Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vhicles of less than 3.5 tonnes

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A. GENERAL

1. Aim of the proposed Directive

The proposal has three components.

1. The compulsory use of restraints, where fitted, in front and rear seats of class M1 vehicles, the front seats of N1 vehicles and for certain M2 vehicles for both adults and children in the EU is required by Council Directive 91/671/EEC [1]. Children under 12 years of age and less than 150 cm tall must be restrained by an approved system that is suitable for the child's height and weight. However, it then goes on to permit Member States to have national legislation which may allow children of 3 years and older to be restrained by a system that is approved for adult use. In addition, Member States may exempt children younger than 3 years of age from wearing special restraint systems in rear seats if such systems are not available in the car (M1 vehicle).

[1] OJ L 373/26 of 31.12.1991.

This proposal eliminates the above exemptions by requiring the compulsory use of child restraints. It also stipulates that child restraints should be approved to a recognised technical standard, namely UN-ECE Regulation 44.03 (its adaptation or their equivalent) and thus aims to make a significant contribution to road safety.

2. Rearward facing child restraints are by far the safest form of restraint for younger children and they are most appropriately affixed to the front passenger seat where the driver can safely keep the child in vision. However, the child is vulnerable to serious injury if the front seat, passenger air bag inflates. Directive 2000/3/EC [2] requires that new cars be fitted with a label warning drivers of this risk. Similarly, rearward facing child restraints carry a warning but in both cases these may be ignored or not noticed by those that fix the child restraint to the front passenger seat. This proposal would prohibit the use of a rearward facing child restraint on a front passenger seat unless the relevant air bag has been de-activated (either disconnected or switched off).

[2] OJ L 53/1 of 25.02.2000.

3. Directives 96/36 [3], 37 [4] and 38/EC [5] in conjunction, lay down a European standard for the fitting of safety belts to all seats of new minibuses and coaches built after October 1999 and to lorries. This proposal requires that these safety belts, where fitted, shall be used by drivers and passengers.

[3] OJ L 178/15 of 17.07.1996.

[4] OJ L 186, 25.07.1996, p. 28.

[5] OJ L 187/95 of 26.07.1996.

The proposal follows on from recommendations made in the Communication of the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled "Priority in EU Road Safety Progress Report and Ranking of Actions" [6] which ranked the use of safety belts and child restraints as one of the top road safety priorities.

[6] COM (2000) 125 final of 17.03.2000.

2. Application of Directive 91/671/EEC regarding the use of child restraint systems

Directive 91/671/EEC requires the compulsory use of restraint systems by adults and children in all seating positions of cars and light vans where restraints are fitted. Children under 12 years of age and less than 150 cm tall must be restrained by an approved system that is suitable for the child's height and weight.

In national legislation, however, Member States may allow children of 3 years and older to be restrained by a system that is approved for adult use. Also, Member States may exempt children younger than 3 years of age from wearing special restraint systems in rear seats if such systems are not available in the car. The Commission Services' review of the application of Directive 91/671/EEC [7] forms the basis of the following analysis.

[7] COM (96) 244 final of 23.07.1996

Directive 91/671/EEC made a significant contribution to road safety at the European-Union level by requiring the acceptance of the following principles:

-the principle of the compulsory wearing, at all times, of safety belts in all seats so fitted (in the front and rear of the vehicle) of categories M1 and M2 vehicles (apart from the rear seats and vehicles having a maximum permissible weight of more than 3.5 tonnes and those incorporating specially-designed standee spaces), and N1 vehicles (apart from the rear seats),

-the principle of the compulsory use of restraint devices for children aged less than 12 years,

-the principle of priority being given to the use of seats fitted with safety belts or restraint systems for children.

The Directive has nevertheless afforded the Member States flexibility in implementing its provisions in three ways:

*the use of restraint systems for children (Article 4);

*for medical reasons (Article 5);

*in order to meet specific situations and needs (Article 6).

This proposed Directive aims at bringing greater harmony and safety to the use of restraint systems for children. It also extends the scope of application to include the use of safety belts by drivers and seated passengers in all motor vehicles where they are fitted.

2.1 Exemptions concerning the use of child restraint systems

Article 4 of Directive 91/671/EEC allows Member States, on their national territory, to depart from the requirement set out in Article 2(2) that children under 12 years of age and who are less than 150 cm shall use a restraint system that is suitable for both their weight and height.

This Article draws a distinction between exemptions for children aged 3 years or more (first indent) and exemptions for children less than 3 years old (second indent).

The exemption for children aged 3 years or more applies to both front and rear seats. However, the exemption for children aged less than 3 years is restricted solely to the rear seats. Consequently, children less than 3 years old must, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Directive, use a restraint system that is appropriate to their weight and size when they are carried in the front of the vehicle, thus therefore excluding the possibility of only using a safety belt that has been approved for adults.

All Member States, with the exception of Sweden authorise children over 3 years of age to use adult safety belts instead of a child restraint system where one is not readily available. However, most Member States further stipulate that where a suitable child restraint system is not available then the child shall sit in the rear and wear an adult type safety belt where possible (i.e. obviously in cars with rear seats or where there is an adult safety belt available). Luxembourg, for example, requires that children be transported in the rear where rear seats are available. This interpretation does not give rear seating priority and safety belt use to the youngest or smallest and thus most vulnerable child over three years of age. Belgium and Ireland allow children older than three years of age and four years of age, respectively to use the front seat restrained only by an adult safety belt. In contrast, in Sweden young children are not allowed to travel at all in a car unless restrained by an appropriate child restraint system.

Member States have adopted two different approaches as regards children younger than 3 years of age:

*the "maximalist" approach adopted by a minority of States, who have established the principle of the compulsory use of a child restraint system when children are carried, with however a certain number of exemptions in order to cater for specific situations i.e. where there are more passengers than available seats and safety belts. This approach is taken by Germany, Austria and Sweden.

*the "minimalist" approach (all Member States bar the above) based on the provisions of Article 4(2) of the Directive, which provides for an obligation solely to use a restraint system where one is on board the vehicle. In this context this means that it is optional for a driver to fit a restraint device and, furthermore, there are no penalties (in terms of reduced rights to carry children) if the driver chooses not to fit a restraint device.

Of the exemptions regarding the use of a restraint device or safety belt by children, the most widespread is that justified by the presence, in the rear of the vehicle, of a number of persons greater than the number of actual seating places. Also, exempting children transported in taxis or chauffeur-driven hire vehicles from the requirement to use restraint systems is common practice.

The fact that there are different interpretations of the Directive's provisions causes problems in intra-Community traffic where a vehicle from a country in which there is an obligation only to use a child restraint system if it is available on board a vehicle travels, without a child restraint device, in a country which has adopted the maximalist approach by requiring drivers to carry children within a suitable restraint system, without any precise exemption. Drivers, thinking that the regulations in their country are identical in essence to those in the other countries of the European Union, could encounter difficulties when driving in one of those countries.

This Directive would correct this inconsistency by mandating the "maximalist approach". Furthermore it would seek to prohibit the smallest children from being carried in cars not fitted with safety belts (with the exception of taxis where the user may have no choice about the vehicle to be used).

2.2 Child Restraint Systems

2.2.1 effectiveness of Child Restraints

International research and experience has shown that the use of safety belts and child restraints is a highly effective way of reducing serious and fatal injuries to car occupants. The effect of safety belts is to reduce fatal and serious injuries by around 50% for all car occupants of which there is a greater benefit for adults than children. The effect of child restraints over and above the use of adult safety belts in reducing serious injuries is around 90% for rearward facing systems and around 60% for forward facing systems.

The UK survey "The performance of Child Restraint Systems in Accidents" conclude that:

1. The use of a child restraint is extremely beneficial.

2. The design of the restraint is important. A restraint should be chosen with regard to the size and weight of the child.

3. It is important to continue emphasising the benefits of child restraints in order to promote their use and thus ensure that the number of injuries to children in accidents is reduced.

4. Child restraints are performing well in accidents. In the majority of cases, the occupants sustain either minor injuries or no injury at all.

5. Child restraints minimise the severity of injury better than adult safety belts alone. This becomes increasingly important the younger the child, due to the fact that the physiology of small children differs considerably from adults: children are not simply smaller scale versions of adults.

6. The injuries suffered by children of less than one year of age are typically to the head and torso.

Child restraints work in a similar way as adult safety belts. However, small children are not miniatures of adults: the mass of the head of a small child is about 25% of the body mass, whereas the mass of the head of an adult is about 6% of the body mass. This means that the relative forces on the head and neck will be much greater on a forward facing child in an accident. When travelling facing rearwards, the forces will be distributed over the back and the head in an optimal way, which markedly increases the effectiveness of the restraint and reduces injuries.

Major advances have been made in the development of child restraint systems over the last 25 years and there are a variety of designs intended to protect children of all ages in the most effective way (ECE Regulation 44.03 [8] encapsulates these improvements; see 2.2.5 below). The youngest children are particularly vulnerable and are best carried rearward facing up to about 9 months of age.

[8] E/ECE/324 Rev. 1/Add.43/Rev.1. E/ECE/TRANS/505.

Indeed, in the UK some 270 babies (i.e. less than 1 year old) are killed or injured every year when travelling in cars: for the EU as a whole, the number of deaths will be at least tenfold.

2.2.2 Types of child restraint

Child restraint systems are designed to be suitable for different ages, sizes and weights of child. They start as the 'carry cot' for the newest baby. They then progress to baby seats with the rearward-facing seat being the most suitable and safe. As the child grows, forward facing child seats are most applicable, then booster seats and then cushions, all either in conjunction with the adult safety belt or as part of a child restraint system integrated within the car's seat. Once the child is large enough then the adult safety belt is adequate.

Type of restraint Approx. age range Approx. weight range

Infant carrier or baby seat birth to 9 months up to 10 kg

Child or toddlers seat 6 to 4 years 9-18 kg

Booster seat 6 months to 6 years 9-25 kg

Booster cushion 4 years to 11 years 15-36 kg

2.2.3 Usage rates of child restraints in EU Member States

The table below gives an indication of usage rates of child restraints in a number of Member States.

Member State + year of observation // Usage rates in percentages

Austria (1994) // Front safety belts - 56%; front child system - 21%; rear safety belts -31%;

rear child system - 31%

Denmark (1993) // 0-7 years - 70%; 8-15 years - 55%

Finland // Rear seats, child system : 0-5 years - 82%; 6-14 years - 60%

France (1992) // 0-5 months - 75%; 6 months to 2 years - 87%; 3-9 years - 65%

Germany (1995) // built-up areas, child systems : 0-5 years - 80% 6-11 years - 23%

Greece (1995) // 0-6 years -15%

Netherlands (1994) // Front 0-12 years - 54%; rear 0-12 years - 32%

Sweden (1994 // rear seats safety belts + child systems : 0-15 years - 87%

UK (1995) // rear seats safety belts + child systems : 0-4 years - 85%; 5-13 years - 72%

2.2.4 Child restraint fitment

The majority of child restraint devices are manufactured by companies other than car manufacturers, so child restraints are normally added by the car owner, rather than integrated into the original design of the car. Incorrect installation may result and this can reduce the effectiveness of the child restraint system.

The optimal safety performance would be achieved if all child restraints were of vehicle specific design and that the vehicle manufacturer took full responsibility for the development of such designs. However, a major disadvantage of such vehicle-specific systems is that they cannot be moved between different car models.

An alternative solution is to simplify and standardise the method of installing child restraints. Standard anchorage points in all cars would make child restraint selection, purchase and installation a much easier task than at present and help to reduce the amount of incorrect fitment which currently takes place. Such an approach, which has been under development by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO), is ISOFIX. ISOFIX is a system for the connection of child restraint systems to vehicles, which has two rigid attachments on the child restraint system, and a means to limit the pitch rotation of the child restraint. When fully developed the ISOFIX child restraint will make child restraint use even more effective than it is today.

2.2.5 Current child restraint standards

In Europe, standards for restraining systems for children are controlled principally by ECE Regulation 44. This regulation has been subject to important amendments and Regulation 44.03 brings improvements and innovations in a number of areas and is therefore the optimal standard at present.

UN-ECE Regulation 44.03 has brought improvements and innovations in a number of areas of child restraint design including:

*more realistic test procedures

*more realistic siting of anchorage points

*improvements in buckle strength and buckle release systems

*mandatory labelling to encourage appropriate restraint use

*procedures for integrated child restraints

*seats for disabled children

*mandatory provision of a short crotch strap

*the ISOFIX standard will comply with Regulation 44.03

There is currently no EU legislation that provides for the mandatory adoption in Member States of ECE Regulation 44.03 on child restraints. Directive 2000/3 does mandate Regulation 44.03 standards, but only for 'integrated' child restraints, i.e. where the child restraint is built into and converts from the car's seat.

This Proposed Directive would require the use of child restraints approved to at least the standard of ECE Regulation 44.03 (or its equivalent).

3.0 Extension of scope of Directive 91/671/EEC.

3.1 Wearing of safety belts in passenger vehicles

Directive 91/671/EEC currently does not apply to passenger vehicles with more than nine seats. Annually an average of two hundred passengers are killed throughout the European Union in buses, coaches and minibuses. Given that a significant proportion of these fatalities occur because the passengers are violently thrown around within the vehicle or even ejected from the vehicle (via the windows) during accidents it is reasonable to assume that many fatally injured passengers would otherwise have survived such accidents if they had been provided with and were wearing safety belts.

EU Directives 96/36, 37 and 38 EC lay down European standards for safety belts, their anchorages and compatible seats. Compliance with the three Directives in combination requires the fitting of at least two-point seatbelts and energy absorbing seats for all seats on coaches above 5 tonnes, three-point safety belts on all seats of minibuses of up to 3.5 tonnes, and either 3 point belts or 2 point belts and energy absorbing seats for all coaches of between 3.5 and 5 tonnes. Furthermore in those seating positions where the passenger is deemed to have a higher risk of injury (for example a seat with a fixed table in front of it) 3 point safety belts are obligatory.

The Directives came into force on 1 October 1999 for all types of new coach over 3.5 tonnes. For minibuses they will come into force on 1 October 2001.

It should be noted that, at present, Directives 96/36 to 38 EC are not mandatory. Member States may choose to oblige new coaches and minibuses registered on their territory to meet the standards laid down in the Directives but such a decision is currently optional. However, Member States may not refuse to register a coach or minibus on the grounds that its safety belts do not meet national standards if the safety belt system has European Type Approval to show that it meets the standards laid down in Directives 96/36 to38 EC.

It is hoped that these Directives will one day become mandatory, possibly in conjunction with the creation of European whole vehicle type approval for buses and coaches, though there is currently no timetable for such action.

Nonetheless, many reputable coach and minibus operators are already opting to fit safety belts on new coaches. Clearly, the effectiveness of safety belts is entirely conditional on their being used. It is therefore reasonable that passengers on coaches and minibuses that are fitted with safety belts should be required to wear them when they are seated, whilst recognising that passengers may from time to time walk around in the vehicle (e.g. to use the on-board toilet).

The question of who should be legally liable to require that passengers do use safety belts is an important one. There are arguments in favour of making each passenger responsible for the wearing of the safety belt or extending the responsibility to the driver, the operator of the vehicle or the owner of the vehicle (where different from the operator such as when a coach is hired), or any combination of these. However, this is a matter that is best dealt with in National law under the subsidiarity principle and therefore, is not covered by the proposal. In this regard the Commission notes that this approach is consistent with that taken on safety belt wearing in cars in Directive 91/671/EEC where each Member States has its own rules covering the responsibility for ensuring that car passengers wear their safety belts. However, The Commission does feel that it is reasonable to expect coach and minibus passengers to be informed of the obligatory requirements to wear safety belts in a similar manner to which aeroplane passengers are informed of the requirement to wear safety belts. Therefore the proposal requires that passengers should be told of this fact but in a manner deemed appropriate by the operator. Thus passengers may be informed verbally by the driver or courier, audio-visually by means of a video presentation, or in writing by means of signs or information cards visible to every seated passenger.

Regarding the compulsory wearing of safety belts, extreme civil liberties campaigners argue that this is an infringement of the freedom of citizen. The Commission notes that Directive 91/671/EEC already sets a legal precedent for the wearing of safety belts (dating back to 1991) and has not been overturned on the grounds that it breaches civil liberties: the proposal simply seeks to extend the scope of this Directive. Furthermore, the argument put forward that to choose not to wear a safety belt is a decision that affects only that person is not correct: the Commission's first Communication on Road Safety [9] concluded that every road accident fatality in the E.U. has a cost to society of 1 million Euro. Thus every death due to failure to wear a safety belt has a high economic cost (as well as social cost).

[9] COM(97) 131 final, 9.4.1997

3.2 Wearing of safety belts in freight vehicles

As with passenger vehicles the scope of Directive 91/671/EEC currently does not apply to freight vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes. The Commission cannot find any justifiable reason why safety belts when fitted in such vehicles should not be worn and therefore proposes extending the scope of the Directive to apply to all freight vehicles.

The Commission is aware of a practice prevalent in freight vehicles whereby the safety belts are cut out of the vehicle to circumvent national rules on their use. The Commission condemns this stupid behaviour which is counter-productive to road safety and will give due consideration as to whether an amendment to Council Directive 96/96/EC [10] on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers should be proposed which would automatically fail vehicles whose safety belts had been de-activated.

[10] OJ L 46/1 of 17.2.1997

B. JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

Subsidiarity

(a) What are the proposed actions in relation to the Community's obligations-

The Community already has competence in the area of safety belts wearing by means of Council Directive 91/671/EEC. The proposal firstly adapts Directive 91/671/EEC by requiring the compulsory use of child restraints in cars and their derivatives. It goes onto stipulate that child restraints should be approved to at least the technical standard of UN-ECE Regulation 44.03 or its equivalent and thus aims to make a significant contribution to road safety.

Secondly, it forbids the use of a rearward facing child restraint in the front passenger seat of a car or its derivative unless the air bag has been immobilised.

Thirdly, it requires that all motor vehicle users shall wear safety belts if they are provided.

(b) Does competence for the planned activity lie solely with the Community or is it shared with the Member States-

It is a competence shared between the Community and the Member States, according to Article 251 of the Treaty

(c) What is the Community dimension of the problem (for example, how many Member States are involved and what solution has been used up to now)-

All Member States are already bound by Directive 91/671/EEC that requires the use of safety belts by adults and children in cars and their derivatives. However, this Directive does not require that children be transported in suitable restraint systems in the vehicle's rear seats. Variation in the interpretation of Directive 91/671/EEC regarding derogation from the use of child restraints by Member States creates problems in inter-community traffic. This is due to the lack of consistency between Member States legislation regarding the safe transportation of children.

The Directive will also require for the first time the use of safety belts on all motor vehicles where they are fitted by the driver and any passengers.

(d) What is the most effective solution taking into account the means available to the Community and those of the Member States-

The most effective solution is to amend Directive 91/671/EEC.

(e) What real added value will the activity proposed by the Community provide and what would be the cost of inaction-

The real added value is in improving road safety, especially for children. One of the major reasons for the great disparity in fatal road crash statistics across the Union for children in cars is due to Member States' legal interpretation of the existing Directive, i.e. on the one hand, in allowing children to travel either unrestrained or only wearing an adult belt, and on the other hand, only allowing children to travel if restrained by an appropriate child restraint system. As well as road safety, this measure will bring greater harmony to the regulations concerning intra community travel.

The Directive will also help to reduce deaths and serious injuries in coach and minibus accidents by obliging the use of safety belts.

(f) What forms of action are available to the Community (recommendations, financial support, regulation, mutual recognition, etc...)-

It is considered that a Directive is the best means of achieving the goal of enhancing road safety and, at the same time facilitating harmonised legally binding rules to all passenger traffic.

(g) Is it necessary to have a uniform Regulation, or is a Directive setting out the general objectives sufficient, leaving implementation at the level of the Member States-

Although the main motivation for this Directive is to reduce the inconsistencies brought about by the varied application of Directive 91/671/EEC, the Directive still contains areas of interpretation regarding, for instance, the requirements concerning exemptions due to 'medical conditions'. In addition the issue of liability for the wearing of safety belts by coach and minibus passengers is one that needs to be addressed appropriately according to differing National legislation. Consequently a Directive is more suitable than a Regulation.

C. SCOPE OF THE PROPOSAL

This Directive will apply to all motor vehicles in categories M1, M2, M3 and N1, N2 and N3 as defined in Annex 1 to Directive 70/156/EEC [11], intended for use on the road, having at least four wheels and a maximum design speed exceeding 25 km/hr.

[11] OJ No L 341 of 6.12.1990.

D. CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

Article 1: outlines the scope of the proposal. It then amends Directive 91/671/EEC by:

*defining the various types of safety belt and child restraint systems referred to in the proposal;

*requiring children of less than 12 years of age to be restrained by an appropriate child restraint systems;

*requiring drivers and passengers of all motor vehicles equipped with safety belts to wear them and places the responsibility on the driver for informing passengers of the need to wear their seat belts;

*requiring that rearward facing child restraints should not be used on the vehicle's front passenger seat unless the passenger air bag is de-activated;

*deletes Article 4 of Directive 91/671/EEC, which led to the disparity by Member States in the application of the Directive.

Articles 2, 3 and 4 contain provisions concerning the transposition of this Directive into national laws.

2000/0315 (COD)

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vhicles of less than 3.5 tonnes

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 71 (1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission [12],

[12]

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee [13],

[13]

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions [14],

[14]

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty,

Whereas:

(1) Article 153 of the Treaty requires that in order to provide a high level of consumer protection, the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers.

(2) In its Resolution of 13 March 1984 [15] the European Parliament made the compulsory use of safety belts on all roads, whether rural or urban, a priority measure. In its Resolution of 18 February 1986 [16], the European Parliament stressed the need for making the wearing of safety belts compulsory for all passengers, including children, except in public service vehicles.

[15] OJ C 104, 6.04.1984, p.38.

[16] OJ C 68, 24.03.1986, p.35.

(3) Council Directive 91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes [17] provides for the compulsory use of child restraints on seats fitted with safety belts. That Directive does not specify the type of child restraint system that would be appropriate and allows for the carriage of children without being restrained by an appropriate child restraint where such a restraint is unavailable.

[17] OJ L 373- 31.12.1991, P.26

(4) Future developments should point towards greater stringency in the use of such devices, thus moving closer to the principle of compulsory use referred to in Article 2(2) of the Directive.

(5) With Council Decision 97/836/EC [18], the Community acceded to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of those prescriptions.

[18] OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78.

(6) With its accession to the Agreement, the Commission acceded to a defined list of regulations established pursuant to that Agreement, including that concerning the approval of restraining devices for child occupants of power-driven vehicles (child restraints).

(7) Research has shown that the use of child restraints can make a substantial contribution to reducing the severity of injury in the event of a crash. The risk of severe crash injury is seven times higher for unrestrained children than for restrained children.

(8) The number of fatally injured child car casualties is relatively small when compared to child pedestrian or cyclist fatalities. The level of knowledge about good child restraint protection is now so advanced that poor design becomes increasingly difficult to accept.

(9) Commission Directives 96/36/EC [19], 96/37/EC [20], 96/38/EC [21] in combination require that new vehicles in categories M and N (except those vehicles in categories M2 and M3 which are designed for the carriage of standing passengers) must be equipped with safety belts, appropriate seats and safety belt anchorages. As safety belts are provided in these vehicles it is considered reasonable that seated passengers should be required to use them.

[19] OJ L 178, 17.7.1996, p.15.

[20] OJ L 186, 25.7.1996, p.28.

[21] OJ L 187, 26.7.1996, p.95.

(10) Passengers in categories M2 and M3 vehicles should be made aware of the need to wear their safety belts when the vehicle is in motion.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 91/671/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1. The title is replaced by the following: "on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts and child restraint systems in vehicles"

2. Article 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

"Article 1

1. This Directive shall apply to all motor vehicles in categories M1, M2, M3 and N1, N2 and N3 as defined in Annex I to Directive 70/156/EEC [22], intended for use on the road, having at least four wheels and a maximum design speed exceeding 25 km/h.

[22] OJ L 42, 23.02.1970, p.1.

2. For the purpose of this Directive:

-the definitions for restraint systems, including safety belts and child restraints and the components thereof are those contained within Annex I to Directive 77/541/EEC [23] with regard to vehicles in categorised M1 and N1.

[23] OJ L 220, 29.8.1977, p.95.

-'rearward-facing' means facing in the direction opposite to the normal direction of travel of the vehicle.

3. Child restraints fall into five "mass groups":

(a) Group 0 for children of a mass less than 10 kg;

(b) Group 0+ for children of a mass less than 13 kg;

(c) Group I for children of a mass from 9 kg to 18 kg;

(d) Group II for children of mass from 15 kg to 25 kg;

(e) Group III for children of mass from 22 kg to 36 kg.

4. Child restraint systems may be of two classes:

(a) an integral class comprising a combination of straps or flexible components with a securing buckle, adjusting device, attachments, and in some cases a supplementary chair and/or impact shield, capable of being anchored by means of its own integral strap or straps;

(b) a non-integral class that may comprise a partial restraint, which, when used in conjunction with an adult belt, which passes around the body of the child or restrains the device in which the child is placed, forms a complete child restraint system.

Article 2

1. For M1 and N1 vehicles, Member States shall require that all occupants of vehicles being used on the road shall wear restraint systems where provided. Children of 12 years of age or older may wear the approved adult safety belt.

Children under 12 years of age shall be restrained by a child restraint system, separate from or additional to the adult-type safety belt, and suitable for the child's mass as is defined in Article 1(3). Where a child is less than 12 years of age but whose mass is greater than 36 kg then an adult safety belt may be worn.

Children under three years of age shall not be transported in M1 vehicles, other than taxis, that do not provide appropriate child restraint systems.

Children shall not be transported in the front passenger seat of a vehicle with a front passenger air bag using a rear-facing safety seat unless the air bag has been de-activated.

Where a child restraint system is used it shall be approved to the standards of UN-ECE Regulation 44/03, its equivalent or any other subsequent adaptation thereto.

2. For M2, M3, N2 and N3 vehicles, Member States shall require that all drivers and occupants of vehicles on the road wear the safety belts provided.

Passengers shall be informed of the requirement to wear safety belts whenever they are seated and the vehicle is in motion. They shall be informed in one or more of the following ways:

- by the driver

- by the conductor, courier or official designated as group leader

- by audio-visual means (e.g. video)

- by signs and/or pictograms that are prominently displayed at every seating position."

3. Article 4 is deleted.

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2002. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament for the Council

The President The President