NHTSA Announces Record Setting Civil Penalty in Consent Order With Chrysler

03 August 2015 Dashboard Insights Blog

In 2014, NHTSA collected a record setting amount of civil penalties. For 2015, NHTSA may be on pace to exceed last year’s record. On July 26, 2015, NHTSA announced a $105 million civil penalty against FCA US LLC, the former Chrysler Group. As those who follow NHTSA have come to expect, the settlement came in the form of a consent order that included a number of performance obligations on FCA US.

For the penalty, NHTSA stacked three series of violations, each reaching the maximum civil penalty amount of $35 million, leaving FCA US with a total penalty amount of $105 million.

For the penalties, NHTSA divided the violations into three related categories:

  1. Failing to adequately remedy defective vehicles within a reasonable time (without specifying what a reasonable time is). Citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 30120(a) and 30120(c).
  2. Issuing untimely owner notifications and failing to timely submit owner and dealer notifications to NHTSA. Citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118(c), 30119(c)(2), and 49 CFR 577.5 and 577.7(a)(1).
  3. Failing to provide timely, accurate, and complete notice to NHTSA about vehicle defects and recalls. Citing U.S.C. § 30118(c) and 59 CFR 573.6.

The consent order structured the penalty amount with three components: $70 million due to the Treasury within 60 days, $20 million to be spent on “industry outreach” over the next 3 years, and $15 million held in abeyance pending satisfactory completion of the consent order.

FCA US will be under the consent order for three years and NHTSA has the option of extending it one additional year if it determines that FCA US failed to comply with one or more of the terms. The intention seems to be that an independent monitor working with NHTSA will determine whether FCA US is complying with the varied terms of the consent order.

Some of the big takeaways are:

  • FCA US agreeing to buy back some vehicles;
  • FCA US changing its corporate structure to give their safety program direct access to executives;
  • NHTSA requiring an independent monitor to evaluate FCA US’s compliance with NHTSA’s regulations; and
  • NHTSA requiring FCA US to reach out to suppliers for warranty and field report issues.

The consent order also requires FCA US to spend much of the $20 million in outreach on programs to increase owner participation in recall programs, which was the subject of a public meeting held at NHTSA earlier this year.

The terms of the consent order provide a clear window into what NHTSA expects from manufacturers: corporate structures that facilitate prompt safety determinations, greater communication between vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, and an emphasis on increasing owner participation in remedy programs.

View the consent order now.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
DHS Moves Closer to Launching its H-1B Cap Registration System
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Be Aware of Potential Legal Restrictions When Implementing a Workplace Weapons Policy
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.