Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Search Interpretations

Interpretation 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