Air Brake Systems, Inc. v. Mineta

• Citation: 202 F.Supp.2d 705
• Decision Date: 25 April 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-10308-BC.,01-10308-BC.
• Parties: AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Norman Y. MINETA, in his capacity as Secretary of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

202 F.Supp.2d 705

AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Norman Y. MINETA, in his capacity as Secretary of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Defendant.

No. 01-10308-BC.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division.

April 25, 2002.

David M. Lick, Jeffrey S. Theuer, Daniel L. Pulter, Loomis, Ewert, Lansing, MI, for Plaintiff.

Sandra M. Schraibman, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, James J. Gilligan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, James A. Brunson, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bay City, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LAWSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Air Brake Systems, Inc. (ABS Inc.), manufactures components for braking systems which are installed on trucks and trailers. A potential customer of ABS Inc. made inquiry of the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) as to whether a product manufactured by ABS Inc. would meet a certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) pertaining to an anti-lock braking system (ABS) which the customer considered installing as original equipment on trailers which it manufactured. NHTSA did not conduct testing of the product, but based on information that it had available to it concluded in a letter by its acting chief counsel interpreting the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 that the plaintiff's product would not comply. NHTSA posted the letter on its website. The plaintiff promptly filed its complaint in this Court seeking an injunction requiring the removal of the letter from the agency's website and reversal of the agency's "finding" that the plaintiff's product failed to comply with FMVSS No. 121. This Court took under advisement the plaintiff's previous motion for a temporary injunction, and the parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. The Court held a hearing on the motions on February 22, 2002, and now finds that the interpretive letters issued by NHTSA's chief counsel did not constitute a "final agency action" as that term is used in the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., and therefore this Court is without jurisdiction to review the matter or otherwise provide the plaintiff the relief it seeks. The Court will therefore grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

I.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been delegated the authority by Congress to enact motor vehicle safety standards pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), 49 U.S.C. § 30101. As a result, NHTSA established the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In March 1995, NHTSA proposed amendments to FMVSS 121 to require that all "heavy vehicles" must be equipped with an "antilock brake system" as defined in FMVSS 121, Subsection 4. Despite concerns by certain groups that only electronic braking systems would meet the definition in Subsection 4, the amendments became final.

The plaintiff, ABS Inc., spent ten years developing a pneumatic anti-lock brake system for installation on trucks and trailers. On January 7, 1992, ABS Inc. was awarded a patent for the MSQR-5000™, which it describes as a "non-computerized anti-lock braking system which is a combination differential pressure regulator/quick release valve that is installed at each braking axle into the service air lines centered between the brake chambers." Pl.'s Brief in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 7.

The MSQR-5000™ has been sold on the retrofit after-market for trucks and trailers. Recently, ABS Inc. has attempted to sell the MSQR-5000™ to original truck and trailer manufacturers. In early 2001, ABS Inc. met with MAC Trailer Manufacturing, Inc. (MAC) about possible installation of the MSQR-5000™ on its newly-manufactured trailers. MAC orally inquired of NHTSA whether the MSQR-5000™ satisfied the definition of an "antilock brake system" under the FMVSS No. 121. NHTSA orally advised MAC that the device did not satisfy the definition as set forth in the standard.

On February 13, 2001, William Washington, president of ABS Inc., and consultants hired by ABS Inc. met in Washington D.C. with employees from NHTSA to explain the operation and characteristics of the MSQR-5000™. At that meeting, NHTSA employees requested data supporting the principles upon which the MSQR-5000™ operates and test results from an experienced and reputable testing contractor performed on a vehicle equipped with the MSQR-5000™. The record does not disclose whether any additional data were submitted.

Sometime after the February 13 meeting, Congressman Dave Camp (representing his constituent Washington) made inquiries of L. Robert Shelton, the executive director of NHTSA. Shelton responded by letter on March 21, stating that "[b]ased on a review of the promotional materials describing the devise and principles involved in its operation, it is NHTSA's view that the MSQR-5000 would not allow a vehicle to meet Standard No. 121." Compl., Ex. 3.

ABS retained counsel and on May 24, 2001 scheduled another meeting with NHTSA for June 12, 2001. ABS Inc. stated that the purpose for the meeting was to (1) demonstrate that the MSQR-5000™ complied with FMVSS No. 121 and (2) discuss tests to satisfy NHTSA that the MSQR-5000™ complies with FMVSS No. 121.

Eight days before the meeting, John Womack, acting chief counsel for NHTSA, sent a letter (the June 4 Letter) to MAC in response to its request for an interpretation of whether a "trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 `system' installed as means of meeting ABS requirements would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121." Admin. R 0080. In the June 4 Letter, Womack noted that although "[i]t is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer," "it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards." Id. Womack also noted that recall and remedy orders of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act fall to the vehicle manufacturer, not the equipment manufacturer.

Based on the attachments provided by MAC and "other data obtained from ABS, Inc.," Womack stated that "it is NHTSA's view that the installation of the MSQR-5000 alone would not allow a vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirement." Id. at 0081. This conclusion was reached for two reasons: (1) "the MSQR-5000 does not seem to have any means of automatically controlling wheel slip during braking by sensing, analyzing, and modulating the rate of angular rotation of a wheel or wheels" and (2) "the MSQR-5000 also appears to lack any provision for illuminating a warning light providing notification of an ABS malfunction." Id. at 0082. The June 4 Letter was published on the NHTSA's website.¹

At the June 12, 2001 meeting, NHTSA representatives recommended that ABS Inc. perform a split coefficient test. The test was conducted on July 6, 2001; NHTSA representatives were invited at attend but were not present.

On July 18, 2001, ABS Inc. sent a letter to the NHTSA with the results of the split coefficient test. ABS Inc. asked NHTSA to publish a letter by counsel for ABS Inc. on its website so "both viewpoints could be expressed." Compl., ¶ 68. The letter was never posted.

ABS Inc. filed the complaint in this case on August 29, 2001. At the same time, it filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. This Court denied the motion for temporary restraining order on August 30, 2001 and scheduled the motion for preliminary injunction for hearing on September 20, 2001. At the hearing, the Court took the motion for preliminary injunction under advisement and directed the defendant to complete its activity concerning the plaintiff's pending agency request. The Court gave the following directions to the parties:

1) The defendant must notify the plaintiff on or before October 4, 2001 if any additional testing is necessary or prudent for defendant's continuing review of the issues discussed and decided in its June 4, 2001 opinion letter.

2) Fourteen days thereafter, plaintiff shall advise the defendant of its intention to submit materials or that it has no intention to submit additional materials. If plaintiff intends to submit additional materials, it shall advise the defendants of the estimated time necessary to prepare and submit those materials.

3) Defendant shall complete its review within thirty days after receiving the additional materials from the plaintiff and place its findings in letter form to the plaintiff.

Order Setting Timeline For Resolution of Agency Request, 1-2.

On December 10, 2001, the NHTSA issued another interpretation letter (the December 10 Letter) which superceded the June 4 Letter. The December 10 Letter, which repeated the conclusion that the plaintiff's product would not by itself allow a vehicle on which it was installed to comply with FMVSS 121, was issued pursuant to ABS Inc.'s request for further consideration and this Court's order.

II.

The plaintiff filed a complaint which contains six "causes of action" and seeks to overturn the agency's determination concerning the adequacy of its product under FMVSS 121 together with an injunction which removes the opinion letters from the agency's website. These "causes of action" are labeled (1) violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, (2) abuse of discretion, (3) unlawful rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act, (4) violation of due process, (5) declaratory judgment, and (6) preliminary and permanent injunction. The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is that NHTSA lacks the authority to provide interpretive responses to inquiries by citizens on the question of whether a particular product actually complies with a safety standard. Rather, if NHTSA intends to measure a...