Interpretation ID: nht93-4.44

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Crane -- Calspan Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from Donald J. Crane to Mary Versailles (OCC 8610).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 26, 1993, on Standard No. 207, SEATING SYSTEMS. You request a determination of whether a seat manufactured by a client of yours is a "seat having a back that is, adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." Such a seat is excepted by S4.3 of Standard No. 207 from the strength requirements in S4.3.2.2 for seat back restraining devices. The seat in question has an angle of 24 degrees, and can recline from that position 39 degrees 30' forward and 58 degrees rearward.

With respect to the rearward folding of your seat, the answer to your question is yes, the seat is excepted from S4.3.2.2. However, the seat is not excepted from S4.3.2.2 with respect to forward folding.

The exception at issue was adopted in response to a petition by the Rover Company, who requested special treatment for a seat with a back that had a range of adjustment from 77 degrees to the horizontal down to 19 degrees to the horizontal. In creating the exception for the type of seat described by Rover, the agency included seats with backs that folded until they were substantially horizontal. The seat your client manufactures has a similar rearward folding range as Rover, and therefore, does not require a restraining device for the rearward folding of the seat back.

However, the exception created in response to the Rover petition does not cover the forward folding of your seat. A seat having a back that folds for the occupant's comfort, but that also folds in another manner is required to have a restraining device for the second folding mode. It does not appear that the forward-folding mode of the seat back is only for the comfort of the seat occupant. Therefore, your client's seat would be required to have a restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back.

You also asked if our interpretation would be different if the vehicle was a 2-door type. Our interpretation regarding the restraining device exception would not change. However, you should note that the front seat would be required by S4.3(b) to have a control for releasing the restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back, if there is another seat behind it.

You also asked if your client's seat is a "full-flat seat," a term used by your client. As Ms. Versailles of my staff discussed with you, we are uncertain about the meaning of this term. If your client can provide further information about the seat, please contact us.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.