transparency and accountability enhancing that within an auto industry because there was in two thousand and ten some concern that auto manufacturers were with clothing information about possible defects that the government would have been interested in in difference in meaning there would have used the language in the different part of the act to do so but they did not the actual words are thirty thousand one hundred and seventy one is what i would like to focus on because i think they make clear that mr mr balcom well i think it directly relates to the information that he was providing about motor vehicle the facts i'm not sure i understand your question your honor but i we do believe that that relates to is directly related to his and he identify specific members of management who were responsible for that and who he was concerned about just trying to make their numbers look better to do that so he replied that he had two interviews with the corporate special investigator in october and  why that was a serious safety defect in moreover if you look at the investigative papers that were created by the corporate investigator he himself notes in his audit notes this is a serious safety issue and the gym and them are reported to have been repaired but in fact were not repaired that's correct three fangs of well but under a one st and a motor vehicle defect that is a very broad phrase as i've explained separate in a from that it pertains to the two large features of the x actual requirements which are non compliant so not complying transportation to publicize the means for contacting the national highway traffic safety administration to target among others manufacture a question of mechanics and that can be found at one  exactly where he said it was at the end of a line and it resulted in several corrective actions to that effect repair process at g m so in conclusion that i'm out of time in short i don't believe the quark apply the language as it's not as narrow and i think they've made material to actual missteps and not considering the record as a whole thank you for your time thank you so we have to look at the whole context of map twenty one dollars there's a a list of protected activity among that is reporting about motor vehicle defects post manufacture period right after it is reporting on compliance with vehicle safety standards u departure from intended design is not possible for a product to have departed from its intended design until the manufacturing process is over department and design is a disparity between how it was manufactured and how it was supposed to be until the manufacturing process is done vehicle came to him with the electronic system having he alleged it was incorrectly reported as repaired someone else was taking credit for work and then sending it for him to do the reason he knew about those defects wasn't because he was just calls were not directed to this final process repair department unless it was a flag saying repairs were needed that's what it came to plaintiff and he did his job he did its job none of these vehicles were shipped to market the only instance the plaintiff identifies in his briefing process what no protection as a protocol defect your honor we have to remember that there is a broad swath of activity that is protected under map twenty one dollars plane made for whatever decision to pursue this claim likely because he would not have been able to demonstrate what he but they have not yet been sold to the ultimate consumer no where if the actor is the word defect used at any earlier stage and certainly not in the manufacturing process complaint here were about the misconduct of employees in connection with the system and not about any obvious with specific vehicles and he conceded he was not complaining about the fact that vehicles were coming to him needing to be repaired that was his job and he did his job the only variable here is that the alleged and that other employees were attempting to take credit for work they didn't do and then shutting up the plaintiff so that he could actually do the work that is why he complained that's what he complained about that is not a motor vehicle up because they were trying to manipulate performance metrics they were trying to take credit for work they didn't do a district court found he wasn't reporting but this was making it impossible for him to do his job because there was again another way for him to identify repairs that were  before he went in to actually make those repairs