Ford Motor Company

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY Docket 9105. Interlocutory Order, Dec. 4, 1978 ORDER REQUESTING FILING OF ADDITIONAL BRIEFS By motion of November 7, 1978, complaint counsel has requested that the Commission seek a preliminary injunction compelling Ford Motor Company to disclose certain facts concerning 1974-78 model year four-cylinder vehicles which complaint counsel alleges are afflicted with a latent defect resulting in premature camshaft/rocker arm wear. Ford subsequently filed an opposition to that motion and, in a supplement thereto filed on November 29, 1978, informed the Commission of certain steps it was taking to notify affected owners of the problem. Ford alleges that this action further supports Ford’s position that the proposed injunction action would not be in the public interest. Ford further described its intended notification and adjustment program in a motion filed on November 30, 1978, in which it reiterated certain concerns regarding the possible occurrence of ex parte communications in violation of Section 4.7 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. Before any action is taken with respect to complaint counsel’s motion, and in order to assess Ford’s contention that its intended notification and adjustment program indicates that the proposed injunction action is not in the public interest, the Commission would like to receive further information regarding the precise parameters of respondent’s program including the existence of any conditions attached to that program.’ The Commission particularly requests respondent to submit the text of the letter which Ford proposes to send to vehicle owners, indicating when such letter will be mailed. Ford should describe with specificity the categories of individuals to whom the letter will be sent, indicating whether prospective purchasers of new and used vehicles from Ford dealers will be notified. If respondent’s intended rocker arm/camshaft notification and adjustment program differs from the program instituted in 1977 with respect to piston scuffing, the reason for such differences should be provided. The Commission also requests a copy of any instructions sent to Ford dealers advising them of the adjustment program, in addition to the mailgram attached to respondent’s filing of November 8, 1978. Accordingly, ‘ While an oral hearing before the Commission would suffice to inform the Commission of the details of Ford's program without raising ex parte difficulties, it is the Commission's view that the requisite information can be obtained through additional briefs and that a hearing is unwarranted at this time. 936 Interlocutory Order It is ordered, That respondent is requested to file a supplemental brief on or before December 11, 1978, and that complaint counsel may file a response thereto on or before three days following service of respondent’s supplemental brief.

277-685 O—79-——-60 Interlocutory Order 92 F.T.C.