Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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