ID: nht95-7.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 11160)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592.

The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556.

The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

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

ID: nht95-7.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact protection meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimistic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the early days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system components and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently different from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38,244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt hardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of both the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a supplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dual roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the standard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currently offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which the restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest by promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, areas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance with Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precarious.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given the existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: nht95-7.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds, Esq., -- Cosco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS TO DEIRDRE FUJITA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your letter asking us to confirm that we consider your submission, dated August 3, 1995, as a timely petition for reconsideration of a final rule published July 6, 1995 (Docket No. 74-09, Notice 42). You enclosed a copy of a Federal Express document to show that your submission was received by NHTSA within the time period provided for such petitions under 49 CFR @ 553.35.

The Federal Express document, which shows the signature of an agency employee, supports a finding that your submission was timely filed. NHTSA is processing your submission as a petition for reconsideration of the subject rule.

If you have any further questions about your petition, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM ORLANDO FERREIRA TO J. MEDLIN (OCC 11221)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

* a control is provided, * is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), * and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification . . . of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

ID: NCC-220316-001 Aircraft Refueler.Beyer.30102

U.S.Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

Washington, DC 20590

October 1, 2025

Lawrence A. Beyer 674 Lake Road

Webster, NY 14580 

Lbeyer l@rochester.rr.com

Dear Mr. Beyer, 

This responds to your March 13, 2022 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) inquiring whether a certain aircraft refueling truck would constitute a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act").1 Based on the specific information provided in your request and supporting documentation, we conclude that this aircraft refueling truck would not be considered a "motor vehicle.". Accordingly, the Safety Act would not prevent its importation into the United States. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter only aims to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Background 

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to regulate motor vehicle safety by promulgating and enforcing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways."2 The Safety Act prohibits the import of motor vehicles into the United States unless the motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS and bears a permanently affixed label by the vehicle's original manufacturer certifying compliance.3 

According to your letter, in June 1998, Advanced Engineered Products, Limited ("Advanced") manufactured an aircraft refueling truck for Calgary Fuel Facilities Corporation ("Calgary

1 Codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
2 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(7).
3 See 49 U.S.C. § 30112(a)(l). 

Fuel") for use at the Calgary airport. In your communications with NHTSA, you included a link to the listing of the unit, which indicates several specialized attributes.4 The three-axle vehicle has a 6,500-gallon tank that, when full of fuel, weighs 44,000 pounds. You noted that airport road surfaces have higher weight capacity than public roads, permitting units to transport heavier loads on fewer axles.
Further, you stated that the unit has a muffler system low to the ground below the front bumper. You explained that the aircraft's safety requires a low muffler system because this ensures that the exhaust remains far enough away from the aircraft's refueling connection. You explained that when the unit is full of fuel, the weight compresses the suspension and reduces the distance between the road surface and the exhaust system. This could be dangerous given potential speedbumps, potholes, or other modifications or impairments on public roads that could damage the required exhaust system. Finally, you stated that the unit has a rear warning guard that is wider than the unit. 

Calgary Fuel used the unit at the Calgary airport from June 1998 until September 2015. In September 2015, Eastway Tank Pump & Meter Limited ("Eastway") bought the unit from Calgary Fuel and shipped the unit within Canada from Calgary to Ottawa on a flat deck trailer. In September 2021, Eastway coordinated the transportation of the unit from Canada to a storage yard in New York. According to your subsequent communications with our office, Eastway was unable to contract for a flatbed trailer to transport the unit. Thus, the unit was operated on public roads for a single time during transport to the storage yard. Eastway provided a warning vehicle containing "Slow Vehicle" signage that followed the unit during transit. 

In October 2021, Eastway attempted to import the unit into the United States. The import process requires submission of a completed Form HS-7.5 Box 2A on the form was checked as the basis for import.6 Officers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contacted NHTSA to determine whether the vehicle could be lawfully imported into the United States under the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA under Box 2A. NHTSA responded by stating that the vehicle did not have a certification label permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer and did not have a correct Vehicle Identification Number

4 htt,ps://usedoilandfiretrucks.com/products/1998-intemational-refueler/
5 Declaration: Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/hs7 rv9-tag.pdf.
6 Box 2A provides:

The vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (or the vehicle does not conform solely because readily attachable equipment items that will be attached to it before it is offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale are not attached), and Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle or affixed by the manufacturer to the equipment item or to its delivery container in accordance with applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

(VIN) as required by Box 2A. For these reasons, NHTSA stated that the unit was ineligible for importation under Box 2A and CBP seized the unit.7 

Discussion 

In your letter, you asked whether the aircraft refueling truck you reference is a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. We conclude that the vehicle you describe is not a "motor vehicle." In so opining, we distinguish this from our 1972 interpretation letter opining that an airport refueling vehicle is a "motor vehicle."8 NHTSA has previously held that airport runway vehicles, such as airport baggage conveyors, do not meet the definition of a "motor vehicle" and are not subject to FMVSS, even if they are operationally capable of highway travel.9 However, in a 1972 interpretation, NHTSA stated that an airport refueling vehicle would be a motor vehicle because it "may frequently be driven on public roads such as perimeter roads between oil tanks and the airport."10  

The features of the vehicle you describe are substantially different from the features discussed in the 1972 letter. To inform our conclusion about whether your vehicle is a "motor vehicle," we turn to evaluating the design and actual use of the unit at issue. 

More recent interpretation letters analyze the question of whether such a vehicle is considered a "motor vehicle" using a five-factor test.11 We discuss these factors in turn.

1. Whether the vehicle is advertised for use on-road and off-road, or whether it is advertised exclusively for off-road use. 

While Advanced, the original equipment manufacturer for the purposes of this response, has gone out of business, NHTSA examined the advertising of similar businesses that manufacture aircraft refuelers.12 This sample suggests aircraft refuellers are intended exclusively for off­ road use on airport roads to refuel aircraft, contrary to the description described in the 1972 interpretation. Your letter supports this inference, noting that the unit in question was used exclusively at the Calgary airport from June 1998 until September 2015. This factor supports 

7 If you can substantiate that the vehicle was manufactured in 1998, it may be imported today even if it was a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. The prohibition against importing motor vehicles not certified to meet the applicable FMVSSs at the time of manufacture does not apply to vehicles that are 25 years or older. These vehicles can be imported under Box 1 of Form HS-7. Nevertheless, we will opine on the issue of whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle to remove any ambiguity about whether the vehicle could have legally been imported in 2021.
8 Letter to Garsite Prods., Inc., Apr. 17, 1972, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/nht72-52.
9 Letter to Irving Gingold, June 30, 1988, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/2864o; Letter to Mac Yousry, June 10, 2015, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/30102-what-motor-vehicle-mac-yousry-14-000891-5114.
10 Letter to Garsite Prods., Inc., Apr. 17, 1972, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/nht72-52.
11 E.g., Letter to M. James Lester, NaturalForm, Inc., June 26, 2001, https://www.nhtsa.gov/internretations/motorvehicledefinition.
12 Aircraft Refuelers, Advance Engineered Prods., https://advanceengineeredproducts.com/products/aircraft­
refuelers/, Aircraft Refueller Company, https://arc-refuellers.be/, Refuel International, https://refuelin.com/. 

the finding that this aircraft refueler is not a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Safety Act.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist the vehicle's purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on­ road use. 

We have no evidence to inform whether Advanced assisted Calgary Fuel, the vehicle purchaser, in documentation necessary to register the vehicle for on-road use. You state that the vehicle does not have a vehicle identification number (VIN). Without a VIN, we believe it would be difficult for the vehicle to be registered in any U.S. State. Further, the unit lacked a certification label permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer. This suggests that Advanced did not designate or register the vehicle for on-road use and weighs against considering this vehicle to be a "motor vehicle."  

3. Whether the vehicles are sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

The manufacturer of the vehicle you ask about has gone out of business. Therefore, we are unable to evaluate this factor. 

4. Whether the vehicle has affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. 

Your letter indicates that the aircraft refueler has a low muffler system that makes it unsuitable for on-road use when it is loaded with fuel because it will not have sufficient ground clearance to navigate ordinary obstacles on public roads. Your letter further indicates that the refueler was transported several times within Canada towed on a flat deck trailer, rather than as a self­
operating unit on public roads. When the unit did travel on public roads for a single time due to an inability to arrange transport, during that trip, Eastway provided a warning vehicle that followed the unit containing "Slow Vehicle" signage. The unit in question has a rear warning guard that is wider than the unit itself. While it is unclear whether the "Slow Vehicle" signage or the rear warning guard explicitly included warning label text, the presence of the signage and guard, and the typical use of the vehicle, suggest that the unit is not intended for use on public roads. 

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 

The lack of a vehicle identification number, permanently affixed certification label, the use of a flat-bed trailer for primary transportation, and the use of warning signage when operated on public roads for a single time, suggests that the unit is not independently suitable for public roads. These factors make it unlikely to be registered as a motor vehicle in any U.S. State, and the lack of a vehicle identification number would make it unlikely such a vehicle would be registered for on-road use in Canada. There is no evidence that this vehicle was registered in Canada. This factor suggests that the unit would not be considered a motor vehicle. 

Conclusion 

Based on the considerations in NHTSA's five-factor test and the description of the unit you provided, the aircraft refueler in question would not be considered a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. It is similar to airport runway vehicles discussed in prior NHTSA interpretations in that, while perhaps operationally capable of traveling on public roads, it was manufactured and sold primarily for off-road use. Furthermore, it is distinguishable from the aircraft refueling vehicle that NHTSA considered in its 1972 interpretation. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser 

Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/1/25
Ref: Section 30102

ID: NCC-250121-001 FMVSS No 135.Parking Brake Indicator-lanetta signed 11.8.25

October 8, 2025

U.S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Christie Iannetta 

Nelson Mullins 

101 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20001   

Dear Ms. Iannetta:

I am writing in response to your letter addressed to NHTSA dated January 15, 2025, asking the agency to reconsider an interpretation issued on October 31, 2024 ("the interpretation").1 The interpretation was issued in response to a request you submitted on behalf of an anonymous client on February 26, 2024. In the request, you asked for clarification on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, "Light vehicle brake systems." Specifically, you asked about paragraph S5.5.1, which sets out requirements for when certain brake indicators must be activated. In the interpretation, the agency concluded that the parking brake system described in your letter likely would not comply with FMVSS No. 135's requirements. 

Your January 15 letter requests that we reconsider the interpretation. After considering your request and evaluating the conclusion and analysis in the interpretation, we do not believe we misunderstood your original interpretation request, and we are not reconsidering the interpretation. A detailed explanation of our reasoning follows. 

Background 

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. 

Please also note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter. This letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity regarding existing 

1 NHTSA Interpretation File Search, ID: NCC-230308-001, https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-230308-001- nelsonmullinsparkingbrakeindicatorinterp.

requirements under the law and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your letter at the time of signature. 

FMVSS No. 135 establishes requirements for light vehicle braking systems. Paragraph S5.5.1 therein requires indicators to be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position and one or more of seven scenarios occur. Paragraph (c) of S5.5.1 requires an indicator to be activated upon "application of the parking brake." Therefore, if the parking brake is applied and the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position, a parking brake indicator must be activated. 

You explain that your client's vehicle uses an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system where the parking brake can be applied manually by the driver or automatically by the system. The driver can engage the parking brake via the in-vehicle control at any time before shifting the vehicle into park, and when the parking brake is engaged by the driver, the parking brake indicator displays clearly in front of the driver. However, the EPB system can also apply the parking brake on its own, and it does so whenever the vehicle is shifted into park. If the EPB system engages the parking brake on its own, the parking brake indicator does not display. Finally, regardless of how the parking brake is engaged (by the driver or by the EPB system), the parking brake always disengages automatically once the vehicle is shifted out of park, or in some vehicles, when the brake pedal is depressed. 

In the interpretation we concluded that your client's system is likely not compliant with the requirements of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically, we explained that S5.5.l(c) requires that if a vehicle ignition is in the "on" position and the parking brake is applied, an indicator must activate to inform the driver of the status of the parking brake. You may reference the interpretation for our complete analysis on the issue. 

In your January 15 letter, you express your belief that we misunderstood an important fact about the manufacturer's parking brake system, and that we failed to consider relevant regulatory context. 

NHTSA's Response 

We adequately understood the functionality of your client's parking brake system, and we also considered all of the relevant regulatory background. 

NHTSA Did Not Misunderstand Your Client's EPB System 

You indicate that we purportedly failed to understand that it is impossible for your client's vehicle to be driven with the parking brake applied because the system is designed to disengage whenever the vehicle is shifted out of park. Your letter quotes the following line from the interpretation as evidence that we misunderstood this crucial fact about the EPB system: "nothing prevents the vehicle from driving during this engagement." (See interpretation p. 3, ID: NCC-230308-001). 

When we drafted the interpretation, we did so with a complete understanding that your client's vehicle is designed to make it impossible to drive with the parking brake activated. We considered this fact when analyzing your client's system under the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(c). We concluded that even though your client's vehicle design may potentially address the safety concern of driving with the parking brake activated, manufacturers may not disregard FMVSS requirements because they feel they have resolved the safety issue the standard was designed to address. As we stated in the interpretation, "[I]f a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements." Until the standard is amended, manufacturers must certify in good faith to the current requirements. 

NHTSA Did Not Ignore Important Regulatory Context 

You assert that the stated purpose of paragraph S5.5.l(c) is to prevent drivers from driving with the parking brake on, and your client's EPB system addresses that safety concern. Not only did we consider this argument in the interpretation, but our response to this argument was a central component of the interpretation. As we stated in the interpretation:

Just because a manufacturer has designed a system that purports to resolve, through other means, a safety concern addressed in an FMVSS does not mean that it is not bound by the requirements of the FMVSS or that it may introduce noncompliant motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the market. If a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements. 

We understood then that your client believes it has created an EPB system that addresses the stated safety purpose of paragraph S5.5.l(c)'s parking indicator requirement. As noted, manufacturers must certify compliance with the express terms of an FMVSS, and not just with its stated purpose. In this case, we believe that even if your client's system may address the stated safety purpose underlying paragraph S5.5.l(c), it does not comply with the paragraph's requirements. 

Nor is your argument about the test procedures set out in FMVSS No. 135 S7.12.2 persuasive. You note that the parking brake test procedure requires a vehicle to be put into neutral and the parking brake applied, after which the parking brake must hold the vehicle stationary for a specific amount of time. One of the steps in the test procedure (S7.12.2(m)) is for the test conductor to verify the operation of the parking brake application indicator. You assert that the parking brake indicator is only evaluated after the performance of the steps within the test procedure in S7.12.2, during which the parking brake is applied manually. 

However, nothing in the parking brake test procedure negates paragraph S5.5.l(c)'s parking brake indicator requirement. The requirements that the brake system warning indicators illuminate under specified conditions exists independent of any test procedure. The duration during which a brake system warning indicator must be displayed is addressed in paragraph S5.5.3, which provides that each warning indicator "shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition ('start') switch is in the 'on' ('run') position, whether or not the engine is running." Nothing in the test procedures purports to alter or limit this requirement. Thus, your client must be able to certify in good faith that its vehicle's parking brake indicator appears in plain view of the driver whenever the parking brake is engaged. We do not believe your client is able to do so based on your description of its EPB system. We note also that the final inspection procedure in paragraph S7.17 requires inspection of "[t]he brake system indicators, for compliance with operation in various key positions, lens color, labeling, and location, in accordance with S5.5." We expect that noncompliance with the requirement of paragraph S5.5.l(c) would be observed during this final inspection. 

I hope this letter provides clarity on NHTSA's stance on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Jasinski of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser 

Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/8/25
Ref: FMVSS No. 135