Interpretation ID: aiam1210
Assistant Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
1101 East Broad Street
Richmond
VA 23219;
Dear Mr. Woodroof: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning th effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with sear belts.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .<<<; Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufacture under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is 'complete passive protection', under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.; The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly render void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not 'identical' to those of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.; I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushio restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel