Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
September 28, 1994
[Federal Register: September 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 208, Occupant
Crash Protection, to disallow the use of the word ``WARNING'' as an
alternative to the word ``CAUTION'' at the heading of an air bag
information label on the sun visors of an air bag equipped vehicle.
NHTSA is denying this petition because the agency believes that, in
common usage, the words ``caution'' and ``warning'' are synonymous and
that either word properly achieves the intended effect.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Cohen, Chief, Frontal
Crash Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NRM-12,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 2, 1993, NHTSA published a
final rule (58 FR 46551) requiring that manufacturers install air bags
to satisfy automatic crash protection requirements for the front
outboard seating positions in certain motor vehicles, beginning on
September 1, 1996. The final rule also requires that three labels
bearing specified information related to air bags be placed in air bag-
equipped vehicles. S4.5.1(b)(1) of the rule requires one label to be
permanently affixed to the sun visor of each front seating position
with an air bag. This label would have read:
Caution
To Avoid Serious Injury:
For maximum safety protection in all types of crashes, you must
always wear your safety belt.
Do not install rearward-facing child seats in any front passenger
seat position.
Do not sit or lean unnecessarily close to the air bag.
Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and
yourself.
See the owners manual for further information and explanations.
On October 29, 1993, American Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki)
submitted a ``request for interpretation'' regarding the wording of the
sun visor label. Suzuki requested that manufacturers be permitted to
use the signal word ``WARNING'' as an alternative to the signal word
``CAUTION'' in the heading. Suzuki pointed out that the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) had issued a standard (Z535.4-1991)
for signal words on product safety signs and labels. The standard
contains a hierarchy of signal words signifying different degrees of
potential personal injury. In this hierarchy, ``caution'' signifies a
potential for ``minor or moderate injury,'' and ``warning'' indicates
the possibility of ``death or serious injury.'' Since accommodating
Suzuki's request would require a change in the wording permitted by the
regulation, instead of an interpretation of the existing wording, it
was treated by NHTSA as a petition for rulemaking.
On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice (59 FR 11200)
responding to two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 rule
and three requests for interpretation of that rule (including
Suzuki's). In response to Suzuki's request, the agency stated:
NHTSA added the phrase ``CAUTION, TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY'' in
the final rule to ``attract occupants' attention to the label and
provide a brief statement of the risks of improper use and
consequences.'' NHTSA concluded that substitution of the word
``WARNING'' would also achieve these goals, and is therefore
permitting its use.
NHTSA therefore amended S4.5.1(b)(1) of Standard 208 to permit
manufacturers to use either word in the required air bag label.
In a petition dated May 12, 1994, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) requested that NHTSA reverse its decision to permit
the word ``WARNING'' as a substitute for the word ``CAUTION.''
Advocates styled its petition as a ``petition for reconsideration of an
interpretation.'' However, the challenged action was a regulatory
amendment, rather than an interpretation. Advocates' petition was
received too late to be treated as a petition for reconsideration of a
regulation under 49 CFR Sec. 553.35. Therefore, NHTSA is treating the
letter as a petition for rulemaking.
The petition sets forth substantial and procedural objections to
the March 10 amendment. As to substance, Advocates believes that the
word ``WARNING'' will cause vehicle occupants to be unnecessarily
concerned. It disagrees with NHTSA's conclusion that ``CAUTION'' and
``WARNING'' are equivalent, citing the stronger nature of the word
``WARNING'' in the ANSI hierarchy of signal words. Advocates added that
it thought the entire label concept was unnecessary, but that it
reluctantly accepted the September 2 final rule's use of the word
``CAUTION'' because it was less aggressive than the word `'WARNING.''
It believes that ``[t]he message now conveyed is clearly one of danger
of likely serious injury'' (emphasis added).
The agency did not rely on the ANSI standards when deciding to
permit the use of the word ``WARNING.'' In fact, Suzuki's petition was
granted based on the conclusion that the words ``WARNING'' and
``CAUTION'' would achieve the same results since they have similar
meanings. This similarity is evident in the following dictionary
definitions:
Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged):
caution a warning against danger or evil; anything serving as a
warning
warning that which serves to warn, give notice or caution
Webster's Third International Dictionary (unabridged):
caution a warning or admonishment especially in counselling
vigilance, due attention or consideration, safety or reservation
warning a notice, bulletin or signal that serves to caution of the
approach of danger
Moreover, the latter dictionary lists the two words as synonyms.
The agency believes that it is more appropriate to base its
decision about these two words on the similarity of their dictionary
definitions than on the ANSI standard. The public is presumptively
familiar with the common usage and meaning of these words, as reflected
in their dictionary definitions. Conversely, all but an extremely small
portion of the public is likely unaware of the ANSI standards.
Given the similarity of the dictionary definitions, the agency
believes that the public will not have any greater reaction to the use
of ``WARNING'' than to ``CAUTION.'' Either word choice provides an
appropriate attention-getting visual cue. However, it is worth noting
that, if the ANSI distinctions were to be applied in determining the
appropriate word, the stronger work, ``WARNING,'' would be preferable
to ``CAUTION'' because it more accurately describes the potential
degree of injury.
NHTSA also notes that S5.5.2 of Standard 213, Child Restraint
Systems, requires that each rear-facing child seat bear a label that
contains the signal work ``WARNING,'' advising that the seat should not
be used in air bag-equipped seating positions. NHTSA has difficulty
understanding Advocates' strong reaction to the word ``WARNING'' on the
sun visor label given that it did not object to requiring that the same
signal word be placed on the child safety seat itself.
Advocates also is particularly concerned about the possibility that
the word ``WARNING'' will cause some people to want to deactivate the
air bag. NHTSA is considering a request from the American Association
of Automobile Manufacturers for a rulemaking that would permit a manual
cutoff switch for the passenger side air bag in vehicles with no rear
seat. The purpose of the cutoff switch would be to allow drivers to
deactivate the air bag in that passenger seating position when a rear-
facing infant safety seat is placed there. Advocates speculates that
the two rules would have a detrimental synergistic effect. It believes
that some passengers in these vehicles would use the cutoff switch to
disable their air bags, not for the intended purpose of protecting an
infant in a safety seat, but because they are frightened by the word
``WARNING.''
Advocates' concern is premature, speculative, and addressed to the
wrong forum. NHTSA has not made any judgment about what, if any, kind
of cutoff switch it might eventually permit. When NHTSA issues an NPRM,
it will provide Advocates and other members of the public with an
opportunity to submit comments to the rulemaking docket for that rule.
Advocates also posed a procedural objection to the agency's
permitting the use of ``WARNING.'' It believes that it had the right to
submit its views on the use of the word ``WARNING.'' Advocates states
that it relied to its detriment on what it said was NHTSA's
representation in the final rule that only the term ``CAUTION'' would
be used. It stated that the choice of terminology should be determined
through rulemaking instead of interpretation. Advocates believes that,
as part of that rulemaking, the ANSI scheme should have been presented
to the public for comment. Advocates apparently did not realize that
the Suzuki request was treated as a petition for rulemaking, even
though the March 10 rule stated that the September 2 rule was being
amended, something that cannot be done through an interpretation.
While the Administrative Procedure Act requires notice and comment
procedures for most substantive rules, such procedures are not needed
for minor technical amendments, such as permitting the use of a synonym
on an information label. Since ``CAUTION'' and ``WARNING'' are synonyms
in common usage, the addition of ``WARNING'' will have no practical
impact on the public's understanding of and reaction to the label.
Thus, the amendment allowing the word ``WARNING'' was essentially
technical in nature. Further, the agency had already obtained public
comment on essentially the same issue as a result of the December 14,
1992 notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the wording of the label.
Accordingly, an additional opportunity for comment was not required.
Based on the foregoing, there is no reasonable possibility that the
order requested in the petition will be issued at the conclusion of a
rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, this petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30162; delegations of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on September 22, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking
[FR Doc. 94-23910 Filed 9-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P-M