FAA Approves Oxygen Delivery Units For Consumers Traveling By Air
Passengers will be able to use two different kinds of portable oxygen concentrator units onboard commercial aircraft under a new regulation published by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The two devices, manufactured by AirSep Corporation and Inogen, Inc., do not use compressed oxygen, which the government classifies as a hazardous material. They work by filtering nitrogen from the air and delivering oxygen in concentrated form to the user.
"This final rule addresses a critical need to improve accessibility for people who must travel with medical oxygen," said FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "If the equipment doesn't pose a safety hazard, there's no reason passengers shouldn't be able to use it aboard their flight."
The new regulation gives air carriers the ability to let passengers use the two types of portable oxygen concentrators during all phases of a flight, including taxiing on the airport, takeoff and landing. It also lets passengers operate their units while moving about the cabin whenever the captain turns off the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign. However, before any passenger may use a portable oxygen concentrator device, carriers must first ensure the model does not cause interference with the electrical, navigation or communication equipment on the aircraft.
Other safety-related conditions must be met in order for these oxygen devices to be allowed onboard aircraft. For example, passengers must ensure the unit is in good working order and they must be able to act in response to the unit's warning alarms. They also must protect extra batteries in carry-on baggage from short circuits and physical damage.
The new rule marks the first time passengers will be able to use their own medical oxygen devices aboard an airliner. The only other way for passengers to use medical oxygen is to have the air carrier provide the equipment, which many do at a charge to the passenger, although Department of Transportation rules do not require it. The Department soon will issue a related notice of proposed rulemaking to further address the carriage and use of oxygen devices by passengers on commercial flights.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Thursday, July 28, 2005
"Debt Negotiators" Settle FTC Charges
A group of defendants promising negotiation services that would “drastically” reduce consumers’ debts have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that their deceptive claims violated federal law and harmed consumers who engaged the defendants’ services and stopped contacting creditors. The defendants are barred from advertising or participating in any debt negotiation business in the future.
In February 2004, the FTC filed charges against Todd A. Baker; another individual, who settled with the Commission in February 2004; and two companies they owned or controlled, Innovative Systems Technology, Inc., which did business as Briggs & Baker; and Debt Resolution Specialists, Inc. (DRS). The FTC alleged that, since 1999, the defendants falsely claimed that they could substantially reduce consumers’ debts. According to the FTC, consumers who responded to the defendants’ radio and Internet ads were told that Briggs & Baker and DRS would negotiate with consumers’ creditors and settle their debts for a fraction of the amount owed. The FTC alleged that, once consumers signed up for these programs, Briggs & Baker and DRS told consumers to end all contact with their creditors and stop making payments on those accounts.
The FTC’s complaint charged that the defendants did not negotiate with consumers’ creditors to reduce or eliminate consumers’ debts as advertised, and that consumers who stopped communicating with their creditors found themselves deeper in debt, sometimes forced to pay additional charges and incur further damage to their credit ratings.
The two stipulated final orders announced today resolve the FTC’s charges against all remaining defendants in this matter. The first order, against Baker and DRS, permanently bars them from advertising or selling any debt negotiation services in the future. Baker is currently a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The Baker-DRS order stipulates that the FTC will hold a general unsecured claim in Baker’s bankruptcy case of $8,959,860, the total estimated amount of consumer injury in this case, and can participate in any distribution on that claim. It also contains standard recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring compliance. The second stipulated final order prohibits Innovative Systems Technology – already shuttered in another Chapter 7 bankruptcy case – from conducting any further business whatsoever. Both orders bar the defendants from selling any lists of customer data.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The stipulated final order for permanent injunction was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2005.
NOTE: These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.
A group of defendants promising negotiation services that would “drastically” reduce consumers’ debts have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that their deceptive claims violated federal law and harmed consumers who engaged the defendants’ services and stopped contacting creditors. The defendants are barred from advertising or participating in any debt negotiation business in the future.
In February 2004, the FTC filed charges against Todd A. Baker; another individual, who settled with the Commission in February 2004; and two companies they owned or controlled, Innovative Systems Technology, Inc., which did business as Briggs & Baker; and Debt Resolution Specialists, Inc. (DRS). The FTC alleged that, since 1999, the defendants falsely claimed that they could substantially reduce consumers’ debts. According to the FTC, consumers who responded to the defendants’ radio and Internet ads were told that Briggs & Baker and DRS would negotiate with consumers’ creditors and settle their debts for a fraction of the amount owed. The FTC alleged that, once consumers signed up for these programs, Briggs & Baker and DRS told consumers to end all contact with their creditors and stop making payments on those accounts.
The FTC’s complaint charged that the defendants did not negotiate with consumers’ creditors to reduce or eliminate consumers’ debts as advertised, and that consumers who stopped communicating with their creditors found themselves deeper in debt, sometimes forced to pay additional charges and incur further damage to their credit ratings.
The two stipulated final orders announced today resolve the FTC’s charges against all remaining defendants in this matter. The first order, against Baker and DRS, permanently bars them from advertising or selling any debt negotiation services in the future. Baker is currently a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The Baker-DRS order stipulates that the FTC will hold a general unsecured claim in Baker’s bankruptcy case of $8,959,860, the total estimated amount of consumer injury in this case, and can participate in any distribution on that claim. It also contains standard recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring compliance. The second stipulated final order prohibits Innovative Systems Technology – already shuttered in another Chapter 7 bankruptcy case – from conducting any further business whatsoever. Both orders bar the defendants from selling any lists of customer data.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The stipulated final order for permanent injunction was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2005.
NOTE: These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
350,000 'Tiki' Torches Recalled, Sold At Wal-Mart
Lamplight Farms and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission have announced the recall of 350,000 "Tiki Cone Metal Torches".
According to the CPSC, "the head and cover of these torches can come loose or be dislodged during use, allowing torch fuel to spill." The government agency said the spilled fuel could cause burns or property damage.
The Lamplight Farm item numbers for the affected torches are 1263 and 126301. The Wal-Mart numbers are 1656121 and 1691366. The UPC, meanwhile, is 086861012635.
The government stated the torches were manufactured in China and sold in Wal-Mart stores between December 2003 and June 2005.
Consumers should immediately stop using the torches and return them to their nearest Wal-Mart for a refund. Consumers can also call Lamplight Farms toll-free at (800) 645-5267 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday
Lamplight Farms and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission have announced the recall of 350,000 "Tiki Cone Metal Torches".According to the CPSC, "the head and cover of these torches can come loose or be dislodged during use, allowing torch fuel to spill." The government agency said the spilled fuel could cause burns or property damage.
The Lamplight Farm item numbers for the affected torches are 1263 and 126301. The Wal-Mart numbers are 1656121 and 1691366. The UPC, meanwhile, is 086861012635.
The government stated the torches were manufactured in China and sold in Wal-Mart stores between December 2003 and June 2005.
Consumers should immediately stop using the torches and return them to their nearest Wal-Mart for a refund. Consumers can also call Lamplight Farms toll-free at (800) 645-5267 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Acura Integra Most Stolen Vehicle, One of Every 200 1999 Models Stolen Last Year
According to CCC Information Services Inc.’s 2004 most stolen vehicle report, one of every 200 registered 1999 Acura Integra’s was stolen last year, making it 2004’s most stolen vehicle. The 2002 BMW M Roadster and the 1998 Acura Integra ranked as the second and third most stolen vehicles respectively.
A technology provider to the automotive claims and collision repair industry, CCC processes more than 1 million automotive claims-related transactions each day, resulting in an extensive database of vehicle information. The company identifies the most-stolen vehicles by analyzing total loss claims it receives from more than 350 property and casualty insurers in North America. CCC then compares its stolen-vehicle data against vehicle registration volume information provided by R. L. Polk & Co. to determine the rate of theft as a percentage of registered vehicles. The vehicle with the highest theft percentage is deemed the year’s most stolen vehicle.
“We cannot determine with absolute certainty the reason why thieves steal some vehicles over others, but we see trends in the data that provide interesting insight,” said Carole Comstock, CCC’s vice president of marketing and product management. “For instance, our data suggests some cars are stolen for the value of their parts, which may explain why we often see a ‘clustering’ effect with same make and model vehicles from sequential model years. The data also points to a high proportion of stolen cars that are built for speed such as the BMW M Roadster, Audi S4 and Mercury Marauder, which all appear on the top 25 most stolen vehicles list in 2004.”
‘Clustering’ most frequently occurs with upper midsize cars, such as the Acura Integra and Honda Accord. The 2004 most stolen vehicle list provides an example of this phenomenon. Acura Integras with consecutive model years (1994-2001) account for eight of the top 25 spots. “Some manufacturers retain the same part-type from model year to model year, so a part from a 1995 model may fit a car manufactured three years later,” added Comstock.
As for thieves’ ‘need for speed’, said Comstock, “There is a growing interest in street car racing and participants seem to gravitate toward the Acura Integra as their vehicle of choice. Other vehicles, including the Mercury Marauder and BMW M Roadster, while not likely to be used in street car racing, have been manufactured with speed in mind.”
Other trends observed in 2004 demonstrate the correlation between consumer preferences and increasing gas prices with vehicle thefts. The growing number of thefts of the Fullsize Utility vehicle segment, including the Cadillac Escalade and Land Rover, is consistent with the rise in popularity of these vehicles. Additionally, The Heavy Duty Station Wagon vehicle segment, which includes those vehicles known for their gas guzzling, has dropped off of the top 10 most stolen vehicle segments list, and the more efficiently fueled Basic Economy vehicle segment has moved up that list.
Information on Make, Age and Segment of vehicle· Vehicles made in 1997 were the most susceptible to theft, followed by model years 1996, 1999, 1995 and 1998.
· The high number of stolen Integras made Acura the most stolen make of 2004, followed by Hummer, Land Rover, Daewoo and Honda.
· The top three vehicle segments with the highest rate of theft for 2004 were the Fullsize Utility (e.g., Cadillac Escalade), Upper Midsize (e.g. Acura Integra) and the Prestige Luxury (e.g. Bentley Continental and Mercedes Benz).
The most stolen vehicle report is based on total losses identified as stolen and not recovered. CCC does not include temporary auto-related thefts such as “joy-rides” or the theft of car items such as stereos. Vehicles from model year 2005 were not included on this report.
Most Stolen Vehicles of 2004
Source: CCC Information Services
1. 1999 Acura Integra
2. 2002 BMW M Roadster
3. 1998 Acura Integra
4. 1991 GMC V2500
5. 2002 Audi S4
6. 1996 Acura Integra
7. 1995 Acura Integra
8. 2004 Mercury Marauder
9. 1997 Acura Integra
10. 1992 Mercedes-Benz 600
11. 2001 Acura Integra
12. 1989 Chevrolet R25
13. 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood
14. 1994 Acura Integra
15. 1996 Lexus GS
16. 2000 Acura Integra
17. 1999 Mercedes-Benz CL
18. 1996 Lexus SC
19. 2004 Cadillac Escalade
20. 1996 BMW 750
21. 1998 Land Rover Range
22. 1994 Audi Cabriolet
23. 2001 BMW M Roadster
24. 2003 Cadillac Escalade
25. 2000 Honda Civic
According to CCC Information Services Inc.’s 2004 most stolen vehicle report, one of every 200 registered 1999 Acura Integra’s was stolen last year, making it 2004’s most stolen vehicle. The 2002 BMW M Roadster and the 1998 Acura Integra ranked as the second and third most stolen vehicles respectively.
A technology provider to the automotive claims and collision repair industry, CCC processes more than 1 million automotive claims-related transactions each day, resulting in an extensive database of vehicle information. The company identifies the most-stolen vehicles by analyzing total loss claims it receives from more than 350 property and casualty insurers in North America. CCC then compares its stolen-vehicle data against vehicle registration volume information provided by R. L. Polk & Co. to determine the rate of theft as a percentage of registered vehicles. The vehicle with the highest theft percentage is deemed the year’s most stolen vehicle.
“We cannot determine with absolute certainty the reason why thieves steal some vehicles over others, but we see trends in the data that provide interesting insight,” said Carole Comstock, CCC’s vice president of marketing and product management. “For instance, our data suggests some cars are stolen for the value of their parts, which may explain why we often see a ‘clustering’ effect with same make and model vehicles from sequential model years. The data also points to a high proportion of stolen cars that are built for speed such as the BMW M Roadster, Audi S4 and Mercury Marauder, which all appear on the top 25 most stolen vehicles list in 2004.”
‘Clustering’ most frequently occurs with upper midsize cars, such as the Acura Integra and Honda Accord. The 2004 most stolen vehicle list provides an example of this phenomenon. Acura Integras with consecutive model years (1994-2001) account for eight of the top 25 spots. “Some manufacturers retain the same part-type from model year to model year, so a part from a 1995 model may fit a car manufactured three years later,” added Comstock.
As for thieves’ ‘need for speed’, said Comstock, “There is a growing interest in street car racing and participants seem to gravitate toward the Acura Integra as their vehicle of choice. Other vehicles, including the Mercury Marauder and BMW M Roadster, while not likely to be used in street car racing, have been manufactured with speed in mind.”
Other trends observed in 2004 demonstrate the correlation between consumer preferences and increasing gas prices with vehicle thefts. The growing number of thefts of the Fullsize Utility vehicle segment, including the Cadillac Escalade and Land Rover, is consistent with the rise in popularity of these vehicles. Additionally, The Heavy Duty Station Wagon vehicle segment, which includes those vehicles known for their gas guzzling, has dropped off of the top 10 most stolen vehicle segments list, and the more efficiently fueled Basic Economy vehicle segment has moved up that list.
Information on Make, Age and Segment of vehicle· Vehicles made in 1997 were the most susceptible to theft, followed by model years 1996, 1999, 1995 and 1998.
· The high number of stolen Integras made Acura the most stolen make of 2004, followed by Hummer, Land Rover, Daewoo and Honda.
· The top three vehicle segments with the highest rate of theft for 2004 were the Fullsize Utility (e.g., Cadillac Escalade), Upper Midsize (e.g. Acura Integra) and the Prestige Luxury (e.g. Bentley Continental and Mercedes Benz).
The most stolen vehicle report is based on total losses identified as stolen and not recovered. CCC does not include temporary auto-related thefts such as “joy-rides” or the theft of car items such as stereos. Vehicles from model year 2005 were not included on this report.
Most Stolen Vehicles of 2004
Source: CCC Information Services
1. 1999 Acura Integra
2. 2002 BMW M Roadster
3. 1998 Acura Integra
4. 1991 GMC V2500
5. 2002 Audi S4
6. 1996 Acura Integra
7. 1995 Acura Integra
8. 2004 Mercury Marauder
9. 1997 Acura Integra
10. 1992 Mercedes-Benz 600
11. 2001 Acura Integra
12. 1989 Chevrolet R25
13. 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood
14. 1994 Acura Integra
15. 1996 Lexus GS
16. 2000 Acura Integra
17. 1999 Mercedes-Benz CL
18. 1996 Lexus SC
19. 2004 Cadillac Escalade
20. 1996 BMW 750
21. 1998 Land Rover Range
22. 1994 Audi Cabriolet
23. 2001 BMW M Roadster
24. 2003 Cadillac Escalade
25. 2000 Honda Civic
Monday, July 25, 2005
Visa, Amex Dump CardSystems Over Data Breach, MasterCard Sets August Deadline
Visa and American Express have announced their intention to stop working with CardSystem Solutions, the data processor under fire for its announcement last month that 40 million credit card records had been hacked from its databases.
John Perry, CardSystems' President and CEO, sounded a warning when he announced the impending defection of two of the company's largest customers. "If Visa and American Express do not reconsider, the effect of their decision on thousands of our merchants is likely to be significant and could disrupt the operation of their payment card system," Perry said in a statement. "Many of those merchants will need to find a new payment processor, obtain new software, and retrain their employees on a new software system."
MasterCard, meanwhile, has required that Cardystems submit a detailed data security compliance plan by August 31, 2005.
Visa and American Express have announced their intention to stop working with CardSystem Solutions, the data processor under fire for its announcement last month that 40 million credit card records had been hacked from its databases.
John Perry, CardSystems' President and CEO, sounded a warning when he announced the impending defection of two of the company's largest customers. "If Visa and American Express do not reconsider, the effect of their decision on thousands of our merchants is likely to be significant and could disrupt the operation of their payment card system," Perry said in a statement. "Many of those merchants will need to find a new payment processor, obtain new software, and retrain their employees on a new software system."
MasterCard, meanwhile, has required that Cardystems submit a detailed data security compliance plan by August 31, 2005.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Tivo Now Displays Banner Ad When Viewers Fast Forward Past Them, Consumer Information Shared On Request
Tivo, the leading provider of digital video recorder (DVR) services, announced this week that viewers who fast forwarded past commercials would see a banner advertisement.
Technology fans have long known how to zap TV ads and watch their favorite season of the hit Fox show 24 in something closer to 17.5 hours. That show, as well as a groundbreaking M*A*S*H episode in the 1970s, shows the fictional characters' actions in what is purported to be real time, including commercials.
But other shows simply don't acknowledge the industry average 8 minutes of every 30 that is dedicated to commerical advertising that pays the bills. Tivo users improved upon the old-style of fast forwarding past commercials while still displaying them on the screen like viewers did with early video tape recorders.
Now the Bay Area, California company is fighting back. Its reportedly 1.3 million subscribers will view a banner advertisement when fast-forwarding past a commerical. According to a statement from the company on July 19, advertisers will be sold the ability to insert a "custom" tag in their advertising, rather than the generic tag that allows viewers to easily skip past commercials. The Tivo system will then allow viewers to select whether they want to receive more information so that "...advertisers can track leads to conversion and ensure a qualified return on investment."
Tivo's Chief Financial Officer David Courtney said in a statement, "Companies today are spending an estimated $60 billion a year on broadcast advertising. Ours is the only DVR to effectively enhance traditional TV advertising via a branding and direct response platform. Existing TiVo advertisers are already well ahead of the competition, learning about what type of content consumers will voluntarily view, how their traditional television media is consumed in a DVR home and what types of interactive advertising features can enhance their advertising messages as the technology develops."
Courtney also lauded the company's ability to provide advertisers "...with the ability to receive leads directly from their TV spots, with the viewer's consent, so advertisers can track leads to conversion and ensure a qualified return on investment."
But that latest twist has some consumer advocates worried.
"We know that advertising pays the bills and there is no such thing as free television," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "We are very concerned about Tivo's plans to share personally identifying information with a consumer's viewing habits. The technology has long existed to track what and when viewers watch, but Tivo is using their new technology to help advertisers track household-level data. Who is to say that down the road the company won't tell an advertiser that a viewer's household requested information on Product A two months ago and now wants information on Product B?"
"This is a slippery slope to privacy concerns that we don't think the company has done well enough to explain to its consumers," Bounacos said.
Tivo, has long been searching for additional revenue streams to supplement the sale of its recording units and subscription services. Dun and Bradstreet's Hoovers.com service estimates the company's 2005 revenues at $172 million while losing nealry $80 million.
The web's blogs and bulletin boards are naturally chooked with posts criticizing the change, but most seem centered on the viewer being subjected to advertising of any kind. Few, if any, speak to the consumer privacy issues that potentially loom large for the company and DVR market as a whole.
General Motors and The WB Network are the first advertisers who will use the new technology according to Tivo.
Tivo, the leading provider of digital video recorder (DVR) services, announced this week that viewers who fast forwarded past commercials would see a banner advertisement.
Technology fans have long known how to zap TV ads and watch their favorite season of the hit Fox show 24 in something closer to 17.5 hours. That show, as well as a groundbreaking M*A*S*H episode in the 1970s, shows the fictional characters' actions in what is purported to be real time, including commercials.
But other shows simply don't acknowledge the industry average 8 minutes of every 30 that is dedicated to commerical advertising that pays the bills. Tivo users improved upon the old-style of fast forwarding past commercials while still displaying them on the screen like viewers did with early video tape recorders.
Now the Bay Area, California company is fighting back. Its reportedly 1.3 million subscribers will view a banner advertisement when fast-forwarding past a commerical. According to a statement from the company on July 19, advertisers will be sold the ability to insert a "custom" tag in their advertising, rather than the generic tag that allows viewers to easily skip past commercials. The Tivo system will then allow viewers to select whether they want to receive more information so that "...advertisers can track leads to conversion and ensure a qualified return on investment."
Tivo's Chief Financial Officer David Courtney said in a statement, "Companies today are spending an estimated $60 billion a year on broadcast advertising. Ours is the only DVR to effectively enhance traditional TV advertising via a branding and direct response platform. Existing TiVo advertisers are already well ahead of the competition, learning about what type of content consumers will voluntarily view, how their traditional television media is consumed in a DVR home and what types of interactive advertising features can enhance their advertising messages as the technology develops."
Courtney also lauded the company's ability to provide advertisers "...with the ability to receive leads directly from their TV spots, with the viewer's consent, so advertisers can track leads to conversion and ensure a qualified return on investment."
But that latest twist has some consumer advocates worried.
"We know that advertising pays the bills and there is no such thing as free television," said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. "We are very concerned about Tivo's plans to share personally identifying information with a consumer's viewing habits. The technology has long existed to track what and when viewers watch, but Tivo is using their new technology to help advertisers track household-level data. Who is to say that down the road the company won't tell an advertiser that a viewer's household requested information on Product A two months ago and now wants information on Product B?"
"This is a slippery slope to privacy concerns that we don't think the company has done well enough to explain to its consumers," Bounacos said.
Tivo, has long been searching for additional revenue streams to supplement the sale of its recording units and subscription services. Dun and Bradstreet's Hoovers.com service estimates the company's 2005 revenues at $172 million while losing nealry $80 million.
The web's blogs and bulletin boards are naturally chooked with posts criticizing the change, but most seem centered on the viewer being subjected to advertising of any kind. Few, if any, speak to the consumer privacy issues that potentially loom large for the company and DVR market as a whole.
General Motors and The WB Network are the first advertisers who will use the new technology according to Tivo.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Nissan Recalls 140,000 Murano SUVs
Nissan North America said yesterday it will recall more than 140,000 Murano sport-utility vehicles amid concerns that a broken wire in the alternator could deplete power to the engine and lead to a crash.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a posting on its Web site that a wire could break inside the alternator and prevent the battery from charging. The charger warning and brake warning lamps would come on and the battery would start to discharge. After a short time, the engine would go into a condition that limits the vehicle's speed and stop running, creating the potential for a crash.
The recall involves more than 125,000 vehicles from the 2003-2005 model years and more than 15,000 vehicles in Canada, Nissan spokesman Dean Case said. No injuries or crashes linked to the problem have been reported, he said.
The recall is expected to begin Aug. 3. Dealers will be instructed to inspect and replace the alternator with a new version that has been upgraded to prevent the problem. Owners can contact Nissan at 800-647-7261.
Nissan North America said yesterday it will recall more than 140,000 Murano sport-utility vehicles amid concerns that a broken wire in the alternator could deplete power to the engine and lead to a crash.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a posting on its Web site that a wire could break inside the alternator and prevent the battery from charging. The charger warning and brake warning lamps would come on and the battery would start to discharge. After a short time, the engine would go into a condition that limits the vehicle's speed and stop running, creating the potential for a crash.
The recall involves more than 125,000 vehicles from the 2003-2005 model years and more than 15,000 vehicles in Canada, Nissan spokesman Dean Case said. No injuries or crashes linked to the problem have been reported, he said.
The recall is expected to begin Aug. 3. Dealers will be instructed to inspect and replace the alternator with a new version that has been upgraded to prevent the problem. Owners can contact Nissan at 800-647-7261.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Guidant Warns On New Group of Heart Devices
Less than one month after it warned that some of its devices could suffer "component failure", Guidant Corporation announced on July 18 that a new group of devices had been identified that could also fail.
The devices were manufactured between November 25, 1997 and October 26, 2000. The company said that it had identified 69 devices that failed of 78,000 tested. The brand names of the devices are:
PULSAR®
MAXPULSARDISCOVERY®
MERIDIAN®
PULSAR MAX II
DISCOVERY II
VIRTUS PLUS®
IIINTELIS II
CONTAK® TR
Additional information about this potential issue is available for physicians and patients at 1-866-GUIDANT.
Less than one month after it warned that some of its devices could suffer "component failure", Guidant Corporation announced on July 18 that a new group of devices had been identified that could also fail.
The devices were manufactured between November 25, 1997 and October 26, 2000. The company said that it had identified 69 devices that failed of 78,000 tested. The brand names of the devices are:
PULSAR®
MAXPULSARDISCOVERY®
MERIDIAN®
PULSAR MAX II
DISCOVERY II
VIRTUS PLUS®
IIINTELIS II
CONTAK® TR
Additional information about this potential issue is available for physicians and patients at 1-866-GUIDANT.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Reagan National Airport Opened To General Aviation, 30 Minute Sit-Down Rule Waived
Flying in and out of Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National Airport will be a little bit easier for travelers who will no longer be required to sit in their seats for 30 minutes prior to take-off or landing at the airport.
The regulations were enacted after the September 11 terror attacks at The Pentagon and in New York, but travelers often complained of the rule which required they remain in their seats while in close proximity to the airport. The rule increased the time travelers spent in their seats during ascent or descent by two to three times compared to other airports in the country.
Testifying before the United States Senate Committee On Commerce, Science and Transportation, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "This 30-minute seating rule was a sensible measure when first applied. Now, almost four years later, significantly enhanced layers of security ranging from hardened cockpit doors to air marshals make it reasonable to eliminate this requirement."
In announcing the change, Chertoff also said that the airport, closed to general aviation for nearly four years would reopen and allow private planes to land between national monuments on the Virginia and Washington D.C. side of the Potomac River at the region's smallest, but most strategically placed, airport
Flying in and out of Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National Airport will be a little bit easier for travelers who will no longer be required to sit in their seats for 30 minutes prior to take-off or landing at the airport.
The regulations were enacted after the September 11 terror attacks at The Pentagon and in New York, but travelers often complained of the rule which required they remain in their seats while in close proximity to the airport. The rule increased the time travelers spent in their seats during ascent or descent by two to three times compared to other airports in the country.
Testifying before the United States Senate Committee On Commerce, Science and Transportation, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "This 30-minute seating rule was a sensible measure when first applied. Now, almost four years later, significantly enhanced layers of security ranging from hardened cockpit doors to air marshals make it reasonable to eliminate this requirement."
In announcing the change, Chertoff also said that the airport, closed to general aviation for nearly four years would reopen and allow private planes to land between national monuments on the Virginia and Washington D.C. side of the Potomac River at the region's smallest, but most strategically placed, airport
Monday, July 18, 2005
Columbia House Settles Do Not Call Allegations With Government
The Columbia House Company, a well-known direct marketer of home entertainment products, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by calling existing or past subscribers of its home entertainment clubs after the subscribers had placed their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and after the subscribers had made specific requests to the company that they not be called. Columbia House will pay a $300,000 civil penalty and is barred from making illegal telemarketing calls in the future.
Columbia House markets its home entertainment products to consumers through a variety of membership clubs, including a DVD club, a video club, and music clubs. Consumers who join the clubs receive a number of DVDs, CDs, or videos at a reduced price if they sign on to purchase a designated number of additional products over the next two years. According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on the FTC’s behalf, Columbia House conducts telemarketing campaigns to existing and former members of its home entertainment clubs, soliciting former members to rejoin one of its clubs and existing members to purchase additional products.
Under the Do Not Call Rule, a company may call consumers whose telephone numbers are on the National Registry if the company has an established business relationship with the consumer, unless the consumer has asked not to be called. Companies with whom a consumer has an existing business relationship may call the consumer for up to 18 months after the consumer’s last business transaction with the company. In addition, since 1995, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) has required companies to keep a company-specific do not call list and to honor consumers’ specific requests that they not be called. Such a request must be honored even if the company has an established business relationship with the consumer. Companies are not permitted to call former customers whose numbers appear on the National Registry after the 18-month period has elapsed.
According to the FTC, from October 2003 through March 2004, Columbia House placed tens of thousands of calls to former members whose phone numbers were registered on the National Registry, after the company no longer had an established business relationship with those members as defined by the law. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that, since December 1995, Columbia House violated the company-specific do not call provision of the TSR by calling consumers who had previously asked that they not be called. The FTC’s complaint stated that although the company had implemented procedures to attempt to prevent future calls to such consumers, those procedures had proven ineffective in preventing the alleged calls.
The stipulated judgment and order bars Columbia House from calling any consumer who has previously asked not to be called. It also prohibits Columbia House from calling any consumer whose number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, unless the company has received a request, in writing, from the consumer permitting future calls; or the company has an established business relationship with the consumer and the consumer has not previously requested to be removed from the company’s call list. The order further requires Columbia House to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The order contains recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the company’s compliance.
The Commission vote to refer the complaint and stipulated judgment and order to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The complaint and stipulated judgment and order were filed on July 14, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by the Department of Justice at the request of the FTC.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.
NOTE: This stipulated order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A consent decree is subject to court approval and has the force of law when signed by the judge.
The Columbia House Company, a well-known direct marketer of home entertainment products, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by calling existing or past subscribers of its home entertainment clubs after the subscribers had placed their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and after the subscribers had made specific requests to the company that they not be called. Columbia House will pay a $300,000 civil penalty and is barred from making illegal telemarketing calls in the future.
Columbia House markets its home entertainment products to consumers through a variety of membership clubs, including a DVD club, a video club, and music clubs. Consumers who join the clubs receive a number of DVDs, CDs, or videos at a reduced price if they sign on to purchase a designated number of additional products over the next two years. According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on the FTC’s behalf, Columbia House conducts telemarketing campaigns to existing and former members of its home entertainment clubs, soliciting former members to rejoin one of its clubs and existing members to purchase additional products.
Under the Do Not Call Rule, a company may call consumers whose telephone numbers are on the National Registry if the company has an established business relationship with the consumer, unless the consumer has asked not to be called. Companies with whom a consumer has an existing business relationship may call the consumer for up to 18 months after the consumer’s last business transaction with the company. In addition, since 1995, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) has required companies to keep a company-specific do not call list and to honor consumers’ specific requests that they not be called. Such a request must be honored even if the company has an established business relationship with the consumer. Companies are not permitted to call former customers whose numbers appear on the National Registry after the 18-month period has elapsed.
According to the FTC, from October 2003 through March 2004, Columbia House placed tens of thousands of calls to former members whose phone numbers were registered on the National Registry, after the company no longer had an established business relationship with those members as defined by the law. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that, since December 1995, Columbia House violated the company-specific do not call provision of the TSR by calling consumers who had previously asked that they not be called. The FTC’s complaint stated that although the company had implemented procedures to attempt to prevent future calls to such consumers, those procedures had proven ineffective in preventing the alleged calls.
The stipulated judgment and order bars Columbia House from calling any consumer who has previously asked not to be called. It also prohibits Columbia House from calling any consumer whose number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, unless the company has received a request, in writing, from the consumer permitting future calls; or the company has an established business relationship with the consumer and the consumer has not previously requested to be removed from the company’s call list. The order further requires Columbia House to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The order contains recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the company’s compliance.
The Commission vote to refer the complaint and stipulated judgment and order to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The complaint and stipulated judgment and order were filed on July 14, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by the Department of Justice at the request of the FTC.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.
NOTE: This stipulated order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A consent decree is subject to court approval and has the force of law when signed by the judge.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Travelers Receive Timely Airport Updates On Web
With passenger volumes climbing to pre 9-11 levels and summer thunderstorms delaying airplanes, many consumers will find themselves looking for current information about airport delays during these busy travel months.
Few know about one of the web's best tools for travelers - the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Traffic Control System.
Departure and arrival conditions at dozens of the nation's largest airports are continuously updated on a map at the site. Travelers can also use a search function to learn about conditions at smaller airports.
Don't let sudden summer squalls or late aircraft catch you by surprise. Log on to the FAA's free site and be an educated consumer-traveler
With passenger volumes climbing to pre 9-11 levels and summer thunderstorms delaying airplanes, many consumers will find themselves looking for current information about airport delays during these busy travel months.
Few know about one of the web's best tools for travelers - the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Traffic Control System.
Departure and arrival conditions at dozens of the nation's largest airports are continuously updated on a map at the site. Travelers can also use a search function to learn about conditions at smaller airports.
Don't let sudden summer squalls or late aircraft catch you by surprise. Log on to the FAA's free site and be an educated consumer-traveler
Thursday, July 14, 2005
CA Atty General Sues Chase, Trilegiant
Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a lawsuit against Chase Bank and Trilegiant Corp. alleging the defendants unlawfully deceived tens of thousands of California consumers into paying for membership programs that purportedly provided discounts on car and home repair, shopping, and other goods and services.
"In colluding to perpetrate this unsavory scheme, Chase and Trilegiant preyed on vulnerable senior citizens and consumers who read and speak limited English," said Lockyer. "After tricking victims into joining these membership programs, the defendants used deceptive billing practices to maintain their ill-gotten income stream. We're filing this lawsuit to make the victims whole and obtain penalties to hold the companies accountable."
Filed in San Diego County Superior Court, Lockyer's complaint alleges Chase, Trilegiant and other defendants violated California laws that prohibit false or deceptive advertising, and unfair business practices. The number of California victims is not specified in the complaint, but Lockyer's office said the total reached into the tens of thousands.
The complaint seeks restitution for victims, civil penalties of $2,500 per unlawful act, an additional $2,500 penalty for each violation that victimized seniors, and an order permanently barring the defendants from engaging in the alleged practices.
The named defendants include: Chase Bank USA and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. (Chase); and Trilegiant Corp. and TRL Group, Inc. (Trilegiant). Cendant Corp. in January 2004 changed the name of one of its subsidiaries to Trilegiant Corp., according to the complaint. The subsidiary, the complaint alleges, continued the membership scheme under that name. Cendant, which had an ownership stake in Trilegiant Corp. prior to January 2004, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges Chase and Trilegiant enter agreements under which Trilegiant gains access to Chase's customers for the purpose of marketing the membership programs. In soliciting Chase customers, Trilegiant uses Chase's name, and Chase reviews and approves marketing materials used by Trilegiant, according to the complaint.
On occasion, the complaint alleges, Chase includes the solicitations in its customers' monthly statements. "Chase receives substantial compensation for its participation in this marketing scheme, including commissions on initial sales and automatic renewals of Trilegiant's products and services to Chase customers," according to the complaint.
The defendants' solicitations offer consumers "free" trial memberships in discount purchasing programs, the complaint alleges, without adequately informing consumers they will be billed automatically for a one-year membership if they do not affirmatively cancel with a specified period time. Typically, the cancellation period is 30 days.
The solicitations include checks that consumers are urged to cash as a "reward for being a valued Chase customer," the complaint alleges. The defendants do not adequately disclose to consumers that if they cash the checks, they automatically become members in the discount buying program, and will be billed for a one-year membership if they do not cancel by the specified deadline, according to the complaint.
"Consumers are unaware that Chase allows Trilegiant to charge fees to consumers' Chase bank accounts or add the fees to their Chase monthly mortgage statements, merely upon the consumer cashing a ‘reward' check or accepting a ‘free' trial offer," the complaint alleges.
The annual membership fee ranges from $69.99 to $119.88, the complaint alleges. The defendants fail to adequately disclose the membership will be renewed every year unless the consumer affirmatively cancels, according to the complaint.
However, the defendants' deceptive billing practices make it difficult for consumers to know they are members, or are paying for a membership. "Consumers do not realize they have been billed for such membership services because the membership fees are sometimes described as ‘Optional Products' or described in a manner that does not clearly identify the particular membership program, seller or nature of the charge," the complaint alleges.
The alleged scheme has hit hardest some of the most vulnerable consumers, according to the complaint. "Through this marketing scheme, (the) defendants prey on consumers, many of whom are unsophisticated, elderly or do not read or speak English as a first language," the complaint alleges.
The membership programs offer purported discounts on a variety of goods and services, including car maintenance, home repair, car rentals, travel services, shopping and pet products, according to the complaint. The programs are marketed under the following names: AutoVantage, AutoVantage Gold, Travelers Advantage, Complete Home, Shoppers Advantage, Buyers Advantage, Pet Privileges and Just for Me.
Consumers who believe they have been victimized by the scheme alleged in the lawsuit, or similar membership programs, should contact the Attorney General's Office at http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm or by writing to the Public Inquiry Unit of the Attorney General's Office at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a lawsuit against Chase Bank and Trilegiant Corp. alleging the defendants unlawfully deceived tens of thousands of California consumers into paying for membership programs that purportedly provided discounts on car and home repair, shopping, and other goods and services.
"In colluding to perpetrate this unsavory scheme, Chase and Trilegiant preyed on vulnerable senior citizens and consumers who read and speak limited English," said Lockyer. "After tricking victims into joining these membership programs, the defendants used deceptive billing practices to maintain their ill-gotten income stream. We're filing this lawsuit to make the victims whole and obtain penalties to hold the companies accountable."
Filed in San Diego County Superior Court, Lockyer's complaint alleges Chase, Trilegiant and other defendants violated California laws that prohibit false or deceptive advertising, and unfair business practices. The number of California victims is not specified in the complaint, but Lockyer's office said the total reached into the tens of thousands.
The complaint seeks restitution for victims, civil penalties of $2,500 per unlawful act, an additional $2,500 penalty for each violation that victimized seniors, and an order permanently barring the defendants from engaging in the alleged practices.
The named defendants include: Chase Bank USA and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. (Chase); and Trilegiant Corp. and TRL Group, Inc. (Trilegiant). Cendant Corp. in January 2004 changed the name of one of its subsidiaries to Trilegiant Corp., according to the complaint. The subsidiary, the complaint alleges, continued the membership scheme under that name. Cendant, which had an ownership stake in Trilegiant Corp. prior to January 2004, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges Chase and Trilegiant enter agreements under which Trilegiant gains access to Chase's customers for the purpose of marketing the membership programs. In soliciting Chase customers, Trilegiant uses Chase's name, and Chase reviews and approves marketing materials used by Trilegiant, according to the complaint.
On occasion, the complaint alleges, Chase includes the solicitations in its customers' monthly statements. "Chase receives substantial compensation for its participation in this marketing scheme, including commissions on initial sales and automatic renewals of Trilegiant's products and services to Chase customers," according to the complaint.
The defendants' solicitations offer consumers "free" trial memberships in discount purchasing programs, the complaint alleges, without adequately informing consumers they will be billed automatically for a one-year membership if they do not affirmatively cancel with a specified period time. Typically, the cancellation period is 30 days.
The solicitations include checks that consumers are urged to cash as a "reward for being a valued Chase customer," the complaint alleges. The defendants do not adequately disclose to consumers that if they cash the checks, they automatically become members in the discount buying program, and will be billed for a one-year membership if they do not cancel by the specified deadline, according to the complaint.
"Consumers are unaware that Chase allows Trilegiant to charge fees to consumers' Chase bank accounts or add the fees to their Chase monthly mortgage statements, merely upon the consumer cashing a ‘reward' check or accepting a ‘free' trial offer," the complaint alleges.
The annual membership fee ranges from $69.99 to $119.88, the complaint alleges. The defendants fail to adequately disclose the membership will be renewed every year unless the consumer affirmatively cancels, according to the complaint.
However, the defendants' deceptive billing practices make it difficult for consumers to know they are members, or are paying for a membership. "Consumers do not realize they have been billed for such membership services because the membership fees are sometimes described as ‘Optional Products' or described in a manner that does not clearly identify the particular membership program, seller or nature of the charge," the complaint alleges.
The alleged scheme has hit hardest some of the most vulnerable consumers, according to the complaint. "Through this marketing scheme, (the) defendants prey on consumers, many of whom are unsophisticated, elderly or do not read or speak English as a first language," the complaint alleges.
The membership programs offer purported discounts on a variety of goods and services, including car maintenance, home repair, car rentals, travel services, shopping and pet products, according to the complaint. The programs are marketed under the following names: AutoVantage, AutoVantage Gold, Travelers Advantage, Complete Home, Shoppers Advantage, Buyers Advantage, Pet Privileges and Just for Me.
Consumers who believe they have been victimized by the scheme alleged in the lawsuit, or similar membership programs, should contact the Attorney General's Office at http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm or by writing to the Public Inquiry Unit of the Attorney General's Office at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Purdue Pharma To Pull Palladone From Market At Govt's Request
After acquiring new information that serious and potentially fatal adverse reactions can occur when Palladone (hydromorphone hydrochloride) extended release capsules are taken together with alcohol, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked Purdue Pharma L.P., the makers of the drug, to withdraw it from the market.
Palladone is a once-a-day pain management drug containing a very potent narcotic. New data gathered from a company-sponsored study testing the potential effects of alcohol use shows that when Palladone is taken with alcohol the extended release mechanism is harmed which can lead to dose-dumping. Dose-dumping is a term that describes the rapid release of the active ingredient from an extended release product into the blood stream. The consequences of dose dumping at the lowest marketed dose (12 mg.) of Palladone could lead to serious, or even fatal, adverse events in some patients and the risk is even greater for the higher strengths of the product. As a result of this potential serious safety risk, the FDA has asked Purdue Pharma, and they have agreed, to suspend all sales and marketing of Palladone in the U.S. pending further discussions with the agency.
"All powerful pain management drugs have serious risks if used incorrectly, but the current formulation of Palladone presents an unacceptably high level of patient risk" said Dr. Steven Galson, FDA Acting Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Although we have not received reports of serious problems, this product has so far been used in a relatively small number of patients. We are concerned that as more patients take this drug, safety problems will arise since even having one alcoholic drink could have fatal implications.”
The current labeling for Palladone, approved in September, 2004, already includes the standard opioid warning against the use of alcohol and Palladone. However, the FDA does not believe that the risk of serious, and potentially fatal, adverse events can be effectively managed by label warnings alone and a risk management plan.
After acquiring new information that serious and potentially fatal adverse reactions can occur when Palladone (hydromorphone hydrochloride) extended release capsules are taken together with alcohol, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked Purdue Pharma L.P., the makers of the drug, to withdraw it from the market.
Palladone is a once-a-day pain management drug containing a very potent narcotic. New data gathered from a company-sponsored study testing the potential effects of alcohol use shows that when Palladone is taken with alcohol the extended release mechanism is harmed which can lead to dose-dumping. Dose-dumping is a term that describes the rapid release of the active ingredient from an extended release product into the blood stream. The consequences of dose dumping at the lowest marketed dose (12 mg.) of Palladone could lead to serious, or even fatal, adverse events in some patients and the risk is even greater for the higher strengths of the product. As a result of this potential serious safety risk, the FDA has asked Purdue Pharma, and they have agreed, to suspend all sales and marketing of Palladone in the U.S. pending further discussions with the agency.
"All powerful pain management drugs have serious risks if used incorrectly, but the current formulation of Palladone presents an unacceptably high level of patient risk" said Dr. Steven Galson, FDA Acting Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Although we have not received reports of serious problems, this product has so far been used in a relatively small number of patients. We are concerned that as more patients take this drug, safety problems will arise since even having one alcoholic drink could have fatal implications.”
The current labeling for Palladone, approved in September, 2004, already includes the standard opioid warning against the use of alcohol and Palladone. However, the FDA does not believe that the risk of serious, and potentially fatal, adverse events can be effectively managed by label warnings alone and a risk management plan.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
SUVs Get Safer, More Pass Rollover Tests
The number of SUVs with a four-star rollover rating had increased substantially since U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began rating them in 2001. That year, just one SUV earned four-stars, whereas in 2005, 24 earned a four-star rating as part of the newly released rollover test results for 2005 model year vehicles.
Assessing static stability factor (SSF) values – the predominant factor in NHTSA’s rollover ratings – the agency found a significant improvement in SUV ratings; passenger car and pickup truck scores have remained relatively constant.
For 2005 model year tested vehicles, the highest rated SUV was the Ford Freestyle 4x4, earning 4-stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover, if involved in a single-vehicle crash. The Freestyle matches the 2005 Chrysler Pacifica, a carryover vehicle from 2004, which also earned four stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover during the 2004 model year testing.
For pickups, the highest rated vehicle was the Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 and its twin, the GMC Canyon, the Dodge Dakota 4x4, and the Dodge Ram 1500 4x2 – each earning four stars and a 17 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash. For vans, the highest rated vehicle was the Chrysler PT Cruiser, earning four stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash. For passenger cars, the highest rated vehicle was the Ford Mustang, earning five stars and an 8 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash.
"It is encouraging to see the positive impact our rollover rating program has had on making vehicles more stable, particularly on SUVs," said NHTSA Administrator, Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. "Today we have twenty-four MY2005 SUVs with a 4-star rollover rating whereas 2 years ago, we had only five".
The number of SUVs with a four-star rollover rating had increased substantially since U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began rating them in 2001. That year, just one SUV earned four-stars, whereas in 2005, 24 earned a four-star rating as part of the newly released rollover test results for 2005 model year vehicles.
Assessing static stability factor (SSF) values – the predominant factor in NHTSA’s rollover ratings – the agency found a significant improvement in SUV ratings; passenger car and pickup truck scores have remained relatively constant.
For 2005 model year tested vehicles, the highest rated SUV was the Ford Freestyle 4x4, earning 4-stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover, if involved in a single-vehicle crash. The Freestyle matches the 2005 Chrysler Pacifica, a carryover vehicle from 2004, which also earned four stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover during the 2004 model year testing.
For pickups, the highest rated vehicle was the Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 and its twin, the GMC Canyon, the Dodge Dakota 4x4, and the Dodge Ram 1500 4x2 – each earning four stars and a 17 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash. For vans, the highest rated vehicle was the Chrysler PT Cruiser, earning four stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash. For passenger cars, the highest rated vehicle was the Ford Mustang, earning five stars and an 8 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash.
"It is encouraging to see the positive impact our rollover rating program has had on making vehicles more stable, particularly on SUVs," said NHTSA Administrator, Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. "Today we have twenty-four MY2005 SUVs with a 4-star rollover rating whereas 2 years ago, we had only five".
Monday, July 11, 2005
Parents Warned About Safety 1st Tubside Bath Seats Recalled
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Dorel Juvenile Group, of Columbus, Ind., announced a warning today for parents and caregivers who purchased the Safety 1st Tubside Bath Seats. The company has sold about 250,000 units to date. The bath seats are not intended and should not be used with certain non-traditional or sunken bathtubs. In these types of tubs, the bath seat can break, tip over and a child can fall into the water.
Dorel Juvenile Group has received nine reports of breakage due to use of Tubside Bath Seats in non-traditional or sunken bathtubs. An additional 67 reports of breakage due to handling, assembly and unknown reasons also were received. There was one report of a child bumping his forehead when a bath seat tipped over in a non-traditional tub, resulting in a bruise.
These Safety 1st Tubside Bath Seats have model number 44301 engraved on the bottom of the base. “Safety 1st” is printed on the front of the units. They are white and blue, have a swivel seat and an elbow cushion on the attachment arm. These seats are intended for use with children from 5 months to 10 months of age.
Consumers are urged to ensure that these bath seats are used in accordance with the instructions:
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Dorel Juvenile Group, of Columbus, Ind., announced a warning today for parents and caregivers who purchased the Safety 1st Tubside Bath Seats. The company has sold about 250,000 units to date. The bath seats are not intended and should not be used with certain non-traditional or sunken bathtubs. In these types of tubs, the bath seat can break, tip over and a child can fall into the water.
Dorel Juvenile Group has received nine reports of breakage due to use of Tubside Bath Seats in non-traditional or sunken bathtubs. An additional 67 reports of breakage due to handling, assembly and unknown reasons also were received. There was one report of a child bumping his forehead when a bath seat tipped over in a non-traditional tub, resulting in a bruise.
These Safety 1st Tubside Bath Seats have model number 44301 engraved on the bottom of the base. “Safety 1st” is printed on the front of the units. They are white and blue, have a swivel seat and an elbow cushion on the attachment arm. These seats are intended for use with children from 5 months to 10 months of age.
Consumers are urged to ensure that these bath seats are used in accordance with the instructions:
This product is NOT for use with the following style tubs:
- Tubs with edge width less than 3 ½ inches or greater than 5 ½ inches.
- Tubs with depth (top to bottom) less than 12 inches or greater than 15 inches.
- Free standing (legged or pedestal), oval, drop-in, or spa type tubs
The warning also stated that parents should not use bath seat if the Red Warning Label on the arm is exposed and reminded parents that children have drowned when left unattended in bath seats.
Discount department and other mass merchants sold these bath seats from December 2003 through August 2004 for about $20.
Consumers who have a Tubside Bath Seat should check the dimension of their tubs. If they have a non-traditional or sunken bathtub outside the specified dimensions, or have a broken unit the consumer should immediately stop using the Tubside Bath Seat and contact the firm for information on how to get a $20 rebate toward the purchase of any other Dorel Juvenile Group product. Consumers should not return the product to retail stores.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Medicare Appeals Move From Social Security to HHS; Video Conferences To Streamline Process
Consumers protected by Medicare who appeal decisions can participate in a streamlined process that has a goal of resolving issues within 90 days as the function moves from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS is the government agency that oversees Medicare. HHS reported earlier this month that it has created an Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals for this program.
The change, which was mandated by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, took effect July 1.
"As HHS assumes responsibility for handling Medicare hearings, we are committed to making the appeals process better, faster and more convenient for seniors and other people with Medicare," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Our goal is to eliminate the need for an aged or disabled beneficiary to travel if other resources are available closer to home."
To reach its goal, the government agency said it would begin using video conference technology in more than 1,000 sites nationwide
Consumers protected by Medicare who appeal decisions can participate in a streamlined process that has a goal of resolving issues within 90 days as the function moves from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS is the government agency that oversees Medicare. HHS reported earlier this month that it has created an Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals for this program.
The change, which was mandated by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, took effect July 1.
"As HHS assumes responsibility for handling Medicare hearings, we are committed to making the appeals process better, faster and more convenient for seniors and other people with Medicare," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Our goal is to eliminate the need for an aged or disabled beneficiary to travel if other resources are available closer to home."
To reach its goal, the government agency said it would begin using video conference technology in more than 1,000 sites nationwide
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Honda Adds Crash Test Data To Window Stickers
2006 Honda and Acura vehicles will display NHTSA crash test safety ratings on window stickersAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc., announced today a new voluntary program to provide important safety information to consumers. Monroney labels (window stickers) on all 2006 model year Honda and Acura cars and light-duty trucks will include a listing of government crash test ratings. Honda will be the first company to make this safety information available to consumers on the important window labels, that show pricing, vehicle features, point of origin, Environmental Protection Agency numbers, domestic content, emissions and other information.
In keeping with Honda's 'Safety for Everyone' initiative, all vehicle window stickers will display the star ratings awarded under the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA), New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for frontal, side and rollover crash safety test ratings.
"Honda's commitment to safety goes beyond conventional measures with our 'Safety for Everyone' initiative," said John Mendel, senior vice president, automobile operations, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. "Honda's initiative is just one of several actions we are taking to advance motor vehicle safety and to educate consumers."
Honda's action to revise its window labels to include safety rating information is modeled after the 'Stars on Cars' initiative sponsored by U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH). Senator DeWine's provision in the Highway bill would require manufacturers to post NHTSA crash tests "star" ratings on vehicle pricing stickers.
"I would like to congratulate Honda on this announcement. As with its 'Safety for Everyone' initiative, Honda has shown again today that it is willing to innovate and take voluntary action to protect the driving public. I look forward to a time when all new cars will come standard with 'Stars on Cars' labels," stated Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). "This common-sense legislation is included in the Senate's version of H.R. 3, yet is not in the House's, and I urge the Conference Committee to include it in the final report. Vital safety information needs to be accessible to the consumer when they need it most, at the dealership when purchasing decisions are made," Senator DeWine said.
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program provides consumers with vehicle safety information on front and side crash tests, as well as rollover ratings. The test results are publicized through a recognizable star rating system - from 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being the best score. The star ratings, are accessible on the safercar.gov website but may not be readily available on the showroom floor.
"Honda is setting a good example for other manufacturers by getting safety information to the customer at the point of sale," said NHTSA Administrator, Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. "This voluntary action helps the market work for the safety of consumers."
2006 Honda and Acura vehicles will display NHTSA crash test safety ratings on window stickersAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc., announced today a new voluntary program to provide important safety information to consumers. Monroney labels (window stickers) on all 2006 model year Honda and Acura cars and light-duty trucks will include a listing of government crash test ratings. Honda will be the first company to make this safety information available to consumers on the important window labels, that show pricing, vehicle features, point of origin, Environmental Protection Agency numbers, domestic content, emissions and other information.
In keeping with Honda's 'Safety for Everyone' initiative, all vehicle window stickers will display the star ratings awarded under the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA), New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for frontal, side and rollover crash safety test ratings.
"Honda's commitment to safety goes beyond conventional measures with our 'Safety for Everyone' initiative," said John Mendel, senior vice president, automobile operations, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. "Honda's initiative is just one of several actions we are taking to advance motor vehicle safety and to educate consumers."
Honda's action to revise its window labels to include safety rating information is modeled after the 'Stars on Cars' initiative sponsored by U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH). Senator DeWine's provision in the Highway bill would require manufacturers to post NHTSA crash tests "star" ratings on vehicle pricing stickers.
"I would like to congratulate Honda on this announcement. As with its 'Safety for Everyone' initiative, Honda has shown again today that it is willing to innovate and take voluntary action to protect the driving public. I look forward to a time when all new cars will come standard with 'Stars on Cars' labels," stated Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). "This common-sense legislation is included in the Senate's version of H.R. 3, yet is not in the House's, and I urge the Conference Committee to include it in the final report. Vital safety information needs to be accessible to the consumer when they need it most, at the dealership when purchasing decisions are made," Senator DeWine said.
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program provides consumers with vehicle safety information on front and side crash tests, as well as rollover ratings. The test results are publicized through a recognizable star rating system - from 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being the best score. The star ratings, are accessible on the safercar.gov website but may not be readily available on the showroom floor.
"Honda is setting a good example for other manufacturers by getting safety information to the customer at the point of sale," said NHTSA Administrator, Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. "This voluntary action helps the market work for the safety of consumers."
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Customer Respect Group Releases Online Rankings
The Customer Respect Group, an international research and consulting firm that focuses on how corporations treat their customers online, released the results of its Second Quarter 2005 Online Customer Respect Study of North America's largest telecommunications and networking firms on June 27.
Verizon Wireless did best in the Telecommunications category (and best overall), while Charter Communications fared worst. Ericsson topped the Networking/Communications Equipment list, while Qualcomm came in last. The most improved was CenturyTel.
The study is the only one to bring objective measure to the analysis of corporate performance from an online customer's perspective. It assigns a Customer Respect Index (CRI(TM)) rating to each company. The Customer Respect Index is a qualitative and quantitative in-depth analysis and independent measure of a customer's online experience when interacting with companies via the Internet. Scores of 8.0 and above are considered excellent and show an admirable level of Customer Respect.
By interviewing a representative sample of the adult Internet population, and by analyzing and categorizing more than 2000 corporate Web sites across a spectrum of industries in detail, The Customer Respect Group has determined the attributes that combine to create the entire online customer experience. These attributes have been grouped together and measured as indicators of Simplicity (ease of navigation), Responsiveness (quick and helpful responses to inquiries), Privacy (respect for the privacy of the customer), Attitude (customer-focus of site), Transparency (open and honest policies) and Principles (values and respects customer data). Combined they measure a company's overall Customer Respect.
Summary Results/Comparisons
Although a direct comparison is difficult because of the inclusion of industry-specific questions, the average CRI based on 660 surveys of corporate Web sites in various industries throughout 2004 was 5.9. Meanwhile, the firms in this study scored considerably better at 6.9, which is the highest overall industry average observed to date in 2005. In the last Telecom and Networking report in Q4 2004, this industry scored 6.4.
In the area of Responsiveness, only 17 percent of inquiries went unanswered by companies in this industry compared with an all-industry average of 27 percent in 2004. Moreover, from 2004 to 2005 the percentage of Telecom/Networking companies that didn't respond to any inquiries dropped to 12 percent from 23 percent. Disappointingly only 56 percent of the responses were judged to be helpful.
However, this industry did not compare favorably to the overall 2004 average in every area. The percentage of Telecommunication and Networking companies that share personal data with business partners or third parties is 28 percent, four percentage points more than the all-industry average in 2004. It is however, much improved from the 49 percent recorded in the prior Telecom/Networking report.
"We very much like the direction in which the Telecom and Networking industries are moving with their Web sites," said Terry Golesworthy, president of The Customer Respect Group. "That said, we still see room for improvement in a number of areas, including Privacy. Consumers are very sensitive to having their data shared with others, and our research indicates that firms that don't implement opt-in policies can expect to see a backlash. Moreover, while Responsiveness has improved in some areas, far too many responses were considered unhelpful."
The Customer Respect Group, an international research and consulting firm that focuses on how corporations treat their customers online, released the results of its Second Quarter 2005 Online Customer Respect Study of North America's largest telecommunications and networking firms on June 27.
Verizon Wireless did best in the Telecommunications category (and best overall), while Charter Communications fared worst. Ericsson topped the Networking/Communications Equipment list, while Qualcomm came in last. The most improved was CenturyTel.
The study is the only one to bring objective measure to the analysis of corporate performance from an online customer's perspective. It assigns a Customer Respect Index (CRI(TM)) rating to each company. The Customer Respect Index is a qualitative and quantitative in-depth analysis and independent measure of a customer's online experience when interacting with companies via the Internet. Scores of 8.0 and above are considered excellent and show an admirable level of Customer Respect.
By interviewing a representative sample of the adult Internet population, and by analyzing and categorizing more than 2000 corporate Web sites across a spectrum of industries in detail, The Customer Respect Group has determined the attributes that combine to create the entire online customer experience. These attributes have been grouped together and measured as indicators of Simplicity (ease of navigation), Responsiveness (quick and helpful responses to inquiries), Privacy (respect for the privacy of the customer), Attitude (customer-focus of site), Transparency (open and honest policies) and Principles (values and respects customer data). Combined they measure a company's overall Customer Respect.
Summary Results/Comparisons
Although a direct comparison is difficult because of the inclusion of industry-specific questions, the average CRI based on 660 surveys of corporate Web sites in various industries throughout 2004 was 5.9. Meanwhile, the firms in this study scored considerably better at 6.9, which is the highest overall industry average observed to date in 2005. In the last Telecom and Networking report in Q4 2004, this industry scored 6.4.
In the area of Responsiveness, only 17 percent of inquiries went unanswered by companies in this industry compared with an all-industry average of 27 percent in 2004. Moreover, from 2004 to 2005 the percentage of Telecom/Networking companies that didn't respond to any inquiries dropped to 12 percent from 23 percent. Disappointingly only 56 percent of the responses were judged to be helpful.
However, this industry did not compare favorably to the overall 2004 average in every area. The percentage of Telecommunication and Networking companies that share personal data with business partners or third parties is 28 percent, four percentage points more than the all-industry average in 2004. It is however, much improved from the 49 percent recorded in the prior Telecom/Networking report.
"We very much like the direction in which the Telecom and Networking industries are moving with their Web sites," said Terry Golesworthy, president of The Customer Respect Group. "That said, we still see room for improvement in a number of areas, including Privacy. Consumers are very sensitive to having their data shared with others, and our research indicates that firms that don't implement opt-in policies can expect to see a backlash. Moreover, while Responsiveness has improved in some areas, far too many responses were considered unhelpful."
Other overall findings for all surveyed firms include the following:
- Some 35 percent of firms did not respond consistently or did not respond at all to online inquiries resulting in 17 percent of all online inquiries being ignored.
- Looking at all inquiries made, including those ignored, 60 percent were answered within a day of being sent, considered to be the time limit that consumers will accept. Taken one level further and looking at the nature of the response, 33.6 percent were responded within the day and were considered helpful.
- Some 32 percent of firms are either unclear or do share data with outside third parties or business partners.
- Only 27 percent of firms provide a full explanation about what advantage cookies that are installed provide to the user and what data they hold.
- After personal data is collected, 17 percent of sites provide no means to "opt out" of future marketing campaigns.
- Only 33 percent of firms always use SSL or HTTPs forms consistently to provide security when collecting personal data.
- Only 59% of the firms provide an FAQ, site search and a site map to assist the customer self serve.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Guidant Warns About Heart Implant Devices
Guidant Corporation announced June 22 that it voluntarily advised physicians that some of their devices are "subject to a component failure". The company stated that it had apprised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of this action, and that the FDS may classify Guidant's action as a recall.
The company advised physicians to stop using the following devices manufactured by the company:
Contak Renewal 3, Contak Renewal 4, Renewal 3, 4 AVT and Renewal RF
Guidant issued a stated stating that "a magnetic switch in these devices may become stuck in the closed position, which in some cases inhibits the devices ability..." The company also stated that it was aware of four cases of a device malfunction out of 46,000 implants. The company also is investigating a fifth occurrence. At this time, device replacement has been the only consumer patient impact according to the company.
Guidant Corporation is due to be acquired by Johnson & Johnson, but saw its stock battered after the announcement, falling below its 20 month average in the first day of trading after the announcement.
The first warning from Guidant about problems with its devices was reported at Consumer Help Web last month
Guidant Corporation announced June 22 that it voluntarily advised physicians that some of their devices are "subject to a component failure". The company stated that it had apprised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of this action, and that the FDS may classify Guidant's action as a recall.
The company advised physicians to stop using the following devices manufactured by the company:
Contak Renewal 3, Contak Renewal 4, Renewal 3, 4 AVT and Renewal RF
Guidant issued a stated stating that "a magnetic switch in these devices may become stuck in the closed position, which in some cases inhibits the devices ability..." The company also stated that it was aware of four cases of a device malfunction out of 46,000 implants. The company also is investigating a fifth occurrence. At this time, device replacement has been the only consumer patient impact according to the company.
Guidant Corporation is due to be acquired by Johnson & Johnson, but saw its stock battered after the announcement, falling below its 20 month average in the first day of trading after the announcement.
The first warning from Guidant about problems with its devices was reported at Consumer Help Web last month
Friday, July 01, 2005
Green Tea "Highly Unlikely" To Ward Off Cancer
Under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) "Consumer Health for Better Nutrition Initiative," the Agency is announcing the results of a review of qualified health claims that green tea may reduce the risk of certain types of cancer. Based on a systematic evaluation of the available scientific data, the FDA intends to consider exercising its enforcement discretion for the following qualified health claims for breast and prostate cancer:
"Two studies do not show that drinking green tea reduces the risk of breast cancer in women, but one weaker, more limited study suggests that drinking green tea may reduce this risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk of breast cancer"; and
"One weak and limited study does not show that drinking green tea reduces the risk of prostate cancer, but another weak and limited study suggests that drinking green tea may reduce this risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk of prostate cancer."
The FDA also concluded that existing evidence does not support qualified health claims for green tea consumption and a reduced risk of any other type of cancer.
Guidance on qualified health claims for conventional foods and dietary supplements was issued by the FDA in July 2003. FDA will continue to evaluate new information that becomes available to determine whether changes in these claims, or in the decision, are necessary.
Under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) "Consumer Health for Better Nutrition Initiative," the Agency is announcing the results of a review of qualified health claims that green tea may reduce the risk of certain types of cancer. Based on a systematic evaluation of the available scientific data, the FDA intends to consider exercising its enforcement discretion for the following qualified health claims for breast and prostate cancer:
"Two studies do not show that drinking green tea reduces the risk of breast cancer in women, but one weaker, more limited study suggests that drinking green tea may reduce this risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk of breast cancer"; and
"One weak and limited study does not show that drinking green tea reduces the risk of prostate cancer, but another weak and limited study suggests that drinking green tea may reduce this risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk of prostate cancer."
The FDA also concluded that existing evidence does not support qualified health claims for green tea consumption and a reduced risk of any other type of cancer.
Guidance on qualified health claims for conventional foods and dietary supplements was issued by the FDA in July 2003. FDA will continue to evaluate new information that becomes available to determine whether changes in these claims, or in the decision, are necessary.
