Interpretation ID: AviationUpgradeTechnologies.2rev

Mr. Torbjrn Lundqvist
Chief Executive Officer
Aviation Upgrade Technologies
6550 So. Pecos Road, #142
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Lundqvist:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2002, regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), (67 FR 38704, June 5, 2002).

You indicated in that letter, and in your earlier October 10, 2002 letter, that you believe NHTSA is interpreting section 13 of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000 to require, as part of the final TPMS rule, that the system indicate to the operator, "while operating" his or her vehicle, when a tire is significantly under- inflated. You ask who interpreted the law in this way, NHTSA or Congress. You also express a desire to meet with the relevant decisionmaker, in order to discuss with that person your views regarding such interpretation.

Please be advised that NHTSA, in carrying out the responsibilities Congress assigns it, makes any necessary interpretations of the statutes it administers, including this provision of the TREAD Act. Within NHTSA, the Chief Counsel is the chief legal officer, and is delegated authority to issue interpretations of these statutes. See 49 CFR 501.3(b) and 501.8(d).

As we noted in our letter to you dated November 18, 2002, we understand that on July 17, 2002, you filed a petition for reconsideration of the TPMS rule, in which you provide a detailed discussion of the alternative TPMS system manufactured by your company whose indicator is external to the vehicle (i.e., the Air Alert Valve Cap System). We stated that if you have new information not contained within your petition for reconsideration, you could supplement your earlier submission to the agency. We also stated that, in that we would be responding to your petition for reconsideration through the rulemaking process, we did not believe that a meeting is necessary at this time.

After considering your new letter, we continue to believe that a meeting is unnecessary at this time. Any legal or other issues that you believe are relevant, including ones related to how the TREAD Act should be interpreted, can be presented in writing. We thank you for your interest in the TPMS rule, and it is our intention to respond to all issues raised in petitions for reconsideration as expeditiously as possible. A copy of your letter has been included in the rulemaking docket for this final rule.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:138
d.1/13/03