Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Volpe
| Citation | 486 F.2d 757 |
| Decision Date | 19 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1540.,72-1540. |
| Parties | REX CHAINBELT, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John A. VOLPE, Secretary, Department of Transportation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Andrew O. Riteris, Edward W. Mentzer, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellant.
David J. Cannon, U. S. Atty., Joseph P. Stadtmueller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants-appellees.
Before CASTLE and MOORE*, Senior Circuit Judges, and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgated regulations requiring conformance to certain safety standards in the manufacture and assembly of motor vehicles. In this action Rex Chainbelt, Inc., suing on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, seeks a declaratory judgment that certain of these regulations are invalid because they either exceed the authority of the administrator, or because they are unreasonable.
Rex is primarily engaged in the manufacture of concrete mixer bodies, which, when attached to truck chassis, are used to transport wet cement from cement plants to job sites. Since Rex neither manufactures nor sells truck chasses, its customers must first visit truck manufacturers such as Ford, Mack, or International Harvester or their dealers, and purchase and accept delivery on a chassis. The customers apparently specify to the truck dealers what kind of mixer they wish to mount on the truck they wish to purchase, and, on the basis of these representations, the dealers recommend a particular model of chassis. The customer then drives the truck chassis to Rex or a Rex dealer for installation of the mixer unit, or he acquires and installs the mixer unit himself.
As part of its comprehensive standards concerning motor vehicles, NHTSA promulgated regulations governing trucks which are assembled in two or more stages, such as cement mixer trucks whose chassis are assembled before mixers are attached by a mixer manufacturer. One of these regulations requires Rex, as installer of the mixer units, to complete the truck in such a manner that it will conform to all applicable federal safety standards. 49 CFR § 568.6(a). Federal safety standards currently cover such things as transmission shift levers, windshield defrosting, washing, and wiping, hood latches, brake fluids, door locks, seats, seat belts, and crash protection. Another regulation requires Rex to certify that the entire vehicle—including every item of equipment selected, installed and sold to the customer by Ford, Mack and other truck manufacturers—conforms to applicable federal standards. 49 CFR § 568.6(b). When NHTSA rejected Rex's objections to these regulations, Rex filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the requirement that it certify the entire vehicle, on the grounds that NHSTA had either exceeded the power granted to it under the statute or had enacted unreasonable regulations that would impose liability upon Rex under a warranty theory for defects in equipment which it had not installed or affected.1 The district court ruled against Rex on both grounds. 342 F.Supp. 281 (E.D.Wis. 1972).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 was enacted to reduce traffic accidents through the establishment and enforcement of motor vehicle safety standards and the encouragement of safety research. 15 U.S.C. § 1381. Accordingly, the Secretary of Transportation or his designate is empowered to establish federal safety standards after a consideration of various pertinent factors. § 1392(a) and (f). The Act makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce any vehicle not in conformity with the safety standards. § 1397(a)(1). If in fact a vehicle is sold which does not conform to such standards, the Secretary may impose penalties upon the offending party (§ 1398), a dealer or distributor holding the vehicle may require the manufacturer or distributor from whom he obtained the vehicle to repurchase it (§ 1400), and the manufacturer may be required to notify the purchaser of the existence of the defect and the means of correcting it (§ 1402). The Act also provides for the dissemination of technical and performance data (§ 1401), and requires a certification of conformity pursuant to the terms of § 1403:
Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered. In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.
The Act provides penalties for those who fail to issue a certificate required by section 1403, or who issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle conforms to all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards when the issuer has reason to know in the exercise of due care that such certification is false or materially misleading. § 1397(a)(3).
Pursuant to the authority granted in § 1407 to make such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the above statutory provisions, the Secretary provided for issuance of the regulations which Rex attacks in this action. These regulations denominate Rex as a "final-stage manufacturer" of motor vehicles, since it transforms an "incomplete vehicle" into a "completed vehicle" which requires "no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function. . . ." 49 CFR § 568.3. The manufacturer of the chassis-cab, be it Ford, General Motors, or any other concern, is therefore an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer." Id. Rex, as the final-stage manufacturer, must certify that the entire vehicle—chassis and mixer—conforms to all applicable federal safety standards. 49 CFR § 568.6(b). The incomplete vehicle manufacturers have only to supply Rex with a listing of all the safety standards which apply to the equipment installed in the chassis-cab assembly, and information as to the extent to which such equipment conforms to these standards.2 Rex must then rely upon this information while installing the mixer, and must then attach a certification plate to the vehicle. This plate lists the dates when manufacturing operations were performed on the vehicle, gives various technical data, and identifies the manufacturer of the "incomplete vehicle." More importantly, this plate must state that the vehicle was "manufactured by" Rex and must contain the words: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." Although this language is sufficiently ambiguous so that it does not actually identify which manufacturer is certifying which pieces of equipment on the vehicle, the regulations unequivocably state that Rex is the party that must certify all the equipment on the entire vehicle. 49 CFR § 568.6(b).
In this appeal Rex has vociferously objected to the requirement of 49 CFR § 568.6(b) that it certify the entire cement mixer vehicle once it has attached a new mixer. It argues first that the Secretary did not have the authority to enact regulations requiring it to certify vehicles, since 15 U.S.C. § 1403 (quoted supra) is inapplicable to equipment manufacturers like itself who do not operate through dealers and distributors, but who simply return a customer's truck to him once the mixer is installed. Secondly, it submits that the attachment of the certification plate will make it a warrantor of the equipment installed by the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and liable for damages for breach of warranty should this equipment fail; it further contends that, because differences in applicable statutes of limitations, possible insolvency of the incomplete manufacturer, and the vagaries of juries may prevent successful recourse against the manufacturer who selected and installed the equipment, the certification regulations are also unreasonable.3
In response the government has argued that the requirement of § 1403 that every manufacturer furnish the certification of conformity "to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery" should be construed "as defining the time when the certification requirement becomes effective rather than the group whom the requirement is intended to protect." It has also stated that certification is not equivalent to a warranty, and that even if certification were to be interpreted as a warranty, Rex could escape liability by establishing that it exercised due care in observing the conditions specified by the incomplete manufacturer in the document which it is required to provide.
The district court did not discuss Rex's first argument concerning the Secretary's lack of authority to impose the certification requirement under § 1403, but obviously did not accept it. As to the reasonableness of the regulations, the district court apparently assumed that the certification requirement would be unreasonable if Rex were to be held liable for defects in equipment that it certified but did not install. However, the court reasoned that Rex could successfully defend any action based on the certification by showing that it relied on the statement of conformity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chrysler Corp. v. E.P.A.
...that an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' is a 'manufacturer' within the meaning of" the statute. 110 The Administrator argues that Rex Chainbelt is distinguishable because the certification requirement there was laid on "every manufacturer." We are unable to detect the difference suggested......
-
National Truck Equipment Ass'n v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.
...burden of certification on the final-stage manufacturer is, however, unreasonable, as the Administration knows. See Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Volpe, 486 F.2d 757 (7th Cir.1973) (requiring final-stage manufacturer to make sole certification of vehicle unreasonable), heard after remand sub nom. ......
-
Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Brinegar
...appeal is whether the judgment of the district court on remand is in accordance with the opinion of this court in Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Volpe, 486 F.2d 757 (7 Cir. 1973). Rex Chainbelt, Inc., plaintiff-appellee, is engaged in the manufacture of concrete mixers which are designed to be moun......