| 
			 Parts supplier Delphi Automotive also repeatedly tested switches 
			and found they did not meet GM specifications, according to emails 
			and other memos. 
 			The internal documents from GM, Delphi and a U.S. safety agency 
			chart numerous examples of switch failure, of the sort that led GM 
			earlier this year to recall 2.6 million cars to replace defective 
			switches now linked to at least 13 deaths.
 			The documents, the first tranche of some 250,000 pages, were 
			released by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which last 
			week grilled GM Chief Executive Mary Barra on the automaker's slow 
			response to problems that GM first documented in 2001.
 			Committee Chairman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said the 
			documents illustrate "failures within the system." Other lawmakers 
			have questioned whether GM's action are criminal.
 			Meanwhile, a top official with the National Highway Traffic Safety 
			Administration told General Motors in a July 2013 email that the 
			automaker was "slow to communicate, slow to act" on defects and 
			recalls. 			
			
			 
 			Still to be answered is whether top GM executives were aware of the 
			issues early on, as engineers struggled to pinpoint causes and 
			solutions for ignition switches that could be turned off 
			inadvertently with the vehicle in motion, causing the engine to 
			stall and cutting power to steering, brakes and airbags.
 			GM says it is cooperating with Congress and conducting its own 
			"unsparing" investigation of the circumstances that led to the 
			recall.
 			The documents show the automaker repeatedly elected not to fix or 
			replace the faulty switches, because there was no acceptable 
			"business case", an indication the solution was deemed too 
			expensive.
 			Federal regulators as early as 2007 were concerned that GM was 
			dragging its heels on safety measures as consumer complaints 
			mounted, but top officials at NHTSA never followed through on 
			staffers' recommendations to open a broad investigation, according 
			to the documents.
 			EARLY EVIDENCE OF PROBLEM
 			It was determined eventually by GM that the switches didn't have 
			enough torque, the rotational force required to keep them from 
			moving from the "run" position to "accessory" which shut down the 
			engine.
 			A root cause of the problem was a tiny set of parts, called a detent 
			plunger and spring, that helped keep the ignition key in position 
			while the car was running.
 			A GM engineer at the automaker's mid-Michigan test track encountered 
			an early problem with the switch while driving a prototype of the 
			2003 Saturn Ion in July 2001.
 			An internal GM memo on the incident noted that a "tear down 
			evaluation on the switch revealed two cause of failure. Low contact 
			force and low detent plunger force." The memo said both issues were 
			resolved with newer parts, and the case was closed that November, 
			less than a year before the all-new Ion went into production. One of 
			the engineers who signed off on the fix was Ray DeGiorgio, the 
			designer of the switch.
 			DeGiorgio was one of two GM engineers placed on paid leave earlier 
			this week as GM continues an internal investigation of the recall. 
			GM did not explain the move and DeGiorgio could not be reached for 
			comment. 			
			
			 
 			Supplier Delphi submitted a batch of Ion switches in December 2001, 
			but informed GM that its tests showed many of the switches did not 
			meet GM's torque specifications, according to GM validation 
			documents. Nevertheless, GM approved the parts for production in May 
			2002, another document shows. The first Ion rolled off the line in 
			August that year.
 			GM was already beginning to monitor customer complaints about 
			engines stalling in the Ion in 2003, but noted "technicians are 
			rarely able to duplicate the concern."
 			FAULTY COBALT SWITCHES
 			In the meantime, the automaker had begun to develop a sibling to the 
			Ion, the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. While testing some of the first cars 
			off the assembly line in October 2004, engineer Gary Altman noted 
			that "the driver's knee bumped the key in such a manner as to turn 
			off the ignition."
 			Altman, the program engineering manager for the Cobalt and Ion, was 
			the second GM engineer put on paid leave this week for undisclosed 
			reasons. He could not be reached for comment.
 			Engineers considered possible remedies, but it was decided that "the 
			tooling cost and piece price are too high" and the lead time 
			required to make the change too long. The case was closed in March 
			2005, with engineer Blendi Sullaj noting, "None of the solutions 
			represents an acceptable business case."
 			
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			 
			Problems persisted with engines stalling in the Cobalt, which GM 
			engineers by then had traced to the faulty switches. 
			In another document, Delphi engineers on June 14, 2005, discussed a 
			request from GM that they perform an analysis on the switch. 
			"Cobalt is blowing up in their face in regards to turning off with 
			the drivers knee," wrote Delphi engineer John Coniff.
 			A second GM investigation in June 2005 for stalling engines in the 
			Cobalt resulted in a recommendation to provide an ignition key 
			insert to customers, but no change in the faulty switch because the 
			"business case (was) not supported" to redesign the part. Another 
			group of GM engineers in September 2005, in an email chain, 
			discussed postponement until fall 2008 of a proposal to implement a 
			new switch on the Cobalt, Ion and companion vehicles, because the 
			change would add $400,000 in retooling cost, plus an additional 90 
			cents per vehicle.
 			Lori Queen, the top executive overseeing GM's small car team, 
			challenged the delay, saying, "I'm not sure it's ok to wait." She 
			could not be reached for comment.
 			REDESIGNED SWITCH
 			DeGiorgio began working with Delphi engineers to implement a more 
			modest change to the existing switch, according to several GM and 
			Delphi documents.
 			DeGiorgio signed off on a redesigned switch without a new part 
			number, according to a Delphi internal memo dated May 27, 2006. 
			Since the redesigned switch, which was installed that fall in 2007 
			Cobalts and Ions, carried over the old part number, it was harder 
			for GM investigators in later years to trace and pinpoint problems 
			in the cars. 			
			 
 			DeGiorgio, in a 2013 deposition in a Georgia lawsuit against GM, 
			denied any knowledge of or involvement in the 2006 design change on 
			the switch.
 			MORE DOCUMENTS
 			With "much left to examine," according to Upton, the House panel, as 
			well as a Senate panel conducting its own investigation, is expected 
			to take weeks examining the load of materials collected from GM, 
			Delphi and NHTSA.
 			Both panels held hearings last week. Additional hearings are 
			expected later this spring or into summer, when Barra and other GM 
			executives are expected to testify.
 			According to one document obtained by the committee, Barra, who 
			assumed the top position in January, received an email in 2011 
			pointing to steering problems in GM models that later were recalled.
 			That email cited a New York Times story dated October 3, 2011, which 
			reported on NHTSA deliberations concerning Saturn Ions and Chevrolet 
			Cobalts that were experiencing steering problems related to a loss 
			of power.
 			The email to Barra, however, does not mention ignition switch 
			problems, something the new CEO said she became aware of just last 
			December. GM said the two issues were "completely separate".
 			Congress is trying to determine whether GM officials failed to react 
			in a timely way to the critical safety defect and whether NHTSA 
			regulators also may have failed to carry out their duties.
 			Frank Borris, head of NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation, said 
			in a July 2013 email to GM executive Carmen Benavides that the 
			company was more difficult to work with than other automakers and he 
			cited six instances in which the agency disagreed with GM on safety 
			issues. This was the same email that accused GM of being "slow to 
			communicate" and "slow to act" on details and recalls. 			Some members of Congress already are discussing the possibility of 
			passing legislation to increase civil and criminal penalties for 
			automakers' failure to react quickly to safety concerns and to 
			tighten reporting requirements in crashes involving fatalities.
 			(Additional reporting by Julia Edwards and Marilyn Thompson in 
			Washington, Bernie Woodall in Detroit, Jessica Dye in New York, and 
			Peter Henderson in San Francisco; editing by Karey Van Hall and 
			Matthew Lewis) 
			[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
			
 |