Interpretation ID: nht75-5.23

DATE: 08/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CALL FROM YOKOHAMA TIRE CO. REPRESENTATIVE -- AUGUST 21, 1975

I received a call at 5 p.m. on August 21, 1975, from Mr. N. Harada, a representative of Yokohama Tire Corporation, with regard to the effective dates of the U.T.Q.G.S. Rule. I explained to him that six manufacturers who are litigating the validity of the Rule had brought a motion to stay the enforcement and postpone the effective dates of the Rule, and that on August 14, 1975, the Court granted the motion to stay.

He asked when the Rule would become effective; I responded that I could not say when, because the matter was in litigation and that I did not want to speculate about the Court's judgment. I further explained that the only effective dates which the agency had set were those in the Rule, e.g., January 1, 1976, for radial tires, but that the Court last week issued a stay. He asked whether, in the event that the validity of the Rule was upheld by the Court, new, later effective dates would be established; I responded that any answer I could now give to that question would be speculation and that the agency has set no other effective dates.

Mr. Harada also asked when the Court would decide the validity of the Rule. I told him that this was under the control of the Court, not the agency. He was under the mistaken impression that the Court was or is going to rule on the effective dates or some related matter this week. I explained that the only operative "event" that I am aware of which would occur this week is the filing of the Petitioners' brief on the merits, which was due to be filed by last Monday, August 18, and which we have not yet actually received. Subsequently, I continued, the Government would file its brief on the merits, and then the Petitioners would have an opportunity to file a reply brief and the case would then be set down for oral argument. After oral argument, which would not take place before October and might be in December or later, depending upon when the Court scheduled it, the Court would deliberate and then issue its ruling. I explained that the agency had no control over how long the Court deliberates or when the Court would issue its ruling.

I tried to give the above answers and explanations slowly and clearly, because there appeared to be a language barrier; the caller was courteous, but English was obviously a second language to him, and it seemed that he may have been somewhat confused.

The next day, August 22, Mr. Harada again phoned in the late afternoon and stated that, in reference to his previous call, the subject matter was "very important" and he would therefore like to have it in writing. At his request, I told him that I would send him a letter.