vehicles involved in accidents. Further, we always strive to provide complete and accurate information to our product safety regulators.

Communications with consumers about safety recalls are strictly regulated and Toyota adheres to these regulations. Toyota has absolutely not minimized public awareness of any defect or issue with respect to its vehicles. Any suggestion to
the contrary is wrong and borders on irresponsibility.

We are confident that the measures we are taking address the root cause and will reduce the risk of pedal entrapment.
Nonetheless, Toyota will remain vigilant in thoroughly investigating and taking appropriate measures to address any defect trends that are identified.

With respect to the questions you have raised, here are some key facts that should set the record straight.

QUESTIONS
[Question 1]: In 2003, Toyota engineers discovered a defect in Sienna minivans that could cause them to accelerate without driver input. The problem was corrected on the assembly line, but at least 26,000 vans had already been manufactured, according to NHTSA documents. If this is correct, why did Toyota not move to correct the problem in those vehicles immediately, and why did it wait until 2008 to inform NHTSA of the defect and until this year to recall those vehicles? Also, it appears that only around 1/6th of those 25,000 vehicles have been repaired in the recall. Why so few?

[Answer 1]: Toyota does not agree that its engineers discovered a defect in Sienna minivans that could cause them to accelerate without driver input. Here are the facts: in April 2003, during dynamometer testing inside the Toyota factory, a hard plastic trim panel attached to the center console trapped the accelerator pedal. The root cause was a missing attachment clip.

A safety recall was not deemed necessary because immediately following the incident, Toyota conducted an investigation, including checking more than 200 vehicles in the plant and the shipping yard. No vehicle was found with a missing clip. In addition, there were no warranty claims or reports of a missing clip at that time. Toyota determined that the missing clip was an isolated incident.

After evaluation and redesign, in June 2003, a hard plastic trim panel of a different shape was implemented as an additional safety measure. Based upon the trim panel's design, if the attachment clip were to be missing, the trim panel's
increased resistance would make pedal entrapment very unlikely. The only way the clip will ever be missing is if the clip is not properly replaced after performing a repair operation which involves removal of the trim panel.

In 2006, a sole customer complained about a pre-June 2003 trim panel interfering with the accelerator pedal. The report to Federal regulators of the complaint indicated that the owner had repairs done that involved removing the trim panel to access HVAC components.

In August, 2008, Federal regulators opened an investigation. On January 14, 2009, Toyota advised regulators that "Toyota has not determined that the condition is a 'safety related defect'. Toyota agreed, however, to voluntarily undertake a campaign to provide owners of the older vehicles with newly designed trim panels. In response to Toyota's voluntary campaign, regulators closed the investigation.

As for the number of vehicles repaired, Toyota's activities to encourage customers to bring their vehicles in are consistent with industry practice and Federal regulations. Typically, the rate of recall completion is affected by the age of the vehicle.

Q2: Toyota has conducted numerous recalls related to sudden acceleration over the past decade in the U.S. and Canada, including two previous floor mat recalls. But the problem has continued. Does this mean that the previous recalls were not successful in eliminating the problems and if so, why not? In particular, why wasn't the 2007 recall of Lexus ES and Camry floor mats effective in preventing catastrophic accidents such as the Saylor case?

[A2:] Toyota has conducted two all-weather floor mat (AWFM) recalls after receiving reports that if the floor mat (either by itself, or if it is placed on top of an existing carpeted floor mat) is not secured by the retaining hooks, the mat can move
forward and interfere with the accelerator pedal returning to the idle position. If the mat is properly secured, it will not interfere with the accelerator pedal.

As reported in the law enforcement investigation, the floor mat in the Saylor accident was not only improperly secured, it was incompatible and incorrect for the vehicle. The recall recently announced addresses the fact that incompatible floor mats, or multiple floor mats could be installed and that the remedy must address that possibility.

Q3: In October 2004, Toyota wrote NHTSA that that it would not conduct a recall of steering relay rods in 4Runners because, unlike in Japan, it had not received field information to indicate a problem in the U.S. market. But documents entered into court evidence indicate that Toyota had received dozens, if not more, complaints of relevant problems prior to that date, and other court documents show that Toyota had performed numerous warranty repairs on those components prior to that date. If these documents are correct, why did Toyota tell NHTSA that it had not received such information in the U.S.? And why didn't Toyota conduct a U.S. recall at that time?

[A3:] Toyota has always been fully cooperative with Federal regulator's investigations and inquiries and has always submitted all information requested consistent with the rules and regulations applicable to regulators.

Regarding unspecified "documents entered into court evidence", any party in a court litigation can submit documents to the court and assert that those documents support one proposition or another. In most cases, the ultimate decider of what those documents truly prove is the jury, which makes its decision after being instructed by the judge as to what evidence to properly consider and after hearing arguments about the evidence from both sides.

Toyota will not comment upon documents "entered into court evidence" or otherwise submitted in litigation outside of that fact-finding process.

Q4: Toyota has moved on numerous occasions to settle lawsuits alleging sudden acceleration or unintended acceleration. According to attorneys and other knowledgeable sources, dozens of these cases have been settled and plaintiffs have been held to strict confidentiality agreements. Is this true and can you tell us specifically how many settlements you have reached? If Toyota's position is that the problem is caused by floor mat and pedal interaction when the floor mat is improperly installed by the driver or another third party, why would the company have settled those cases?

[A4:] Like many parties in civil litigation, Toyota at times has resolved and will continue to resolve matters with litigants through confidential settlement when it is in both parties' interests to do so. Such settlements must be agreed to by both parties and cannot be imposed by Toyota alone. Apart from this general principle, Toyota does not comment on confidentially resolved matters.

Q5: A number of consumers have told us that Toyota bought back their vehicles under Lemon laws following complaints of unintended or sudden acceleration. Is this true and could you say how many vehicles you have bought back because customers complained about unintended acceleration? If Toyota's position is that the acceleration problem is caused by floor mat and pedal interaction when the floor mat is improperly installed by the driver or another third party, why
would it buy those vehicles back as lemons. As a corollary question: what has Toyota done with any vehicles it bought back as Lemons that allegedly suffered from unintended acceleration? Were they destroyed? Were they resold?

[A5:] Toyota has no policy to buy back vehicles under the Lemon Law or any other buyback program for customers complaining of unintended or sudden acceleration. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. is not aware of it buying back any
vehicles under The Lemon Law for such complaints. The customers to whom you refer may have interacted with Toyota dealers who on their own have always been able to deal with dissatisfied customers to preserve goodwill.

Q6: Toyota maintains that it cannot share information on its Event Data Recorders with vehicle owners because there is only one diagnostic tool capable of reading the information. Is that still accurate, that there is only one such tool in the entire country?

[A6:] Toyota does not yet have a commercially available Event Data Recorders (EDR) readout tool and its tool is currently a prototype. There is only one prototype readout tool in the U.S. Toyota performs EDR readouts for law enforcement under certain circumstances. We are also occasionally ordered by various courts to perform EDR readouts. A readout for law enforcement is a community service that Toyota performs. Toyota does not have the capacity to perform readouts using its one prototype tool in all cases.

Federal regulators have required that by September 1, 2012, Toyota and all other manufacturers which have EDRs in their vehicles will be required to make a data retrieval tool commercially available. Toyota will, of course, comply with this
requirement.

The vehicle in the Padilla case that you referenced did not have an EDR. It had a G-Force Data Recorder (GDR), which is a primitive deceleration-force measuring device that only assists with airbag deployment. The GDR was never designed nor intended to be used for accident reconstruction purposes.

Q7: Under California state law and laws in a number of other states, EDR data belongs to the vehicle owner, yet Toyota has repeatedly told customers that the data is proprietary. Who does the data belong to? Did the 2005 federal court ruling in Padilla vs. Toyota change the way that Toyota shares EDR data?

[A7:] As to EDR data ownership, such ownership varies state by state. As explained previously, the prototype software used by Toyota to perform EDR readouts is proprietary, as is the case with all auto manufacturers. Toyota does not contend
that the EDR readout data is proprietary. When a data retrieval tool is commercially available, any data retrieved will then as now be subject to applicable state law.

Q8: In the course of NHTSA's drafting the rule on EDRs, Toyota raised numerous objections to both the proposed rule and the original version of the final rule, including limiting the number and time range of data points captured. Why would Toyota oppose such requirements?

[A8:] The assertion that Toyota opposed the EDR rule is flatly wrong. As a careful and fair review of the rule-making record will reflect, Toyota in fact supported the establishment of the EDR rule and urged that the EDR rule be simplified to prevent other electronic components unrelated to the EDR to be unintentionally affected by the rule.

While Toyota and other members of the auto industry raised concerns with some details of the proposed EDR rule, many of those concerns were resolved in the final rule with which Toyota is fully preparing to comply. Indeed, Toyota proposed and Federal regulators generally accepted the notion that EDR retrieval tools should be made available through mandatory license to licensees outside of the manufacturer's control. Toyota's purpose in its proposal was to make EDR retrieval more widely available while protecting proprietary information.

Q9: According to your web site, Toyota's EDRs are capable of recording data including brake pedal application and degree of application of accelerator pedal, among other things. That data would appear to be useful in determining possible causes in the Saylor case, as well as in other similar cases. But according to the Sheriff's report, that data has not been accessed in that case. Does Toyota intend to access that data to help it make a determination, and does it plan to release that data?

[A9:] The EDR is capable of recording only the previous several seconds of activity before and/or a fraction of a second after a crash or near-crash situation. At the Sheriff's request and with the agreement of all interested parties, Toyota agreed
to perform a readout of the EDR in the Saylor vehicle. In the presence of representatives of all interested parties and the Sheriff's department, Toyota attempted to perform the readout as agreed. However, due to the extensive damage to the EDR unit from the crash, it was impossible to perform a readout. We suggest you confirm this fact with the San Diego Sheriff's Department which retains custody of the EDR to this day.

Q10: Has Toyota used EDR data to aid investigation of any other alleged unintended or sudden acceleration cases? If so, what did the data show? Has Toyota shared EDR data with NHTSA for its investigations? If so, in what cases? Has Toyota extracted any data from EDRs that shed any light on SA or UA cases?

[A10:] Given the fact that the readout tool is a prototype and has not been validated, it is Toyota's policy not to use EDR data in its investigations. However, Toyota has used the readout tool under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is
the Saylor matter described in the answer above. In another circumstance, a court ordered Toyota to use the readout tool in a litigation. The readout data was consistent in that case with Toyota's position that the unintended acceleration was caused by the driver's foot on the accelerator pedal.

Finally, Federal regulators at times requested EDR readouts and Toyota has in each instance complied with these requests in order to assist the agency. Toyota will continue to comply with requests from regulators to perform readouts.

Q11: Has Toyota, through its handling of recalls, defect investigations, settlements, lemon buybacks and litigation minimized public awareness of the potential risk for sudden acceleration events in its vehicles? If not, how do you explain the impact of those actions?

A11: [answered in the preamble to the Q&A]

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.



image

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Diposting oleh di

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)