# Amicus Curiae Brief — Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (No. 08-1314)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA43085015_0472%3A20

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2009

## Text

Suprane Coun ts

PIlLeéy

SEP &8 2010 SEP 2 & 2010

William K. Suter, OFFICE OF THE Chik |
Clerk No. 0& 1314 Cra

IN ‘THE

Supreme Court of the Cnited States

DELBERT WILLIAMSON, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
Vv
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL..,

Respondents.

Qn Writ of Cortiorart
to the Court of Appeal of California,
hourth Appellate District, Division Three

BKK FOR AMICUS CURIAE JUVENILE
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI
Counsel of Record

JOSHUA DD. HAWLEY

HOGAN Lovetsts US LLP

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

christopher. bartolomuccs
mhopantlovells com

(202) 637-5810

Counsel for Amicus Curtae

Vivi SOn bet beer, Go tea (702) (69 O09 - Wasiicion DC 70002

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pipe

TPR ele CF AUT FOODIE B0SS ocincsccccccceccsccccscesvsccscecevevadlll
STATEMENT ()}° INTEREST (}°

Err MUN Fs. boos soos vives cv Siac ncnevie nétuncvisdacecs ]
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

PORTE a ai cig Soca coeds ncercnccac cesauceoeens: 2

SUNT isos saber cing cneaxtdoac naceisyaenecssecieisianes irieuricene

NHVSAS 1969 RULE AUTHORIZING
LAP ONLY BELTS IN REAR CENTER
SEATS WAS PART OF A COMPRE-
HENSIVE CHILD-SAFETY POLICY
AIMED A'T PROMOTING ‘Titk USk OF
CHILD RESTRAINTS IN THE SAFEST

SSR Re PMO N OG oe ke cvocccsescvicocncssanaticecevavscceoeccs 5
A. Backpround on FMVSS) 215, the
(thoald Restraint Standard” Ee ee eR ee

odin the 19805, NHTSA Adopted the
Pohey That All Child Restraints Must
be Capable of Beany Installed Solely
With oa Type l Seathelt and
IKneouraged the Installation of Child
Kestramis im Rear Inboard Seats 0000. ra!

(oo NITPSA’s 1OxY Amendment ta
MMVSS 4O% Was Consistent With the
Agency's Child-Safety Polhers Under
FI CES Bok onde vvesscerccaies Bre eae ee

CONCLUSION. : Feds ckvea yews eecieaein case ee

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Pape
Statutes:
EE UE 25.6. Se SP sir ccde scusenwetstisecigeticasveresteees 8
Be OEE SIO occa scsceseszccaccccecdeornvsinsens 7
Regulatory Matertals:
AE SS BD eee errr er 2,3
es Oe Ae I osc conece Henne cneerspnesisees Sesoepareniasans 12

OTE Gio ossclvestereesercees 6,14
BE ie. Tee. Tee OE vi sas ccs versaciensesvsinsensesaess ee
SP FG, Te, TIE EPO isin vais cinceasonvascdcrecuandisveserss 4

ME ae. Be a Ee iin ees nc seks - pin cncspapusceacesessasnscars@

43 Fed. Rep. 21470 (1978)............ Poa RE NESE DROP re 9
BE FG: TO. Te Gree Ce FR sak cass seins cedsnivescevssccconss 12
AY Fed) Rey. 15241 (19#4)...... LS APS SP SC eae ee 1]
Ai Wend. Bree. SESE CIID. os censcincesiescivessecccesessess 12
ek Wien Se AEN cc ccsciseiseecsccsvcencses 1
Ee, Fe ee Cis ivitctncesecescdtsovcnxennesayes 12

foie Danek, Waa: GS CID sis vcs ccvsciiccanceseingvsertenssec®

57 Fed. Bee: ZIGRS CUeIZ)....-..........0.. eave Gahan se¥s 15
Ay i ay Ek | rr ey 2, 16
64 Fed. Reg. 10786 (1999).................. icegesenaaweenee 14

Ge We Fe I CR ics baci ace ness cece seers scecssensai |

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—- Continued

ee: Piet Be Cn avohesceccicivnsedsnncinani

G7 Fed. Reg. 68295 (2002)... 00.000...

a eS me Ce: Ears nen

Fe Re, ee Be CI eho cton es cricvvaiveacecvecicss

Hertz, Reosed Estimates of Child Restraint
Keffecttveness, NUVSA Kescarch Note
(Dee. 199G)

Kahane, An Evaluation of Child Passenper
Safety: The Iffectiveness and Benefits
of Safety Seats, NHTSA — Report

No. DOT HS 806 890 (Feb. PY8G6). 0.0.00...

NHTSA Safety Tips for Using Child
Restramt Systems, printed uv National
Transportation Safety Board, Safety

Study: The Performance and Use of

Child Restraint Systems, Seatbelts, and
Air Bags for Children an Passenger
Vehacles, Vol. 1, Appendix A
(Sept. 1996)

NHPSA, Child Passenger Satety Resource
2

SNM ON * IN oe ico csc/ ceca cescevy sscewedndancdenes

NHPSA, Kesearch Note, ‘Traffic Satety
acts: Lives Saved Calculations for
Infants and Toddlers, DOT HS 809 778
(March 2005) ...... oer

Tee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee |

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF
AMICUS CURITAE'

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association
(APMA") is a national, not-for-profit’ organization
that represents 95% of the prenatal to preschool
midustry. Formed in 1962, JPMA’s members include
more than 250 compames in the United States and
North America. dPMA’s member companies manu
facture, import and/or distmbute «a wide range of
infant products, including child) restraint systems.
JPMA’s membership ancludes more than a dozen
child restraint manufacturers,

JPMA has been recognized for its dedication to
enhancing the safety of children’s products. JPMA's
leadership an juvenile product safety meludes the
development oof a comprehensive Certification
Propyram to help guide parents and other caregivers
toward purchasing juvenile products that are built
with safety in mind.

JPMA works with povernment agencies, consumer

yroups, and industry leaders on programs designed
to educate consumers on the safe selection and use of
juvenile products See, eg., Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 66° Fed. Reg. $9692, 39602
(2001) (noting that the Commussion asked JPMA “to
disseminate the message that careyivers should
never leave a baby unattended ina tub of water’).

' Pursuant to this Court's Rale $7.6. counsel for amicus
come certily that no part of this brief was authored by eounse|
for any party, and no person or entity other than aatieus or its
members made a monetary contribution to the preparation or
sulunission of the bref ‘The bref as filed with the consent of
the parcies, whose consent letters have bec filed with the

Clerk

JPMA has sponsored programs such as Sale & Sound
hor Baby and Baby Safety Month to keep safety-
conscious parents informed.

JPMA has regularly provided comments to the
National Thighway ‘Praffie Safety Administration
CNEVPSA’) in connection with rulemaking regarding
child restraints. See, eg., 67 Ped. Reg. 63295, 63295
(L002) (noting that JPMA’s comments “represented
the views of child restraint system manufacturers’).
As JPMA has made clear to NIHTSA, “the number
one priority of [child restraint) manufacturers is to
inercase the usage and more importantly the proper
use of child restraint systems.” 62 Fed. Reg. 7858,
T8OS (1997)

INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case concerns the preemptive effect of the
Pederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS’).
Prior to the amendments enacted in Loso, NHTSA’s
seatbelt rule, FMVSS YO8, see 49 CORR. § 571.208,
pave Velocle manuhacturers the option to install lap-
only seatbelts (Py pe 1 belts) or lap/shoulder seatbelts
(Pype 2 belts) in rear seating positions. Under the
1989 amendments, NEVPSA required ‘Type 2 belts in
rear Outboard seating positions but preserved the
option of rnstalling either Type lor Type 2 belts in
rear inboard seats”

This case arises from an aceident involving a Loos
Mazda MPV Minivan which was equipped with a

Phe 19SO version of FMVSS 208 ais no longer om effect
Since September | 2007, F/MVSS 208 has required new cars to

be equipped wath Pype 2 seatbelts in almost all rear seating
positions

3

lap-only belt in its middle row, rear aisle seating
position. When the accident occurred, that scat was
occupied by Thanh Wilhamson, the decedent. Plam-
tiffs’ state-law tort suit sceks to hold Mazda lable for
failing to anstall a lap/shoulder belt in the middle row
inboard seat,’ even though FMVSS 208 gave Mazda
the option to install a lap-only belt am that seating
postion.

The meanmng—and preemptive effect of the Losg
revisions to PMVSS 2O8 cannot be determined by
stmply consuderimg the amendment itself The Los”
changes represent but one in a series of adjustments
to the 208 standard, and that standard itself is but
one ma series of regulations designed to ensure the
safety oof vehicle occupants, imeluding children
Viewed in context, the 1989 amendments permitting
automobile manufacturers to mstall eather Pype Lor
Type 2 belts in the rear inboard seats are entirely
consistent with ao broader child-safety pohey the
agency adopted years carher. Beginning om LOS,
NHPSA required all child restraint devices to be
capable of being secured solely by means of Type 1
belts, and further determined that the safest location
for a child restrammt as a rear center seat

S NHTSA distinguishes between “outboard” seating posi
tions, or seats located “less than 12 inches from the mumermcost
pontoon the mside surface of the vehicle.” 49 CPR § 57148
and “inboard: seating postlrans, seats located more than 12
inches away. bor purposes of FMVSS 208, NASA defines a
“rear outboard desapmatiog seating position” to mebude any

** * that is rearward of

“outhoourd desipmated seating position
the front seat(s), except any desipmated seating position adja
cont toa walkway that is located between the seat cnd the near
side of the vehicle and as designed to allow access to more

rearward seating positions — 49C PR § o7 1208 S41 4 oye)

for years, NEEPSA used FMVSS 208, 210, and 213
to nnplement this child-safety pohey. The regula.
(ions worked in tandem. BFMVSS 213 established
design and performance requirements for child
restraint systems, along wath @ rigorous testing
revime to evaluate those systems. Following exten-
sive review over nearly a decade, NHTSA decided in
1980 to require that all child) restraant devices be
capable of installation with only a Type 1 seatbelt.
NHTSA’s regulation reflected its considered judg-
ment that standardizing and sunplifving the means
of installation of child restramt devices would pro-
mote their use, reduce them misuse, and help keep
small children sate

By the time the FMVSS 2175 revision became tinal
in T98O, NHTSA had further coneluded that the
safest location for a child restraint device Was in the
rear center or inboard seat of the velnele. As part of
a final rule amending FMVSS 2138, NHTSA required
all instructions accompanying child satety seats to
state clearly that the rear center scating position
was the safest place to put a child seat

liaplementing this pohey, NHPSA tn Lds5 revised
YIS's companion regulation, FMVSS 210, to require
that the owners manual of every vehicle melade a
statement explaumimg that ehild) restraint devices
were designed to be capable of being secured using
Type d lap belts and ideally should be placed in the
rear center seating position

PMVSS 20S reflected this same child-saftety policy
Pror to Tso, FMVSS 2OS permitted Pype 1 seat-
belts an all rear seating positions bn lasso, NEPPSA
changed the standard to require ‘Type 2 belts in rear
outboard seats, but pointedly refused to require ‘Pype

2 belts in rear center seats. Instead, and in keeping
with ats poliey of promoting child-satety seat use in
the rear center seats, the ageney preserved the
manufacturer's option to use either ‘Type lor Type 2
belts there even as NHTSA continued to tell par
ents that those seats were the safest place for child
safety devices. Indeed, as late as 1997, NHTSA
observed that child safety seats were desigued to be
secured with a Type bo belt, and affirmatively urged
parents to place those safety seats m the rear center
seating position

ARGUMENT

NHTSA’S 1989 RULE AUTHORIZING LAP-
ONLY BELTS IN REAR CENTER SEATS WAS
PART OF A’ COMPREHENSIVE CHILD-
SAFETY POLICY AIMED AT PROMOTING
THE USk OF CHILD RESTRAINTS 'N THE
SAFEST SEATING POSITION.

PMVSS 208 is part of a cluster of safety regulations
that include the critical objective of protecting smal!
children riding im automobiles. Under FMVSS 2b:
NEPPSA adopted a comprehensive poliey to promote
child safety by promoting the use of child restraint
devices. As part of this pohey, the agency required a
standardized means of installing child satetw seats
with Type bo belts and alse advised parents and
other caregivers that the placement of child) re

traints mi rear inboard positions was safest. The
bOSo revisions to FMVSS YOS did not alter, but were

m fact fully compatible wath thas pores

A. Background on FMVSS 218. the Child Re
straint Standard

PMNSS 295 as NEPPSA’S child restraint standard

t

See 49 CLELR. § 571.218.) The express purpose of
PMVSS 213 as “to reduce the number of children
killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes.” fad
§ 571.213, S2.

EMVSS 213 establishes both design and perform,
ance requirements for child restraint systems. It
requires dynamic testing in which the child restraint
and a test dummy are crashed into a frontal barrier
and subjected to a rapid change in velocity. “The
child restraint must manage the force from the
simulated crash so that the forces imparted to the
dummy are within tolerable limits” NHTSA, G7
Fed. Reg. 21806, 21812 (2002). The FMVSS 213
crash testing “myolvjes}| a 80 mph velocity change,
Which is representative of a severe crash” dd. at
VISOO. Indeed, the “SO mph change in velocity is
wore severe than approximately 9S percent of the
frontal mpact crashes nationwide” NHTSA, 68 Fed
Reg. 87620, 37640 (2008).

Because FMVSS 213 and the Cesting it requires are
nygorous, FMVSS 213-comphant child restraints “are
the most effective vehicle safety measure avathible
for children” NHTSA, 72 Ped) Reg. to804) 65805
(2007). As NITPSA has recognized

When used, child restraints are highly effective in
redaamge the likelihood of death andor serous
myury aa motor vehicle crashes NHESA estt

** * that tor children less than one-year

hates
old, a child restramt can reduce the risk of tatal
tv by 71 percent when used im a passenger car
and by 58 pereent when used ma pickup track,
van, or sport utthty velnele (ight truck). Child
restramt effectiveness tor children between the

el —_—

7

ages L to 4 years old is 54 percent im passonger
cars and 59 percent in lyght trucks

NHTSA, 68 Fed. Reg. at 87622 (citing Hertz, Reorsed
Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness, NHTSA
Research Note (Dec. 1996)

“The rate of effectiveness for infants in child safety
seats IM passenger cars means that 71 percent of
Infants mm passenger cars Who would die without a

child satety seat would survive the crash if they were

restramed ina child safety seat.” NEPTSA, Research

Note, Traffic Safetv Facts: Lives Saved Calculations
ie Infants and Toddlers, DOT HS S09 778 (March
2005). See also Kahane, An Evaluation of Child
Passenger Safety: The Effectiveness and Benefits of
Safety Seats, NHPSA Report No DOT HS 806 S890
(Feb. 1986) (| Py}he preliminary conclusion is that all
tvpes of correctly used seats reduce fitabties bw close
to 71 pereent and hospitalizations by close to 7
percent”)

FMVSS 215 as by no means a merely “minimal
staumdard. As noted, PMVSS 213 testing simulates a
severe crash, and FMVSS 213-compliant child re-
straamte are highly effective mo preventing death or
seruous injgury. ‘To be sure, the Sateoy Act states that
each FMVSS is “a moenemum stamdord for motor
Vefnele or motor velucle equepment perlormance | 49
USC § S0LG20¢0 But they are momimum stan
dards om the sense that they are mandufors stan
dards that manufacturers must mect er sumposs As
NELTSA has explained

Mingmum perioermamee standards do mot equiute
with “nenmemat performance standards * * *
The word “mowimum im the statetory definrtion

S

of motor vehicle safety standards * * * does not
refer to the substantive content of the standards
but rather to their legal status—that the products
covered must pot tall short of them.

Al Fed Reg. 2391, 2392 (1976) Indeed, under the
Safety Act, every FMVSS must achieve a standard of
performance for motor vehicles and moter vehicle
equipment sufficient to protect “against unreason
able risk of death or injury in an aceident’® 9 4%
LSC. § BU102Z U0 8)

B. In the 1980s, NHTSA Adopted the Policy
That All Child Restraints Must Be Capable
of Being Installed Solely With a Type 1
Seatbelt and Encouraged the Installation
of Child Restraints in Rear Inboard Seats.

NHTSA’s predecessor, the National Highway
Safety Bureau, issued the first version of FMVss
Y13an Mareh 1970, with an effective date of danuary
11971. See Motor Vehiele Safety Standard No. 2138,
Child Seating Systems, 35 Fed. Reg. S120 (1970)
From the outset, the agency recognized that “|[t}he
muite performance of a child Seating svstem depends
in large measure, on ats proper instablation cmd use
hoo at HWO] le also recogmized that “[t]he methed
used to attach a restramt device to the moter vehicle
is obviously crmtical to ats saute performances hd
oe)

With these considerations me mind, the agenes dh
cided that child restraints must be anchored with
Vehicle seatbelts Sec id { Because seat belts are
engineered, manufactured, and anstalled) for the
specific purpose of restramung velucle occupants, and

ther value for that purpose has been established

)
** * cach chold seating system must be designed and
constructed so that at will bo restramed by aseat belt
assembly when the system is properly imstalled )
The first version of PMVSS 215 provided that child
restramt systems must be capable of berg secured
“by a ‘Type 1 or ‘Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined
in Federal Motor Vetucle Safety Standard Noo vou
fd. at 5122 (quoting FMVSS 213, S4.4¢b))

In 1974, NEIPSA proposed to revise PMVSS 213
See oo Ped. Reg. Tdo9 C97. One of the proposed
revisions Would have allowed child restramnts to be
capable of being secured by Type Door Type 2 seat
belts or by “belts or belt extensions provided by the
restraint manufacturer. at spocitied belt performance
requirements are met. fo at 7so0

NIIPTSA did not, however, adopt this contemplated
revision Which would have expanded the list. ot
permuissthle amstallation methods After turther
study, the agency moved in the opposite direction: at
decided ino the date 1970s that all child restraint
systems must be capable of beam amchored solely
with Pvpe TP seatbelt:

Ina IST netiwe of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA
proposed a new version of FMVSS 21S that would
require all child restraint systems toe be capable of
mstallition solely with Type LT seatbelts See 48 Fed
Reg. 21400, 21475 (L978) CA child restraints, * * *
must be capable of boing sceured to a vehicle with a
Type | (lap) seat belt as specitied in Standard No
LON) The proposed new version FMVSS 213
stated

When installed on a vehicle seat. each child re-
stramt system. other han child marnesses. shall

10

be capable of boung restramed agamst forward
movement solely by means of a Type ft seat belt

, A

assembly
fd at 21AS6 (Quoting proposed FMVSS 213, 85.3.2)

NEPEPSA’s proposed requirement that all child re-
Stramis must be capable of installation solely wath
hype ol seatbelts reflected NIPPSA’s considered
judgment that samplitcation of installation would
reduce the misuse of child restraints and promote
child satety NEEPESA noted that “a concerted eftort
needs to be made to reduce the problem of DLids thse a
child restraints. Misuse substantially reduces the
afetv value of these restramts”” fd. at 21471. And
NEEPSA reasoned that “pit either the attaching of
restraints to vehicles or securing of children in the
restramts bhecome,: overly complex, the already

ubstantial problem oof mususe could be greatly

oxncerbated”” Td

NUPSA concluded that) requiring all) child) re
stramtis to be capable of instalhation through a
uniform, standardized method of installation was:
critical to avend misuse

Standardization of the means ot anchorimy a child
restraint to oa velco as vital to prevent misuse

By requiring all restraints to be attachable to ve-
hicle seats hy the vehicle seat belt, consumers wall
be assured of a uniform method of attaching the
restramnt and there will be less contusion regard
vagy that aspect of use

ldo at 21472

NEPPSA adopted the new version of FMVSS 2135 in
December 1979) with an effective date of dune 1,

11

L980 See 44 Ped. Reg. 72131 (1979). This) 1980
version of FMVSS 2158 included the new requirement
that “all child restraints be capable of being secured
to the vehicle seat by adap belt.” /d. at 721386. See
also td. at 72149 (publishing FMVSS 213, S5.3.2).

NEPSA reiterated that standardizing the means of
Installation of child) restramt systems by requiring
all child restramts to be capable of being installed
solely by Type T belts—was important to achieve
proper use of child restraints. See td. at 72136
(Standardizing all restraints by requiring them to
be capable of being attached by a lap belt is an
important way to prevent muisuse.”) During this
time pemod, as NHTSA noted in 1984, “most child
restramts are designed to be used only with lap
belts.” 49 Fed. Reg. 15241, 15241 (1984).

By the time of the 1980 revision to FMVSS 213.
NIVPSA had also concluded that the safest location
for a child restraint was a rear center seat. In its
1978 notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA) pro-
posed that the instructions accompanying child
restraints should “be required to state that the
center rear seating position in passenger cars is the
safest seating position and that child) restraints
should therefore be installed in that position.” 43
hed. Reg. at 21476. Adopting the proposal in De-
cember 1979, NHTSA explained that “Jajecident data
have consistently shown that the occupants in the
rear seat are safer than occupants in the front seat.
The same data show that the center rear seating
position as the safest seating position in the rear
seat.” 44 Fed. Reg. at 72137. ‘Thus, as of 1980,
NIVESA required the manufacturer's instructions for
installing a child restraint to state that “the rear

12

center scating position is the safest seating position
i most vehicles for installing a child restraint sys-
tem.” fd at 72150 (quoting FMVSS 2138, 55.6.1).

The twin NETSA policies expressed in the L980
version of EMVSS 213—that all child) restraints
should be capable of bein: installed solely with a lap
belt and that the rear center seating position is the
safest place for a child) restraint—were also ex-
pressed during the mid-1980s in NUH'PSA rulemaking
under FMVSS a Which governs seatbelt assembly
anchorages. See 49 CPR. §& 571.210.) In October
LOS, NHTSA potior ts d FMVSS 210 to require the
owners manual in every vehicle to melude a section
“exphaning that all child) restraint systems are
designed to be secured in vehicle seats by lap belts or
the lap belt portion of a lap-sheulder belt.” 50 Fed
Reg. 41356, 41359 (1985) (quoting FMVSS: 210,
S6(a)). NHTSA also required a statement alerting
vehicle owners “that, according to accident statustics
children are safer when properly restrained in the
rear seating postions than in the front seating
postions. In oa vehicle with a center rear seating
position, the owner's manual shall state that the
center rear position is the safest.” Id. (quoting
MhMVSS 210, SG(b) (emphasis added)). NHTSA based
this requirement on “crash tests and accident data
which show that the center rear scat is safer, par-
ticularly in side impacts, than other seats.” 51 Fed.
Reg. 29552, 29554 (1986).4

* Without retreating from its position that a rear center
seating position is the safest location for a child restraint,
NHTSA subsequently agreed with a petitioner that “depending
on how a child is restrained and the severity of the crash, it is
possible for a restrained child in the center rear scat of a bucket
seat vehicle to strike a portion of the vehicle's interior in front

13

C. NHTSA’s 1989 Amendment to FMVSS 208
Was Consistent With the Agency’s Child-
Safety Policies Under FMVSS 213.

In the 1980s, NHTSA determined that requiring a
simplified and standardized means of installing child
restramts—with lap-only Type Ll belts—promoted
child seat use, reduced misuse, and was important to
child safety. It also determined that parents and
caregivers should be informed that the rear center
seat is the safest place for a child restraint system.
NHTSA implemented these polos through FMVSS
218

NHTSA’s 1989 revisions to FMVSS 208 were en-
tirely consistent with these policies. The LOS89 revi-
sions permitted manufacturers to mstall Type 1 belts
in rear center seating positions, thus ensuring the
avalability of that option for parents and caregivers
who wished to install child restraints with such belts
in those seats.

In this respect, the FMVSS 208 revisions marked
no sea change. Even after the 1989 amendments,
NHTSA continued to mandate, per FMVSS 213, that
child restraint systems “shall be capable of being
restrained against forward movement solely by

of the child.” 51 Fed. Reg. at 29554. For that reason, NHTSA
“deleted the requirement an S6(b) fof FMVSS 210) that manu
facturers state that the center rear seat is the safest seating
position Jd Yet FMVSS 2138, S4.6.1 continued to require
child restraint system instructions to state that the rear center
postion is safest for child restraints. See 51 Fed. Reg. 5335,
6339 (1986) (amending FMVSS 213, 55.6.1 to provide: “The
instructions shall state that, for inaximum safety protection,
child restraimt systems should be installed * * * in the center
rear seating position in vehicles with such a seating position ")

14

means of a Type | seat belt assembly * * * "49
CPLR. § 571.2138, S5.3.2 (1993) (emphasis added).

even after the 1989 amendments to FMVSS 208,
NHESA continued to adhere to its policy that child
restraints should be capable of being installed solely
with Type Lb belts and that the rear center seat was
safest.” In January 1991, NHTSA stated: “Standard
No. 214 requires that child restraint systems meet
specific performance requirements when only a lap
beltis used. Accident data show that child restraints
meeting current requirements already provide a high
level of child protection without the use of shoulder
restraints.” 56 Fed. Reg. 38064, 8064 (1991) (empha
sis added). NHTSA explamed that, “even as more
rear outboard seating positions of vehicles on the
road have shoulder restraimts, the safest position for
the child restraint (the center rear position) will not
be equipped with shoulder restraints.” ld. (emphasis
added). See also NHTSA, Child Passenger Safety
Resource Manual 8&8 (Mar. 1992) ([Blased on statis-
tical evidence, the rear seat as generally the safer
place for a child to be. * * * The center rear seat is
farthest from possible mtrusion in side impacts.”).

The next year, in May 1992, NHTSA reaffirmed its
policy requiring standardization of the means of

®* In 1999, NHPSA adopted a rule requiring motor vehicles
to be equipped with a new standardized method of installing
child restraints wath an anchorage system independent of the
vehicle seatbelts. See 64 Fed. Reg. 10786 (1999). At the same
tame, NHTSA mandated that “lelach child restraint will also
have to continue to be capable of being attached to a vehicle by
way of the vehicle's belt system. This way, child restraints that
have the new components can still be used on older model

vehicles that do not have a child restraint anchorage system.”
ld at 10788

installing child restraints with Type | belts. See 57
Fed. Reg. 22682, 22685 (199%) (Standard 215 stan
dardizes the means for attaching child restraints by
requiring all of them to be capable of being attached
to the vehicle seat and providing the required protec
tion using only the vehicle lap belt.’).

In the 1990s, NHTSA continued to advise parents
and caregivers that the rear center seating posi-
tion—the place where a lap-only belt would be > was
the safest spot for a child restraint) In a publication
entitled “NEPSA Safety Thps for Using Child Re
straint Systems,” NIPSA included an image of a
Child restramt an the rear center seating position
secured by a lap-only belt and advised that “[t}he
center belt works best for a safety seat.”

The back sea! ts safer than the frant The center bel! works bes! for a safety
sea! Ofder ofmitren staal use lap/shoutder bells fur bes! profecton

16

See NHTSA Safety Tips for Using Child Restraime
Systems, printed in National ‘Transportation Safety
Board, Safety Study: The Performance and Use of
Child Restraint Systems, Seatbelts, and Aur Bags for
Children in Passenger Vehicles, Vol. 1, Appendix A
(Sept. 1996) (available at
http://www.entsb.gov/publetn/1996/ss960 1 pdf).

As late as 1997, NIPPSA observed that “[e]hild
seats are generally designed to attach to a vehicle by
means of the vehicle's lap belt system” and confirmed
that “child seats provide high levels of safety when
correctly attached to a standard vehicle seat assem-
bly with only a lap belt.” 62 Ped. Reg. at 7859.

NHTSA’s emphasis during the 1990s on the use of
Type 1 lap-only belts to secure child restraints in
rear center seats repudiates the Government's
suggestion that NHTSA would have been perfectly
happy if manufacturers had unmmediately switched to
Type 2 belts in 1989. Instead, the regulatory history
underscores that NHTSA intended to give manufac-
turers the genuine option of installing either a Type
bor Type 2 belt for the rear imboard seats in view of
the unique safety concerns presented by small chil-
dren and child restraints.

17

CONCLUSION

lor the foreyoiny reasons, the judgment of the Cals-
forma Court of Appeal should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCC!
Counsel of Record

JOSHUA D. HAWLEY

HOGAN LovELLS US LLP

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

christopher. bartolomuce!
@Mhoganlovells.com

(202) 637-5810

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA43085015_0472%3A20. Public record. Not legal advice.