Skip to main content
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: nht72-3.35

DATE: 05/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Resources Applications, Designs & Controls, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1972, on the subject of the test procedures of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 210.

Your first question is whether the center of gravity referred to in S5.1.2 of Standard 207 is the center of gravity of the seat bench alone or the center of gravity of the seat bench in combination with the supporting structure. It is often a close question in recreational vehicle seating where the seating system ends and the vehicle structure begins. In cases such as the one depicted in Attachment 1 to your letter, where the supporting structure consists of a storage cabinet that is integrated into the interior structure of the vehicle, it is our opinion that the storage cabinet should not be considered in determining the weight and center of gravity of the seat bench under S5.1.2.

Your second question asks us to concur in your opinion that separate tests are not required under Standards 207 and 210 when identical seats are installed in different vehicles. Our reply is that the number of tests you perform is a matter for you to decide; we do not, as a rule, comment on the adequacy of a test program. The standards do not require a manufacturer to test his product in a specific manner or with a specific frequency, so that failure to test is not, in itself, a violation. If our Office of Standard Enforcement should happen to test one of the vehicles in question, however, and it fails when tested in accordance with the standard, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless he can establish that he exercised due care in the design and manufacturer of the vehicle. Whatever your decision on the subject of testing, it should be carefully made.

Our reply to your third question follows the reasoning set forth above. If we conduct a test in accordance with S4.2(d) and the seat fails, the manufacturer will have to establish that he exercised due care in making that seat. Without a set of specific facts before us, we cannot say what the result of our inquiry would be.

The label proposed for the rotating seat to indicate that it is not to be used while the vehicle is in motion except in the forward facing position would be an acceptable label under Standard 207.