Interpretation ID: aiam1642
Assistant Vice President
Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America
Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
Montvale
NJ 07645;
Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your September 18, 1974, request for clarification o the vehicle requirements set out in S4. and S6. of a recent proposal to amend Standards Nos. 207, *Seating systems*, and 202, *Head restraints*. As published March 19, 1974 (39 FR 10268), S5. provides:; >>>S5. *Requirements*. Each vehicle shall be capable of meeting any o the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested in accordance with the procedures of S6. and the conditions of S7., except that any vehicle which is capable of meeting the requirements of S5.3(e) is not required to be capable of meeting S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), or S5.3(c) as applied to forward-facing seats. However, a particular vehicle (i.e., a test specimen) need not meet further requirements after having been subjected to any one of the following groups of requirements:; Group I: S5.2, 5.3(a), S5.3(b), S5.3(d), S5.5.1(b), and S5.5.1(a). Group II: S5.2, S5.3(c), and S5.3(e). Group III: S5.2 and all S5.4 requirements.<<< The first statement in S5. is that each vehicle must be capable o meeting any of the requirements listed, with certain exceptions. The second statement in S5. does not modify the first statement, but only makes clear that, for test purposes, a particular test specimen is not required to successfully undergo each of the destructive tests without a failure. To accomplish this end, the destructive tests of the standard are separated into three separate groups, each of which is calculated as appropriate for sequential testing of one vehicle.; The first statement in S5. can be interpreted as offering an option t the manufacturer between compliance with S5.3(e) or compliance with S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), and S5.3(c). In fact, all passenger cars and all multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) and trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less would be required to meet S5.3(e). A review of comments on the proposal demonstrates that manufacturers and other commenters did not misinterpret these requirements as an option. Therefore, the NHTSA concludes that the language, while it could be made more clear, adequately notified interested persons of the NHTSA's intent to apply the rear barrier crash requirement to all passenger cars and to all light MPV's and trucks subject to the standard.; Because a particular vehicle is only required to meet either S5.3(c) o S5.3(e), we agree that the Group II series of tests applicable to any one vehicle would be better expressed as 'Group II: S5.2, and S5.3(c) or S5.3(e).' Such a wording change would appear in any final rule issued in this format.; Section S6. is a statement of test procedures and, as such, it does no state further or conflicting requirements. In the case of Group II testing, it reflects the requirements of S5. that a vehicle meet either S5.3(c) or S5.3(e), but not both.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel