Feds To Fine Fiat Chrysler Automobiles $70M For Under-reporting Death, Injuries

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole

Federal regulators Thursday fined Fiat Chrysler Automobiles $70 million for under-reporting death and injury claims from vehicles as far back as 2003, officials announced in a statement. The fine is related to a September announcement from the automaker to the Transportation Department that the automaker had violated terms of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act.

The automaker issued a statement saying it would accept the penalty and agree to a consent order that would require FCA to submit crash data from the cars.

“FCA US LLC accepts these penalties and is revising its processes to ensure regulatory compliance. However, FCA US is confident that it identified and addressed all issues that arose during the relevant time period, using alternate data sources,” the company said in a statement.

In its Consent Order with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, FCA acknowledged that it had under reported the death and injury claims, but said that in large part, coding errors in its Early Warning Reporting system led to its failure to report claims to regulators.

By adding new brands to the automaker’s fold, the EWR system failed to accurately report crashes, according to the filing:

… Specifically, FCA US acknowledges that it did not report these death and injury incidents, in large part, because: 1) FCA US failed to report certain incidents due to coding problems in its EWR system that failed to recognize when reportable information was received or updated and, as a result, failed to report certain incidents to NHTSA; and 2) FCA US did not update its EWR system to reflect new FCA US brands.

Earlier this year, NHTSA fined Honda $70 million for similar violations of the TREAD Act.

“Today’s announcement sends a very clear message to the entire industry that manufacturers have responsibility for the complete and timely reporting of this critical safety information,” NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind said in January. “The actions we are requiring will push Honda to significantly raise the bar on the effectiveness of its (early warning reporting) program. Our ongoing oversight will ensure compliance and determine if there is cause for additional actions.”

The $70 million fine for FCA follows a $105 million fine by safety officials in July for botched recalls of nearly two dozen models of its vehicles that affected millions of cars.

Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 3 comments
  • Callmeishmael Callmeishmael on Dec 10, 2015

    Of all the brands that one might want to reinstate in the US I can think of few worse choices than FIAT. I say this as someone who owned and drove three of the frog eye FIAT 500s, a FIAT 600 sedan and a FIAT 1100 TV. Fairly or not, the brand came to stand for tiny, unreliable cars. Remember "Fix It Again, Tony"? To come back to the US with another tiny, unreliable car seems imprudent at best.

  • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Dec 10, 2015

    @CoryDL - "-Does not make reliable things (save their trucks)." You need to remove the "save their trucks" part. They finally broke top 3 JD Power for 1/2 tons but Consumer Reports once again said that Ram trucks failed to make it onto their "Recommended" list. University of Michigan did a study on return on investment for diesel powered vehicles. Dodge/Ram trucks had the poorest ROI. The thing that makes that fact even more bitter for Dodge/Ram is the fact that the study was done over the time frame when Ford was selling the infamous 6.0 Power Stroke.

  • CoastieLenn I would do dirrrrrrty things for a pristine 95-96 Thunderbird SC.
  • Whynotaztec Like any other lease offer it makes sense to compare it to a purchase and see where you end up. The math isn’t all that hard and sometimes a lease can make sense, sometimes it can’t. the tough part with EVs now is where is the residual or trade in value going to be in 3 years?
  • Rick T. "If your driving conditions include near-freezing temps for a few months of the year, seek out a set of all-seasons. But if sunshine is frequent and the spectre of 60F weather strikes fear into the hearts of your neighbourhood, all-seasons could be a great choice." So all-seasons it is, apparently!
  • 1995 SC Should anyone here get a wild hair and buy this I have the 500 dollar tool you need to bleed the rear brakes if you have to crack open the ABS. Given the state you will. I love these cars (obviously) but trust me, as an owner you will be miles ahead to shell out for one that was maintained. But properly sorted these things will devour highway miles and that 4.6 will run forever and should be way less of a diva than my blown 3.8 equipped one. (and forget the NA 3.8...140HP was no match for this car).As an aside, if you drive this you will instantly realize how ergonomically bad modern cars are.These wheels look like the 17's you could get on a Fox Body Cobra R. I've always had it in the back of my mind to get a set in the right bolt pattern so I could upgrade the brakes but I just don't want to mess up the ride. If that was too much to read, from someone intamately familiar with MN-12's, skip this one. The ground effects alone make it worth a pass. They are not esecially easy to work on either.
  • Macca This one definitely brings back memories - my dad was a Ford-guy through the '80s and into the '90s, and my family had two MN12 vehicles, a '93 Thunderbird LX (maroon over gray) purchased for my mom around 1995 and an '89 Cougar LS (white over red velour, digital dash) for my brother's second car acquired a year or so later. The Essex V6's 140 hp was wholly inadequate for the ~3,600 lb car, but the look of the T-Bird seemed fairly exotic at the time in a small Midwest town. This was of course pre-modern internet days and we had no idea of the Essex head gasket woes held in store for both cars.The first to grenade was my bro's Cougar, circa 1997. My dad found a crate 3.8L and a local mechanic replaced it - though the new engine never felt quite right (rough idle). I remember expecting something miraculous from the new engine and then realizing that it was substandard even when new. Shortly thereafter my dad replaced the Thunderbird for my mom and took the Cougar for a new highway commute, giving my brother the Thunderbird. Not long after, the T-Bird's 3.8L V6 also suffered from head gasket failure which spelled its demise again under my brother's ownership. The stately Cougar was sold to a family member and it suffered the same head gasket fate with about 60,000 miles on the new engine.Combine this with multiple first-gen Taurus transmission issues and a lemon '86 Aerostar and my dad's brand loyalty came to an end in the late '90s with his purchase of a fourth-gen Maxima. I saw a mid-90s Thunderbird the other day for the first time in ages and it's still a fairly handsome design. Shame the mechanicals were such a letdown.
Next