ID: nht88-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT G. YORKS -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS GROUP, TRUCK-LITE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-1-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, STD 108, REDBOOK A32; ALSO ATTACHED MEMO DATED 5-24-88, TO KATHLEEN DEMETER FROM ROBERT G. YORKS, 25220

TEXT: In a letter dated March 31, 1988, you requested our interpretation as to whether a new motor vehicle device would comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You also asked that the description, general design concept, and details of the device be afforded confidential treatment.

Please be informed that this agency requires all of its interpretations to be made publicly available. Hence, you must decide if you still desire a interpretation to be issued in this matter, with the result that the confidential status of the informati on will be compromised. I am prepared to delete any information specifically identifying you or your company from our analysis if you so request, but the substantive information describing the item of motor vehicle equipment will be made part of the pub licly available analysis.

No further action will be taken in this matter until we have received a response from you.

ID: nht88-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 4, 1988

FROM: ROBERT J. KAUFMAN -- GINGOLD, KAUFMAN & CHAIKEN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: GK&C FILE NO. 1012-271

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-18-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO ROBERT J. KAUFMAN, TITLED: GK & C FILE # 1012-271

TEXT: This law firm represents a Volvo dealership in the State of Georgia, which dealership purchases certain accessory products for the aftersale market. Specifically, one of the products which my client acquires is an armrest to be installed in a Volvo 240 s eries automobile, which product is acquired from a company known as Auto Accessories, Inc., located at P. O. Box 10044, New Iberia, Louisiana 70562. Recently, my client has received a circular from Auto Accessories, Inc., relative to the installation pr ocedure for the "240 armrest", which procedure ostensibly was either approved, mandated or suggested by the Department of Transportation. A copy of the circular is enclosed for your review.

It would greatly be appreciated if you could

furnish to the undersigned a detailing of the specific installation procedures for the "240 armrest". Moreover, it would be appreciated if you would advise the undersigned as to whether these procedures are merely suggested or required.

Of additional concern is the question as to whether the installation procedure which the Department of Transportation has suggested satisfies the "inoperative" or "inaccessible" test as alluded to in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, Standard No. 208, Section S7.2 and Section 108(A) (2) (a).

Finally, if your office has any additional information relative to this specific accessory, to-wit: the "240 armrest", or anything related to its installation, operation or tests or studies pertaining to it, it would be most helpful if you could furni sh to the undersigned copies of all relevant data. Naturally, we would be more than happy to be invoiced for any costs incurred in the production of these documents.

Obviously, it is my client's firmest desire to provide the utmost in safety to its customers, and, consequently, my client is most desirous of insuring that the accessories which it installs and the method of installation are of the highest caliber an d any information that you could provide to facilitate that endeavor will be received most graciously. Thank you for your kind assistance and cooperation.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: GARY M. CEAZAN -- RIKEN AMERICA, INC.

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Attn: Tire Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GARY M CEAZAN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109, 119; LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL

TEXT: Dear Commissioner:

Riken-America, Inc. is the importer, and national distributor, of Riken Tires for the United States. Riken Tires are manufactured in Japan by Okamoto Industries, Inc., Tokyo, Japan (D.O.T. Code No. ED).

The purpose of this letter is to obtain from your office a ruling on the following question:

...If a tire carries both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings, would this tire be considered by U.S. -- D.O.T. as a dual sized tire; and, therefore, not allowed to be sold in the United States?

Specifically, Okamoto Industries, Inc. is currently producing a line of metric size radial tires for sales in both Europe and Japan and both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings appear on the tires, at different locations, for example, the size marking 165/80R13 (I.S.O.) appears mid-way on the sidwall, and the size marking, 165R13 (E.T.R.T.O.) appears above the bead (see attached sketch).

Please advise if these tires could be imported into the United States with the size markings mentioned above. You may write to me at Riken-America, Inc., P. O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90051, or telephone me at 1 (800) 421-1838. Thank you for your consideration of and response to this inquiry.

ID: nht88-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Dahl -- Vice President, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (Std. 109; Std. 119) 2/16/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mike Kaizaki 4/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (occ 1951)

TEXT:

Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. 119.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, 1987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of us ing dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size design ation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a 1974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. 109 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR 10162.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. 109 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concludi ng that this exception existed. (See June 8, 1971 letter to Mercedes-Benz; January 19, 1972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, 1973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the 1971-7 2 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, 1980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. 109 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. 119 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, 1987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. 119 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure August 12, 1987 Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter concerns the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119, section S6.5(c), the tire size designation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to mark three sizes of wide base super single tires whose size designations are being changed from conv entional inch-based markings to metric-based markings. We propose to use, for a transitional period, the format: "METRIC SIZE replaces inch size", for each of the following three sizes--

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5 (We propose to mark the word "replaces" and the replaced size designation adjacent to the primary size designation, in characters no larger than one-half the height of the primary size designation.

Since the time FMVSS109 and FMVSS119 became effective, the question of size marking tires has come up frequently, the last time being your recent opinion letter to Mr. J B White of Michelin, Greenville, South Carolina. Since the subject of that letter in volves one of the exact sizes in this letter, we feel it necessary to further discuss the intent of this request.

August 11, 1987 -2- Erika Z. Jones

The NHTSA has reiterated in opinion letters and rulemaking that the purpose of the tire labeling requirements is to provide

with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. The NHTSA has previously stated that:

"Replacement size markings, however, represent that a particular size is replacing or superseding an existing size designation. The NHTSA believes this type of information to be advantageous to consumers, providing on the tire itself information that a s pecified size designation is intended to be used in place of another." (39 FR 10162, 18MAR74).

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

E W Dahl

ID: nht94-5.26

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Voirswagen of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barbara Gray

TITLE: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation Relating to 49 CFR Parts 541 & 543, Theft Prevention Standard

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from John Womack to Dietmar R. Haeochen (A42; Part 543; Part 541

TEXT: This is to request an interpretation relative to the parts marking requirements for replacement parts on a vehicle which has been granted an exemption from parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.

By letter dated May 7, 1993, NHTSA granted an exemption for the 1995 model year Volkswagen Corrado from the parts marking requirements based on a petition for exemption filed by Volkswagen on September 29, 1992. The Volkswagen Corrado was parts marked for the model years 1990 to 1994.

In an interpretation letter of October 12, 1989 to Saab-Scania of America, Inc., NHTSA stated that after a carline has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, the replacement parts for that carline no longer need to be marked even if the replacement parts can also be used on prior model years during which the particular carline was parts marked and not exempt under Part 543.

Volkswagen has just determined that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for the 1995 model year and as such, Volkswagen will not be selling vehicles covered under the exemption granted in the letter of May 7, 1993.

Our question is whether in line with the interpretation to Saab the marking of replacement parts for the Volkswagen Corrado carline can be terminated based on the exemption granted for the 1995 model year, even if the replacement parts can be used for earlier model years and even though the 1995 model year Corrado will not be sold in the United States (although it will be available in Europe).

4

Because we would like to take advantage of the cost savings from the termination of parts marking as soon as possible, your earliest possible response to the issue will be appreciated.

As an additional question with regard to replacement parts anti-theft marking, Volkswagen would like to know whether replacement parts marking can ever be terminated on carlines that were parts marked while they were in production, but which have been out of production for more than five years and which are therefore statistically low theft. The particular example Volkswagen has in mind is the Audi 5000 carline which was produced through the 1988 model year as a parts marked vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of the issues in this letter.

ID: nht94-5.27

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based on phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for side striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 positions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with the horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surface that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.

ID: nht94-5.28

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Norman Duncan -- President, Study-Tech, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from Norman Duncan to Rodney Slater (OCC-9882) and letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik

TEXT:

The Federal Highway Administration has forwarded your letter of March 10, 1994, for reply. You request "an interpretation of the existing vehicle code as it may apply to a safety warning system that our corporation has devised."

Our agency issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act'). Our Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT is the regulation that governs the performance of lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles and determines whether optional lighting equipment is acceptable. As you have described it, the "Early-Warning Slow Down Safety Light" will automatically be activated when a vehicle decelerates. The system will operate through the stop lamps, but, alternatively, it could employ separate lamps mounted on the rear deck.

Your system is similar to others which have been suggested over the years, and we therefore do not feel that a demonstration is necessary as you have offered. With respect to operation of your system through the stop lamps, as you will see from our letter of October 22, 1993, to Dr. Cehelnik, a copy of which I have enclosed, automatic activation of the stop lamps is not permitted by Standard No. 108 which allows the stop lamps to operate only when the brake pedal is applied.

As for operation of your system through a separate lamp system, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Were your separate warning system to utilize red lenses, we believe that it could impair the effectiveness of the required stop lamps by sending at times a false signal; not every deceleration is followed by braking, and the operation of your system when not followed by brake application activating the stop lamps could be confusing to a following driver. On the other hands, if your system utilized amber lenses, we believe that impairment would be unlikely to exist because the public associates this color with the need for caution.

The Act itself governs acceptability of your system in the aftermarket (i. e. , installed on vehicles in use). Section 108 (a) (2) (A) prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 and all other safety standards. We interpret this where possible as equating inoperability with impairment. Thus, we would view installation of your

system by the persons named above as violative of the Act if it operated through the stop lamp system or if it were a separate lamp system with red lenses.

Even where a supplementary lighting system may be permitted under Federal laws and regulations, it remains subject to the laws of the individual states where the system will be operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-5.29

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Carr -- Engineer, Utilimaster

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From Fred Carr To John Womack (OCC-9912)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carr:

This responds to your question asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to "motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers." As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment.

S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. "Truck" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott, Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/29/94 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO JOHN WOMAK (OCC 10394)

TEXT: We have received your letter to John Womack, the former Acting Chief Counsel of this agency, responding to his letter to you of July 20, 1994. Thank you for enclosing a copy of his letter for ready reference.

Our previous letter to you was without the benefit of the diagram of the Caine system which you have now enclosed. The system is intended to be placed "along the side of trucks and other vehicles." It consists of three read lamps mounted over three ambe r (yellow) ones, the array installed between the amber front side marker lamp and the red rear side marker lamp. In normal operation the amber lamps are used as "running lights" but will be turned off when the red lamps are illuminated in a steady burni ng state upon application of the brake pedal. The three amber lamps will flash to indicate that the vehicle is turning. All six lamps will flash when the hazard indicator switch is on. If the turn signal is on and the driver's foot is on the brake ped al, the amber lamps will flash while the red ones illuminate in a steady burning state. At 32 candela, the turn signal lamps will be at a higher intensity than the running lamps which operate at 3 to 5 candela. These are within NHTSA specifications. Y ou ask whether this system will be in violation of Standard No. 108.

This office has corresponded with you on lighting matters on a number of occasions and you are well aware that supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited as original equipment only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is require d by Standard No. 108. This determination is to be made by the manufacturer or dealer who installs the equipment and NHTSA will not question it unless it is clearly erroneous.

ID: nht94-5.30

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Fred Benford To John womack (OCC-9891)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections . . .

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

2

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,