Removed Tire Pressure Sensors

No. This happens all the time when I replace the stock rims (TPMS) with steel rims (no TPMS) and winter tires. Not sure of the rules in your state, but the car may not pass inspection with the light illuminated if you are due for an inspection. Since the inspection on my '08 does not come around until May in NYS, I am good to go. If you are in a state that requires yearly safety and/or emissions inspections, it doesn't hurt to find out in advance if a non-functioning or missing TPMS sensors will trigger an automatic fail.

 

I believe you can use Toyota Techstream software from Amazon or EBAY, and enter code 0000000 for each tire to turn off the blinking light.

I am still playing with it. I just zero'ed out one tire a few weeks back, and just now another one went bad (approx. 9.5 years battery life at 150000 miles). See my Post on How To.

I would think Costco might have done that for you, as I assume they have device to reset the codes.

TPMS Management with Techstream | PriusChat

 

It's good to hear Costco for one isn't playing TPMS Nazi. I've got nothing against the system, but the cost/hassle of maintaining it, either when sensor batteries fail or when you have an extra set of tires, eclipses the benefit.

 

Something doesn't seem to make sense here. Why did Costco say they needed to be replaced?

If even one of them was working -- somewhat -- then Costco violated federal law at least with the working -- somewhat -- sensor.

If all of them were not working?///?? That seems very odd too that all would be out.

Anyway, curious what the real deal is with this.

Don't get me wrong -- I hate the "sensorship."

 

Each tire TPMS unit has a button battery that lasts about 8-10 years. The button battery is not replaceable so you must replace whole TPMS device in each tire (about $38 per tire for Denso OEM unit on Amazon-not including labor to change it out and reprogram codes for the new TPMS).

2006 Prius was the first with TPMS so we are about to hear lots more TPMS going bad as we go forward. Can cost a lot more to replace at dealer than at Costco. But if you are getting new tires, that's the time to do it. So Costco performed a good service by offering to replace.

Not sure about legal aspects, though my state of Virginny does not require TPMS light to be operational for inspections.

 

Ah, that's more like it, the old familiar Costco. Funny, 5+ years back, getting snow tires on rims at a Toyota dealership, the service writer was asking me: "So do you want the tire pressure sensors on those?", all the while emphatically shaking his head no.

 

...only a handful of US states (CARB + a few others) are required by EPA to conduct inspections, so there would be no way to enforce a Federal TPMS replacement regulation (if one existed)

 

Maybe they go after tire places?

 

If all sensors were bad, no violation -- seems hard to believe that at least one was not operating however -- but certainly possible.

But, and again, I hate the law -- it is a violation to remove working sensors and not replace them with working sensors -- no matter what U.S. state you live in.

A post last year had a good letter sent to the Pacific Northwest's King of Tires -- Les Schwab -- that is pretty darn specific on the wherefores and whereofs of the regulations. I kept a copy of it, because I use Les Schwab quite a bit and they are famous for pushing "laws" at you when none exist -- so I wanted a copy of the actual policy that they have on their Web site if they ever give me a hassle. The letter is below:

________________________________________________________
US Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Nov 22, 2011

Tire Industry Association
1532 Pointer Ridge Place, Suite G
Bowie, MD 20716
This letter responds to your letter to the Administrator on behalf of the Tire Industry Association (TIA) raising concerns that the tire industry has with the agency’s tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) regulations. Because your letter raises legal questions, I have been asked to respond.

Your letter states that the TIA represents all segments of the tire industry, including manufacturers, repair businesses, dealers, recyclers, retreaders, and suppliers. You state that your members have encountered concerns with TPMS malfunction indicator lamps illuminating after the performance of certain services and repairs on vehicles. You raise issues confronted by your members when encountering TPMS systems and ask whether actions by service providers violate the “make inoperative” provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The make inoperative provision (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

You put forth four scenarios faced by your membership. You request clarification from NHTSA on the applicability of the “make inoperative” provision. We address each scenario in turn below. For each scenario, we address only the applicability of the “make inoperative” provision in the context of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. We have stated in the past that TPMS requires special consideration because TPMS itself is analogous to a malfunction indicator.1 Thus, our response to all of the scenarios you raise regarding the “make inoperative” provision may not be applicable to all FMVSSs.

Please note that in those circumstances in which Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning TPMS system, NHTSA nevertheless strongly encourages such repair so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We note that State tort, contract, or other laws governing motor vehicle repair businesses may impose additional requirements upon your members.

Scenario #1: If a motorist is made aware of an inoperative TPMS sensor and declines to purchase a new one, does the service provider knowingly make the system inoperative and violate 49 USC 30122(b) by removing the dead or damaged sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem?

Our response: For the purpose of this response, we assume that you are referring solely to TPMS sensors that are integrated with the valve stem. Moreover, we assume that the sensor was inoperative before a customer brought the vehicle to the repair business. An illuminated malfunction indicator lamp could be an indication of an inoperative sensor. We also assume that you are describing a part within the TPMS system that cannot be repaired. In that event, a motor vehicle repair business would not be violating 49 USC 30122(b) by removing an inoperative or damaged TPMS sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem. The removal of a malfunctioning TPMS sensor that is integrated with a valve stem would not violate the “make inoperative” provision because the element of the system was already inoperative. However, a motor vehicle repair business that goes on to make any other element of the TPMS system inoperative, for example, by disabling the malfunction indicator lamp, would violate the “make inoperative” provision.

Scenario #2: If a motorist purchases a set of aftermarket winter tires and wheels and declines to purchase new TPMS sensors, does the service provider violate 49 USC 30122(b) because they would be installing assemblies that knowingly make the system inoperative?

Our response: In this scenario, we assume that the vehicle has a functioning TPMS system at the time he or she purchases aftermarket tires and wheels. In that case, a service provider would violate the “make inoperative” prohibition of 49 USC 30122(b) by installing new tires and wheels that do not have a functioning TPMS system. To avoid a “make inoperative” violation, the service provider would need to decline to install the new tires and rims, use the TPMS sensor from the original wheels (if they are compatible), or convince the motorist to purchase new TPMS sensors and ensure that the sensors are properly integrated with the vehicle’s TPMS system.

You suggest that, if the install does not disable the malfunctioning indicator lamp, the driver would still be warned that the TPMS system is inoperative and there would be no violation of 49 USC 30122(b). However, the illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp is inapposite to this scenario. By removing tires and wheels with functioning TPMS sensors and replacing them with tires and wheels without TPMS sensors, the repair business has knowingly removed an essential part of the TPMS system. This is precisely the type of action that the “make inoperative” provision of 49 USC 30122(b) is intended to prohibit.

Scenario #3: If a service provider inadvertently breaks a non-defective sensor and is unable to locate a replacement part immediately, is it a violation of 49 USC 30122(b) to allow the vehicle to return to service if the service provider makes arrangements to obtain a replacement part and install it at a future date? And does the answer change if the service provider damages a sensor and then does nothing to replace it or if the customer specifically directs the service provider to finish service without replacing the damaged part (i.e., the customer is in a hurry or wants to have the work done somewhere else)?

Our response: In this scenario, we again presume that you are referring solely to TPMS systems that are integrated with a valve stem.

Your question raises two issues. First, to fully analyze how the “make inoperative” prohibition relates to inadvertent damage would depend on the specific factual circumstances. We note that the “make inoperative” provision prohibits a motor vehicle repair business from “knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standard.” Generally, we would not consider inadvertent actions to violate the “make inoperative” prohibition. However, without more specific facts concerning whether the TPMS was knowingly made inoperative, we cannot provide a more complete response to your question.

To address the second issue raised by your question, the applicability of the “make inoperative” prohibition to the arrangement of repairs at a future date, we note that the “make inoperative” prohibition contains an exception for when the “repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.” Therefore, as a general matter, a violation of the “make inoperative” prohibition does not occur until a repair business allows or intends a vehicle to be returned to use. A motor vehicle repair business would violate 49 USC 30122(b) if it has knowingly made inoperative any part of a device and allowed the vehicle to be used (other than for testing or a similar purpose). This would be true regardless of whether arrangements have been made for future repair, as there are no other exceptions to the “make inoperative” prohibition in the statute.

Of course, if the repair business has not knowingly made a device or element inoperative, there would be no need to use this exception, and the motor vehicle repair business would be able to release the vehicle to the customer, with or without making arrangements to complete a repair, without violating 49 USC 30122(b).

We stress that our response relates solely to the applicability of the “make inoperative” prohibition in 49 USC 30112(b), and does not address whether state or local laws or regulations would impose obligations upon a service provider.

Scenario #4: If the service provider releases the vehicle to the driver without an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp and then it illuminates after the vehicle has been driven, does that become a violation of 49 USC 30122(b)? TIA believes that in this situation, the service provider did not knowingly make the system inoperative so there would be no violation.

Our response: We discussed this scenario in the April 2005 final rule.2 The mere illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp after the vehicle has been released by a motor vehicle repair business to the driver would not itself be a violation of the “make inoperative” provision. FMVSS No. 138 requires that the malfunction telltale illuminate not more than 20 minutes after the occurrence of a malfunction, meaning that the system may not detect a malfunction that occurred while the car was at the motor vehicle repair business until the car has been released to the owner and driven for some time. Whether or not a “make inoperative” violation has occurred would depend only upon whether the motor vehicle repair business knowingly made inoperative an element of the TPMS system that caused the malfunction indicator lamp to illuminate.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,


O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel


1 See, e.g., 70 FR 18160-61

2 See 70 FR 18160-61

#22 cyberpriusII, Nov 25, 2015

 

I think Scenario #2 will discourage some people from getting snow tires.

 

why don't they write a more sensible law that forces mfg.'s to use replaceable batteries.

 

I'm betting that move was an individual employee accommodating a customer's wishes. Overall corporate policy is likely different, and other customers will still be at the mercy of finding an accommodating employee.

 

The unsealed battery compartment, and lack of soldered or spot welded electrical connection, raises other problems. Besides the obvious 'problem' of sensor makers not selling as many replacements.

 

It'd be a big step in the right direction if the initialization of sensors was easily/cheaply doable by owners, say for the snow tire on separate rim scenario. Say via a button on or under the dash.

 

I believe several systems do exactly that, some even automatically without pushing any buttons. And many North American manufacturers use such systems.

But Toyota and some other Asian manufacturers have elected to not use such systems.

 

Interesting...so that says although the warning light can be turned off, service shops are not allowed to do so.

However, individual owners can do that action (via Techstream software for example).
Basically the Feds gave us an idiot light without a defeat switch. The make inoperative provision (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative...

I am not hearing the owner is disallowed from turning off the warning light.

As far as Bisco, there are alternate TPMS (eg; Volt?) based on tire speed that do not rely on button batteries.

 

The light totally doesn't bother me, very unobtrusive. On for a few months every winter, in our case.