GM CEO Dan Akerson told the Associated Press that GM will repurchase a Volt at owner request, but did not announce an official buyback program, according to the Detroit Free Press. GM also offered loaner cars to Volt owners worried about their cars’ safety. The Chevy Volt is a lithium-ion-powered hybrid car powered with an onboard electric motor that powers the car when the battery charge runs low, explained NewsInferno.

About 6,400 people own Volts and 33 requested a loaner, which is, said GM spokesman, Greg Martin, “A microfraction” of the owner group. Of an official buyback program, Martin said, “We are considering it,” reported the Free Press.

NewsInferno wrote that two instances of Chevy Volt battery fires took place after the cars sat idle for at least one week. Both cars had previously been tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which prompted its official Volt investigation. To date, fires have not been reported by Volt owners.
The crash tests punctured the Volts’ batteries; leaking battery coolant is believed to be the culprit in the fires that took place in both undrained batteries, said the Free Press.

Lithium ion batteries are used in all-electric cars, including the Nissan Leaf and Tesla Roadster, said NewsInferno. Nissan Leaf pure-electric cars have not suffered battery fires, to date, following crash tests; however, the Free Press noted that the Leaf’s battery is air-cooled and constructed with a steel cover, unlike the Volt’s battery. The Volt runs on its battery for about 35 miles before switching to its gasoline generator, whereas the Leaf runs fully on batteries, with a 70-mile range between charges, explained the Free Press.

GM said the only way it would issue a recall of the Chevy Volt is if the NHTSA deems a recall necessary, but said it would send a technician to drain the battery of any Chevy Volt involved in a crash, said the Free Press. GM also said it is looking into altering the Volt’s battery design, but does not plan on switching from its liquid-cooled battery, which, allows the car to perform better in colder temperatures.
The repurchase announcement was made the same day that Consumer Reports released a survey that named Volt owners the most satisfied of all car owners, said the Free Press. But, that survey was conducted prior to the government initiating its investigation the prior week.

Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which commissioned the Volt test, is asking auto makers which make or intend on making lithium-ion battery-operated vehicles about their vehicles’ batteries’ risks, including “special handling and discharging recommendations,” said the Times, “including any recommendations for mitigating fire risks in these vehicles,” according to the just-released NHTSA statement. LG Chem. Ltd., which is the largest chemical maker in South Korea, is the Volt battery supplier, said Businessweek.

The NHTSA said it wanted to stress that it was not implying that electric vehicles are “at a greater risk of fire than other vehicles” but did point out that electric or part-electric vehicles, depending on design and electrical make-up, “require different safety standards and precautions,” according to The Times. General Motors spokesman, Greg Martin told The Times, “This is an industry issue … the Volt is safe.” Jim Federico, GM’s chief engineer told Businessweek in an mail that, “I want to make this very clear: the Volt is a safe car…. We are working cooperatively with NHTSA as it completes its investigation. However, NHTSA has stated that based on available data, there’s no greater risk of fire with a Volt than a traditional gas-powered car.”

The Volt fire in question occurred while the car was in storage; the NHTSA, “concluded that the crash test damaged the Volt’s lithium-ion battery and that the damage led to a vehicle fire that took several weeks to develop,” The Times reported.

The auto industry is looking into how to safely handle lithium batteries after a crash, said Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki, director of the Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory at M.I.T., wrote the Times. Professor Wierzbicki pulled together a panel to study lithium battery safety and, according to the professor, vehicle lithium-ion battery packs are susceptible to damage from direct impacts and violent and sudden stops with damage that might not be externally detectable, said The Times.

Both the NHTSA and the Energy Department will be testing some Volt battery modules to see if the fire can be replicated, said the NHTSA, wrote Businessweek. Lithium batteries are used in electric vehicles because they are believed to be able to withstand a serious accident, according to Sandy Munro, president of the engineering consulting firm, Munro and Associates, wrote Businessweek. But, the battery case or internal cells can catch fire and fire can occur if steel or iron pierce the area in which electricity is stored. “Lithium burns really hot,” Munro said in a telephone interview with Businessweek. When pierced with metal, a chemical reaction can increase the temperature and cause a fire, but if the reaction smaller, the fire can take time to occur, according to Munro, said Businessweek.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in a 2010 airline advisory warned about lithium batteries in all sorts of devices saying that lithium batteries are “highly flammable and capable of ignition,” and that fire-suppression systems are not effective for these types of fires, said Businessweek. The advisory was issued after a United Parcel Service Inc. cargo plane transporting thousands of lithium batteries crashed in Dubai after catching fire; both pilots were killed.

The lawsuit alleges that, in 2008, Cedric Chan of California leased his pre-owned 2007 E63 AMG from a California dealer. Soon after, he complained of “loud, ticking noises from under the hood” and said the car suffered from an oil pressure drop, said Law360. When he brought his E63 in for repairs last year, mechanics found that the left-side camshafts and lifters were prematurely worn and needed replacement, according to Law360. Chan said he paid $4,600 on engine repairs to the left side of his car and, when the right-side engine had problems indicative of premature camshaft and lifter wear in June 2010, he traded the car for a $25,000 loss, said the lawsuit.

“As an owner or lessee of numerous Mercedes vehicles in the past, plaintiff expected to receive a product that conformed to the quality that Mercedes advertises for its AMG products,” the suit states, wrote Law360. “Alas, plaintiff did not even receive a vehicle that conformed to the lesser (but, still high) quality of Mercedes non-AMG vehicle line,” the complaint added. The vehicles sell from $60,000 to as high as $200,000.

The lawsuit alleges that the car maker violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New Jersey state consumer protection laws; that Daimler was aware of the defects in the M156 engine as far back as its release to market in model year 2007, and that Daimler issued revisions to its service bulletins to mechanics over engine part replacement coverage, said Law360.

Mercedes-Benz USA LLC is a unit of Daimler and is New Jersey based. Daimler advertises the AMG series as a “high-performance vehicle” meant for automotive aficionados, according to the lawsuit, wrote Law360.

The U.S. Lexus recall includes the following models: 2006-07 GS 300 and GS 350, 2006-09 IS 250, and 2006-08 IS 350. According to Toyota, insufficient tightening of the fuel pressure sensor, which is connected to some engine fuel delivery pipes that have nickel-phosphorus plating, may cause the pressure sensor to loosen. This could cause fuel to leak past a gasket that’s used in the connection between the sensor and the fuel delivery pipe. It could also leak through the threaded part of the sensor.

To fix the problem, Lexus dealers will inspect cars for fuel leakage. If no leakage is found, they will tighten the fuel pressure sensor. However, if a leak is found, the gasket between the sensor and fuel delivery pipe will be replaced and the sensor will be tightened. There will be no charge for this, Toyota said.

The problem also affects 1.3 million vehicles in Japan and 10,000 in Europe.

Toyota maintains that so far, it has not received any reports of accidents due to this vehicle defect. It has, however, received 75 complaints of problems from North America and 140 in Japan.

The other recalls involve a bad fuel line that can crack and affects 141,000 vehicles, mostly models sold in Europe and New Zealand.

The problem with the Britax Chaperone Infant Car Seats is that the harness chest clip can break, which in and of itself is a laceration hazard. But because the broken piece is so small, it also poses a choking hazard. There have been four reports of the chest clip breaking. Injuries from three reports included minor lacerations and scratches to arms and a finger; and one report involved an infant placing the clip in his mouth.

The recalled Britax Chaperone Infant Car Seats, which were manufactured in China, were sold at mass and independent retailers nationwide and on the Britax website from June 2009 to October 2010 for about $230.

This recall involves Chaperone infant car seats with model numbers E9L95P2 (Red Mill), E9L95P3, E9L95P5 (Cowmooflage), and E9L69N9 (Moonstone) manufactured between April 2009 and May 2010. The white serial label with the seat’s serial number, model number, and manufacture date can be found on the underside of the car seat.

Consumers should immediately contact Britax for a free repair kit, which includes a replacement chest clip. Registered owners have been directly contacted by Britax. Britax can be reached, toll-free, at (888) 427-4829 anytime, or at the firm’s website at www.britax.com.

According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), entrapment and strangulation can occur, especially to infants younger than 12 months of age, when a child is not harnessed in the recalled strollers. An infant can pass through the opening between the stroller tray and seat bottom, but his/her head and neck can become entrapped by the tray.

This recall involves Graco Quattro Tour™ strollers and travel systems manufactured prior to November 2006 and MetroLite™ strollers and travel systems manufactured prior to July 2007. The strollers and travel systems were distributed between November 2000 and December 2007. The model numbers are printed on a label at the lower portion of the rear frame, just above the rear wheels or underneath the stroller. The name “Graco” appears on a label on the stroller tray and the headrest. Models included in the recall and photographs or the recalled products can be accessed on the CPSC’s website at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11015.html.

The strollers, which were manufactured in China, were sold at AAFES, Babies R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Fred Meyer, Kmart, Meijers, Navy Exchange, Sears, Target, Walmart, and other stores nationwide between November 2000 and December 2007 for between $90 and $190 for the strollers, and between $190 and $250 for travel systems.

The CPSC is advising consumers to immediately stop using the recalled strollers and contact Graco for a free repair kit. Graco can be reached, toll-free, at (877) 828-4046 anytime, or at the firm’s website at www.gracobaby.com. Consumers can continue use of the stroller as a “travel system.” When the stroller is used with the infant car seat, the entrapment and strangulation hazards posed by the space gap are not present. For additional information, consumers can also contact Graco at (800) 345-4109 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

JAKKS Pacific® Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits were sold at Sam’s Club, Walmart, Target, and other stores nationwide from August 2008 through August 2010. They sold for between $13 and $50 and continue to be available in some stores.

The recall includes the following:

Spa Factory™ Bath Benefits™ Kit: Item Number 37836 and UPC Bar Code 22876-37836-6
Spa Factory™ Deluxe Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 37908 and UPC Bar Code 22876-37908-0
Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 37837 and UPC Bar Code 22876-37837-3
Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 54892 and UPC Bar Code 22876-54892-9
Spa Factory™ Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain: Item Number 54857 and UPC Bar Code 22876-54857-8

According to the CPSC, pressure from the buildup of carbon dioxide in the jars of Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies that come with the kits can cause the unvented lids to blow off, posing explosion and projectile hazards. The flying pieces also can cause property damage. Additionally, the mixture of water with the Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies can create citric acid. This acid can get into consumers’ eyes when the jars explode, posing a risk of eye irritation.

When the recall was first announced in January 2009, the CPSC had received 88 reports of exploding jars, including 13 injuries to children. Since that time, CPSC has received 12 additional reports of exploding unvented jars of JAKKS’ Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies, including 13 additional reported injuries. The new injuries include irritated eyes, irritated skin, and one eye injury from projectile jar lids.

Consumers should immediately take the toy’s jars and caps without vent holes away from children, dispose of any jar lids without vent holes, and contact JAKKS Pacific to receive free jar lids with vent holes. JAKKS can be reached, toll-free, at (877) 875-2557 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday; at the firm’s website at www.myspafactory.com; or by emailing the firm at caps@jakks.net.

Under the proposed settlement, Knauf, along with a group of builders and suppliers, will pay to remediate 300 homes in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. The remediation program will follow guidelines established by the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which call for the removal of the tainted drywall, ad for replacements made for electrical wiring, appliances including air conditioning, and fixtures damaged by drywall fumes. In addition, homeowners under settlement will receive $8.50 per square foot to cover any additional expenses such as moving costs and temporary housing.

Knauf will hire the contractors to perform the work, and repairs will be inspected by an environmental engineer.

For now, only homes that are proven to contain 95 percent Knauf-made drywall will be eligible for the remediation program. Plaintiff-approved inspectors will soon begin visiting homes to take pictures to prove to Knauf that homeowners belong in the pilot program.

If the Chinese drywall remediation program is successful, a global settlement of Knauf Chinese drywall claims could come next. Thousands of homes could ultimately be eligible for such a program. It’s also hoped that other Chinese drywall manufacturers not party to this settlement will be encouraged to come to similar agreements.

Though the cause of the crash has yet to be determined, the FAA said the plane was carrying a large quantity of lithium batteries in its cargo hold. According to a report from Bloomberg News, initial analysis of the plane’s on-board recorders showed a fire warning followed by smoke in the cockpit. The crash killed both pilots.

According to the same Bloomberg report, the National Transportation Safety board said in 2008 that lithium batteries had triggered fire, smoke or heat aboard aircraft 13 times from February 2001 to July 2007. A UPS plane was destroyed in February 2006 in Philadelphia after a fire probably began in containers storing electronic equipment, the NTSB concluded in 2008.

In the alert issued to airlines last week, the FAA said new research shows lithium batteries are sensitive to heat and can ignite in flight if transported in cargo compartments that get too hot. The explosive potential of lithium metal cells can easily damage (and potentially perforate) cargo liners, or activate the pressure relief panels in a cargo compartment, the FAA said. Either of these circumstances can potentially lead to a loss of Halon 1301, a suppression agent found in Class C cargo compartments.

The FAA recommends better identification and tracking of lithium-battery cargo shipments, along with “special attention to ensuring careful handling” of such cargo. Experts believe that limiting the number of batteries in a cargo container, or the total number on a plane, can substantially reduce risks.

According to The Wall Street Journal, certain types of lithium batteries already are banned from the holds of passenger jets. And pilot groups have been pushing for years for more-stringent safeguards covering cargo planes.

Last week, the FAA confirmed that Transportation Department officials already have submitted a final rule restricting airborne shipments of lithium batteries for White House review, the Journal said. It isn’t clear how long that will take.

Under the proposed settlement, claimants who say they purchased defective Chinese drywall from Lowe’s would receive gift cards in amounts ranging from $50 to $2,000. Those who can prove they’ve suffered more than $2,000 in damages may also receive up to $2,500 in cash.

According to ProPublica, the agreement is structured as a reversionary settlement. That means that if it does not draw enough claimants to pay out at least $2.5 million in cash and gift cards, Lowe’s would keep the remaining $4 million that was set aside for the plaintiffs. In such a case lawyers would still be paid their $2.1 million fee, meaning they would receive almost as much as their clients. If Lowe’s received more than $6.5 million in claims, the amounts individual claimants can receive would shrink.

Brian Wolfman, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center told ProPublica that such settlements are problematic because they “provide the class lawyers no incentive to put money in their clients’ pockets and make it possible for the lawyers to walk away with far too much of the goodies.”

Lowe’s customers won’t be notified of the settlement or their option to opt out via mail – usually standard in cases like this – but rather, the retailer will use a web site, ads in Parade Magazine and notices on store receipts to get the word out. If potential claimants don’t opt out by notifying the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Ga. by Nov. 9 they waive their right to sue Lowe’s individually. Even though only about 40 plaintiffs are involved in the suit, if the settlement is adopted, it would automatically apply to Lowe’s customers throughout the nation who don’t opt out.

“I cannot believe the judge would approve these notice disclosures,” Ed Mierzwinski, consumer product director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, told ProPublica. “When people get their Sunday paper, a lot of them throw away Parade magazine along with all of the other inserts that come in the paper.”