It was a challenge that had to be made, but at least for now, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in mid-June regarding NHTSA’s rule on tire pressure monitoring systems will stand as originally written. The court ruled the petitioning parties – four tire companies, TIA and consumer watchdog Public Citizen – failed to establish their standing in the dispute.
The court, however, made no comment relative to the merits of their argument.
The reaction from the tire industry and the companies that challenged NHTSA’s “final rule” on TREAD Act-mandated TPMS is predictable.
“We are still studying the decision,” says a Goodyear spokesman. Goodyear, Bridgestone/Firestone, Cooper,
Pirelli North America, the Tire Industry Association (TIA) and consumer group Public Citizen all challenged the NHTSA standard requiring factory-installed TPMS to notify drivers if tire pressure drops 25% below carmaker-set tire inflation pressures.
Goodyear’s comments are typical of the reactions from the other plaintiffs. A spokesperson for Cooper says that they are evaluating their options, and added, “We still believe that consumer safety would be enhanced if this rule was changed.” The other members of the challenge either didn’t issue a statement or were waiting for the next step in the process.
Roy Littlefield, TIA’s executive director, also indicates his group was not letting the recent court decision deter its challenge. “The [NHTSA] rule is still not stringent enough.”
The group originally filed suit in June 2005, asking the court to toss out NHTSA’s final TPMS regulations (FMVSS 138), issued in April 2005.
Not only did the group question the 25% underinflation threshold NHTSA set for TPMS alarms to activate, it also questioned NHTSA’s ruling that OE-installed TPMSs are not required to work with replacement tires, that TPMSs would only function if a vehicle is driven between 50 and 100 kph continuously for 20 minutes, and the availability of sensor repair and recalibration information to independent tire dealers and repair shops.
In 2005, SEMA also filed a petition with NHTSA for reconsideration on several TPMS issues. In essence, SEMA wanted to ensure that the aftermarket, primarily its members, would have access to all the information they needed to deal with the systems and their requirements.
Stuart Gosswein, director of governmental affairs for SEMA, said at that time: “We want to make sure that information is readily available.”
SEMA’s original petition outlined its concerns about the use of aftermarket TPMS warning lamps, certain vehicles requiring greater inflation pressures than carmakers called for, the availability of TPMS reset/relearn data and tools, and whether or not aftermarket wheels had to work with OE TPMS. In addition, because SEMA members are generally smaller businesses, SEMA sought some regulatory flexibility.
Asked about the recent appeals court decision, Gosswein says, “We didn’t take a position in that challenge. However, we are aware of other opportunities.”
Bart Cavin of Baltimore-area’s Ken’s Service Centers, offers a comment typical of dealers: “Right now, it’s still business as usual. We’re not sure where it’s going to go, but we’re still battling the same issues – our customers don’t know a lot about TPMS.
“We’re all waiting for some kind of normalcy and for someone to say, ‘this is what it is,’ but there’s still no perfect answer for this.”
The future implications of the decision have yet to be determined, but a course of action is already in development.
Marc Machlin is an attorney with Pepper Hamilton, a Washington, D.C., law firm retained to assist with the challenges to NHTSA’s mandate. Machlin says plans already are underway to address the mid-June appeals court decision.
“Consistent with the deadlines established by the court, Public Citizen submitted a brief and new affidavits addressing standing on July 10,” Machlin says. “NHTSA and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers have been authorized to file responsive briefs on or before July 23. Additionally, the four tire company petitioners and TIA had until approximately July 30 to file any petition for rehearing. As of this date, the tire industry petitioners have not decided whether to file such a petition.”
Machlin says there are three primary issues in the case:
1. TPMS standards require a dashboard warning when the inflation pressure falls 25% from the placard level;
2. TPMS standards apply only to OE tires but not to spare tires or replacement tires; and
3. TPMS rules require a dashboard warning only when the tire pressure falls below the specified level during 20 consecutive minutes of driving and provide for testing of TPMS devices only in a narrow range of driving speeds, temperatures and road conditions.
Machlin adds, “The court has signaled that, if Public Citizen is able to show that it has standing, the court will evaluate whether the agency’s decisions on these three issues should be overturned.”
The tire reserve pressure issue, Machlin says, also remains as a prominent point of debate.
“TIA and the tire manufacturers have consistently taken the position that the agency erred in adopting an activation trigger tied to a 25% drop in inflation pressure from the placard level selected by the vehicle manufacturer,” he says.
“At the placard inflation levels set by the automakers, many OE tires selected by vehicle manufacturers cannot withstand a 25% drop in pressure and still meet the long-established T&RA (load and inflation) standards that specify whether tires have the required inflation pressure.”
TIA and the tire manufacturers explained to NHTSA that, rather than using an activation level tied to a uniform 25% decrease in inflation pressure, the agency should have adopted an activation trigger tied to load and inflation standards.
“Under this approach, drivers would receive a dashboard warning whenever one or more tires lack sufficient inflation pressure necessary to support the particular vehicle when carrying its maximum load,” Machlin says. “Alternatively, the agency should have required that vehicle manufacturers select OE tires that can withstand a 25% drop in pressure and still support the fully loaded vehicle, as measured by the TR&A standards.”
Machlin says the tire industry submitted evidence to the agency showing that either of these alternative approaches would substantially enhance driver safety, while simultaneously reducing tire wear and providing significant energy cost savings.
The court may now consider that evidence. Ultimately, depending upon the resolution of the ‘standing’ issue, the court will have to decide whether the agency acted properly in adopting the TPMS standards that are now in effect.
In a separate but related issue, NHTSA in July made a decision to retain its requirement that TPMS warning lights flash for a minimum of 60 to 90 seconds when a potential air-pressure problem is indicated.
The decision was made after a request from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which believed NHTSA had insufficiently addressed the issue in its 2005 TPMS ruling.
So, the industry – at least four tire companies, Public Citizen and TIA – will wait for several more weeks (or longer) to see what happens next with the TPMS standard. In the meantime, tire dealers must continue to battle with everyday issues, such as relearns and resets.
As one dealer comments, “It’s really out of our control. We just go with the flow!”
