Rockefeller, McCaskill, Thune, Heller Seek Information Regarding Delphi’s Role in GM Recalls
Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Contact:
Rockefeller, McCaskill, Thune, Heller Seek Information Regarding Delphi's Role in GM Recalls
(
The Senators, Chairman
Full text of letter:
Mr.
Chief Executive Officer and President
Dear
As you are aware,
On
We ask that you provide us with the documents and answers requested below no later than
It is our understanding that a fix was proposed by Delphi regarding the ignition switch in 2005 but GM did not adopt the change.[3] We request that you provide the Committee all documents regarding Delphi's 2005 proposal to fix the ignition switch, including communications with GM.
In addition, we request responses to the following questions:
1. Did Delphi originate the discussion to fix the part or did GM?
2. 2. What were the reasons given to Delphi by GM in rejecting the design change in 2005?
3. 3. Did Delphi protest this decision at any point or raise any concern that a failure to enact this change could be fatal for consumers who drive vehicles containing the faulty ignition switch?
4. 4. Did Delphi at any point have communication with NHTSA regarding the ignition switch in the recalled models" If so, please provide copies of all correspondence with the agency on the matter.
In 2006, GM approved a design change for the ignition switch produced by Delphi, but a new part number was not used to appropriately distinguish between the new and old parts.[4] Please provide the Committee all documents regarding the decision concerning whether to use a new part number for the ignition switch produced by Delphi that resulted from the design change approved in 2006 by GM.
In addition, we request responses to the following questions:
1. 1. Why was the part number not changed?
a. Did Delphi determine that the part was not significantly altered and therefore did not necessitate a part change?
b. Did GM ask that the part number remain the same?
2. 2. Please provide any Delphi policy that governed determinations - and any updated or current policies - regarding whether a change in design warrants a change in part number and include answers to the following:
a. What is the threshold used by Delphi to determine whether a change to a part is significant enough to warrant a change to the part number?
b. Is it standard practice by Delphi to change a part and not change the part number" Are there exceptions?
c. Would Delphi keep the part number the same if asked to do so by the vendor they are supplying" Is that standard practice?
d. Please provide examples of circumstances when Delphi has made changes to a part in the past and not issued a new number for the part.
As we continue evaluating the GM recall it is critically important that we understand the decisions made by Delphi and the company's interaction with GM. In your response to these questions, please provide all corresponding documentation that will assist us in determining what Delphi knew and the actions taken to replace the faulty ignition switches it provided to GM. Furthermore, attached with this letter are instructions on submitting documents to the Committee.
Rather than relying only on GM's version of events, we believe that consumers throughout
Sincerely,
Chairman
Chairman
Subcommittee on Consumer
Protection, Product Safety, and
Insurance
John Thune Ranking Member
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Consumer
Protection, Product Safety, and
Insurance
[1]
[2] Letter from
[3] Id., Attachment B at 1.
[4]
Copyright: | (c) 2010 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Wordcount: | 1029 |
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News