[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 145 (Friday, July 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18512]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 29, 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 document denies a petition for rulemaking to amend 
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to allow the air bag and 
safety belt warning label and the utility vehicle label to be combined. 
NHTSA is denying this petition because the agency believes that the 
warning label must be short and have a consistent format for the 
message to be received. Further, allowing the combination of this label 
and another label would divert attention away from the warning.

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 specifying that manufacturers must install air bags to 
satisfy automatic crash protection requirements. The final rule also 
required that labels bearing specified information related to air bags 
be placed in vehicles equipped with air bags and that additional, more 
detailed information about air bags be provided in the owner's manual.
    The September 2 final rule specified requirements for three air bag 
labels: (1) A warning label permanently affixed to the sun visor for 
each seating position with an air bag; (2) if periodic maintenance or 
replacement of an air bag was required, a maintenance label on the 
interior of the passenger compartment; and (3) if the warning label was 
not visible when the sun visor was stowed, an alert label affixed 
either on the sun visor in a manner that it would be visible when the 
sun visor was stowed or on the cover of the air bag. The September 2 
final rule also specified that no information other than that required 
by the warning label was to appear on the same side of the sun visor as 
the warning label, and that no other information (other than the alert 
label) concerning air bags or the need to wear seat belts was to appear 
anywhere on the sun visor.
    On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a final rule responding to two 
petitions for reconsideration and three requests for interpretation of 
the September 2 final rule. Of relevance to the current petition were 
amendments that (1) allowed the warning label and maintenance label to 
be combined and (2) permitted the placing of a utility vehicle label 
containing the language required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1) on the sun 
visor.
    On January 7, 1994, Chrysler petitioned the agency to allow the 
combination of the warning label and the utility vehicle label.
    The prohibition against placing other air bag or seat belt 
information on the sun visor in the September 2 final rule was intended 
to prevent ``information overload'' regarding air bags and seat belts. 
The agency believed that additional information could divert the 
attention of vehicle occupants and dilute the impact of the required 
information. NHTSA amended the prohibition in the March 10 final rule 
to allow the utility vehicle label to be placed on the opposite side of 
the sun visor from the warning label because: (1) The main emphasis of 
the utility vehicle label is the possibility of rollover; (2) the 
required statement concerning belt use is incidental to that message; 
and (3) the statements about seat belt use in the utility vehicle label 
and air bag label are similar. NHTSA further amended the placement 
prohibitions to make it clear that a maintenance label could be 
combined with the warning label.
    NHTSA required a uniform warning label in the September 2 final 
rule so that occupants are repetitively exposed to the same 
information. NHTSA limited the warnings on that label to those 
considered the most important, as persons are likely to have a limited 
time period for exposure to the warning. NHTSA is concerned that 
combining the warning label and a utility vehicle label in one label 
could defeat both these purposes. Chrysler provided no information to 
suggest that combining these labels would not divert attention and 
dilute the message of the air bag warning label.
    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.

    Issued on July 26, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-18512 Filed 7-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M