Interpretation ID: nht93-7.44
DATE: October 29, 1993
FROM: John B. Walsh -- Legal Affairs Manager, Corporate Attorney, American Suzuki Motor Corporation
TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA
TITLE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 208 - Sun Visor Label
ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/4/93 from John Womack to John B. Walsh (A41; Std. 208)
TEXT:
American Suzuki Motor Corporation ("ASMC") requests an interpretation of FMVSS 208 regarding the sun visor label requirements issued by NHTSA on September 2, 1993 (Docket No. 74-14; Notice 82). I understand that the agency discussed this final rule at the most recent NHTSA/Industry public meeting and announced that the agency plans to respond to several pending requests for interpretation of the new rule at the same time that the agency responds to the pending petitions for reconsideration of the rule. ASMC respectfully suggests that its interpretation request contained in this letter could appropriately be handled in the same fashion. Although ASMC has framed this request as seeking an interpretation of the rule, ASMC would not object if NHTSA were to conclude that this request should be handled instead by means of an amendment to the final rule issued in the course of responding to the petitions for reconsideration.
1. Specifically, ASMC requests an very limited interpretation that use of the signal word Warning, but no other word, complies with the requirement to use the signal word Caution for the sun visor label specified in S4.5.1(b)(1).
Discussion
a. The interpretation requested by ASMC conforms with the agency's concern that consistent information and instructions on sun visor labels be presented in a consistent format. All vehicles will bear uniform labels, with the only potential difference being the signal word used. Every signal word will be either Warning or Caution, consistent with the manufacturer's use of those signal words on other vehicle labels and in the vehicle owner's manual. Vehicle occupants will be constantly exposed to the same list of do's and don't's regardless of vehicle manufacturer, and will not be confused by the manufacturer's use of the appropriate signal word.
b. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z535.4-1991, Product Safety Signs and Labels, specifies that Warning or Caution (or Danger) be used as a signal word to indicate risk of personal injury. The ANSI Standard specifies that Warning be used to alert product users to non-imminent risks of serious injury or death. The language from the Standard is:
4.15 Signal Word. The word or words that designate a degree or level of hazard seriousness. The signal words for product safety signs are DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION.
4.15.1 DANGER indicates an imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. This signal word is to be limited to the most extreme situations.
4.15.2 WARNING indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.
4.15.3 CAUTION indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe practices.
Note: DANGER or WARNING should not be considered for property damage accidents unless personal injury risk appropriate to these levels is also involved. CAUTION is permitted for property-damage-only accidents.
If NHTSA permits use of the signal word "Warning" on the air bag sun visor label, this will be consistent with a national effort toward uniformity in safety labeling of products.
c. Many motor vehicle manufacturers currently use the word "Warning," rather than, or in addition to, the word "Caution", as a signal word in owner's manuals or on vehicle labels indicating risk of personal injury. A brief review of a small sample of 1991 through 1993 owner's manuals reveals that Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, Volvo, Saab, and Suzuki are in this group. Allowing manufacturers to use the signal word "Warning" on the air bag sun visor label would contribute to motor vehicle safety by assuring that occupants of vehicles already employing the word "Warning" for risks of personal injury will be provided with consistent messages about such risks.
d. In the preamble to the Final Rule, NHTSA relates that several commenters referred to various label statements as "warnings." Use of the word Warning as a signal word will not cause any confusion about the nature of the label, as Warning clearly indicates something related to a potential hazard.
2. In addition to the interpretation requested above, ASMC offers the following comment in support of the petitions for reconsideration submitted by General Motors and Ford regarding a change in the final rule to permit placement of the Part 575.105 label on the driver's sun visor.
Discussion
a. It is consistent with motor vehicle safety to permit two labels required by NHTSA to appear on the same portion of a motor vehicle. NHTSA has required both labels. The air bag label must be on the sun visor. The utility vehicle label would be permitted to be on the driver's sun visor, absent the prohibition of S4.5.1(b)(2). NHTSA can resolve the conflict by amending the FMVSS 208 final rule to permit the utility vehicle label to be placed on the driver's sun visor.
b. Having two labels on the sun visor will not cause information overload. The two labels relate to two different aspects of vehicle
use - basic do's and don't's that occupants should follow to obtain maximum protection from air bags, and an alert for drivers of utility vehicles to follow when driving utility vehicles on paved roads. Both labels will be present in air bag-equipped utility vehicles pursuant to regulation, so the utility vehicle label should not be banished from the sun visor because the manufacturer has installed an air bag. Encountering two required labels on two separate parts of the vehicle interior causes no more information overload than encountering the same two labels on the sun visor.
Thank you for considering this request for interpretation and this comment.