ID: aiam4416

Dear Mr. Hoppe: This is in response to your March 30, 1987, letter requestin clarification concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. You indicate that there is confusion on the part of consumers, retailers, as well as enforcement authorities concerning the *lack* of the DOT initials on some helmets offered for sale in the United States. You further indicate that a recent letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance may have added to the confusion. I hope that the following clarifies the situation.; No manufacturer may display the DOT symbol on a motorcycle helmet unless the helmet complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218. What seems to be causing some of the confusion is that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 currently does not apply to all helmets sold in the United States. Paragraph S3 of Standard 218 states, in part, that '...this standard appl ies to all helmets that can be placed on the size C headform using normal fitting procedures. Helmets that cannot be placed on the size C headform will not be covered by this standard until it is extended to those sizes by further amendment.' If a helmet is *exempt* from complying with the Standard (because it cannot be placed on the size C headform using normal fitting procedures), it may not display the DOT symbol either. This is the case with what are typically the small or extra small helmets. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate for some helmets not to display the DOT symbol.; Further, as a cautionary note, the certification requirements of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq) prohibit any person from issuing a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if the person (using due care) has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. It is possible that placing the DOT symbol on a helmet to which the standard is not applicable may be false and misleading under section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act. There are possible fines associated with a determination under this section.; The agency recognizes that the lack of universal application of th standard may lead to some confusion in the marketplace. Now that adequate headforms exist so that all helmet sizes can be tested, we are working on a final rule which will extend the applicability of Standard 218 to all helmet sizes. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5448

"Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufactures trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Commander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufactures trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that 'Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer.' The term 'manufacturer' is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person 'manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.' According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that 'P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications.' This statement indicates that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manfacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indicates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers. As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correctly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's. You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the 'Certificate of Origin.' Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the state's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMVA is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4685

"Dear Mr. Walters: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, l990 to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide 'the reason why this system is not being used.' The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, l990, for an 'Automobile Warning Light Improvement.' The purpose of the 'Improvement' is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have the potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mode when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed. The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that 'The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.' In addition, the effect of paragraph S5.5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other than steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. 108. The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion. Use of a flashing stop lamp, mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the message sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn. We appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4038

Dear Ms. House: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8 inch diameter acrylic disk which is of optical quality and tinted. The second product is a 4 inch by 4 inch sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3340

Dear Mr. Brownstein: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3337

Dear Mr. Houseal: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway traffic SAfety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3339

Dear Mr. Stephens: This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

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: aiam2535

Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331)for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake Systems*. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of the drum brake shoes may visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the drums...' Under the system you described 'the only means of determining the lining thickness of the read brake shoes, with out removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized when the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system dies not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advanced in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of(sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means of determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam4763

"Dear Ms. Birenbaum: This responds to your letter asking whether product would be considered an item of 'motor vehicle equipment,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). I apologize for the delay in this response. The product in question is called 'kwik kool' and is intended to improve the performance of motor vehicles' air conditioning systems. The packaging and labeling for this product that were enclosed with your letter indicate that 'kwik kool' is intended exclusively for use with a motor vehicle and by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We conclude that this product is 'motor vehicle equipment.' As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . 'Kwik kool' is an aerosol component that appears to be manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems. As such, it is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. You noted in your letter that the Consumer Product Safety Act excludes items of 'motor vehicle equipment' from those 'consumer products' subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under that Act. This agency, on the other hand, has express statutory authority to investigate allegations that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Pursuant to the request in your letter, we have forwarded the complaint enclosed with your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation. If you have any questions or would like some additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";