[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11724-11734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5735]
[[Page 11723]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 571 and 575
Consumer Information Regulations: Utility Vehicle Label; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11724]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 575
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3381, Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AG53
Consumer Information Regulations; Utility Vehicle Label
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule modifies the rollover warning currently
required for small and mid-sized utility vehicles. Utility vehicles,
which have features for off-road use, are often referred to in the
media as sport utility vehicles. In place of the current, text-only
warning label containing a paragraph of information, this rule requires
a new label that uses graphics, bright colors, and short bulleted text
messages. This rule also requires that additional information related
to rollover risks be included in the owners' manuals of these vehicles.
These changes make the rollover warning more attention-getting and
understandable to consumers. They will thereby increase the chance that
the warning will persuade drivers to modify their behavior and reduce
the likelihood of rollovers.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 1, 1999. Petitions for
reconsideration must be received by April 23, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
notice number of this final rule and be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590:
For labeling issues: Mary Versailles, Office of Planning and
Consumer Programs, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-2057, facsimile (202)
366-4329.
For general rollover issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, NPS-20, telephone (202) 366-5559, facsimile (202)
366-4329.
For legal issues: Nicole Fradette, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20,
telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Today's Rule
In an effort to reduce the rollover rate of utility vehicles
1, today's rule modifies the existing requirements for
rollover warning labels for those vehicles. The new labels will more
effectively alert their drivers to the risk the vehicles will roll
over, the steps they can take to avoid that risk, and the steps they
can take to reduce the chance of injury in the event of a rollover. The
new label uses bright colors, graphics, and short bulleted text
messages in lieu of the current text-only format. The rule requires the
label's header to have an alert symbol (a triangle containing an
exclamation point) followed by the statement ``WARNING: Higher Rollover
Risk'' in black text on a yellow background. The following three
statements must appear below the header in the center of the label:
``Avoid Abrupt Maneuvers and Excessive Speed,'' ``Always Buckle Up,''
and ``See Owner's Manual For Further Information.'' The rule specifies
that the label must contain two pictograms: one showing a tilting
utility vehicle on the left of the label, and the other showing a
seated vehicle occupant with a secured three-point belt system on the
right. The pictograms and the statement must be in black on a white
background. The rule requires the label to be placed on either the
driver's sun visor or the driver's side window. If the label is placed
on the back of the driver's sun visor, the rule requires an alert label
to be placed on the front of the visor urging the person to flip the
visor over and read the information on the other side. The new label is
required on utility vehicles with a wheelbase of 110 inches or less.
The rule also requires additional information on rollover be included
in the owner's manuals of these vehicles. The new requirements are
effective September 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Utility vehicles'' are defined in 49 CFR Part 575 as
multipurpose passenger vehicles (other than those which are
passenger car derivatives) with a wheelbase of 110 inches or less
and with special features for off-road operation. 49 CFR Part
575.105. These vehicles are commonly referred to as sport utility
vehicles in the media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. The Rollover Crash Problem 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A complete summary of the statistics used in this section
can be found in the document titled ``Status Report for Rollover
Prevention and Injury Mitigation, May 1996,'' in Docket 91-68-N05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has focused its rollover consumer information efforts on
utility vehicles because this type of vehicle is involved in rollover-
related occupant deaths more often (on a per-vehicle basis) than other
vehicle types. Utility vehicles experience 98 rollover fatalities for
every million vehicles registered.3 This is more than twice
the rate of all other light vehicle types combined--44 deaths per
million registered vehicles (although small pickup trucks have a
similar fatal rollover rate--93 deaths per million registered
vehicles).4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fatality rates given are averages of 1991-1994 rates, using
fatality data from FARS and vehicle registration data from R.L. Polk
and Company, which was limited to the 14 most recent model years at
the time of the Status Report.
\4\ According to a review of the National Automotive Sampling
System (NASS), rollover crashes accounted for over 28 percent of all
light duty vehicles fatalities in 1997. Light duty vehicles are
passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Vans and
sport utility vehicles are both considered multipurpose passenger
vehicles for purposes of NHTSA regulations. From 1991 through 1994,
an average of 8,857 occupants of light duty vehicles died in
rollover crashes annually. (1991-1994 average from Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS)) These fatal rollover crashes occurred with
all types of vehicles; the greatest number occurred in small
passenger cars, followed by small pickup trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not mean, however, that utility vehicles are unsafe
overall compared to other vehicle types. The overall fatality rate (for
crashes of all types, i.e., front, rear, side and rollover crashes) for
utility vehicles is 163 fatalities per million registered vehicles,
compared to 169 for all light duty vehicles combined. Small pickup
trucks have the highest overall fatality rate, at 217 fatalities per
million registered vehicles, followed by small cars, at 200.
B. Existing Utility Vehicle Rollover Warning Label
Currently, utility vehicles are required to have a label advising
drivers that the handling and maneuvering characteristics of these
vehicles require special driving practices (49 CFR 575.105). The label
must be permanently affixed in a location in the vehicle which is
``prominent and visible to the driver.'' A common location used by
manufacturers is the sun visor. No minimum size requirements are
specified for the label or lettering. The label must be ``printed in a
typeface and color which are clear and conspicuous.'' The label must
include the following or similar language:
This is a multipurpose passenger vehicle which will handle and
maneuver differently from an ordinary passenger car, in driving
conditions which may occur on streets and highways and off road. As
with other vehicles of this type, if you make sharp turns or abrupt
maneuvers, the vehicle may roll over or may go out of control and
crash. You should read driving guidelines and instructions in the
Owner's Manual, and WEAR YOUR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIMES.
Utility vehicles are also required to have information in the vehicle
owner's
[[Page 11725]]
manual. The current requirement specifies the following or similar
language:
Utility vehicles have higher ground clearance and a narrower
track to make them capable of performing in a wide variety of off-
road applications. Specific design characteristics give them a
higher center of gravity than ordinary cars. An advantage of the
higher ground clearance is a better view of the road allowing you to
anticipate problems. They are not designed for cornering at the same
speeds as conventional 2-wheel drive vehicles any more than low-
slung sports cars are designed to perform satisfactorily under off-
road conditions. If at all possible, avoid sharp turns or abrupt
maneuvers. As with other vehicles of this type, failure to operate
this vehicle correctly may result in loss of control or vehicle
rollover.
C. Summary of NPRM
On April 13, 1998, the agency published an NPRM proposing to modify
this labeling requirement. The proposed changes were based on the
results of a series of focus groups conducted in June 1996 as well as
the agency's experience in the rulemaking to improve the air bag
warning labels.5 The proposed changes included use of bright
colors, graphics, and short bulleted text messages, instead of the
current text-only format. The rollover focus groups and other focus
groups formed by the agency have consistently concluded that labels
like the existing utility vehicle label (long unbroken passages of text
and no graphics) are less likely to be read than labels with minimal
wording and graphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Copies of the Focus Group Report, dated August 1996, as well
as the three potential labels proposed in the NPRM are in docket
NHTSA 98-3381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA explained in the NPRM that the American National Standard
Institute (ANSI) has a standard 6 for product safety signs
and labels (ANSI Z535.4) that identifies a hierarchy of hazard levels
ranging from extremely serious to moderately serious and specifies
corresponding hierarchies of signal words, i.e., ``danger,''
``warning,'' and ``caution,'' and of colors. For the header, the ANSI
standard specifies a red background with white text for ``danger,'' an
orange background with black text for ``warning,'' and a yellow
background with black text for ``caution.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This standard was not considered by the June 1996 rollover
focus groups in their deliberations, however the standard was
considered in a series of air bag label focus groups in October
1996.
ANSI Requirements for Color Coded Header Messages for the Different
Levels of Hazard
[Listed in declining level of hazard]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imminently hazardous situation ``Danger''........... Red background
which will result in death or with white
serious injury if not avoided. text.
Potentially hazardous situation ``Warning''.......... Orange
which could result in death or background with
serious injury. black text.
Potentially hazardous situation ``Caution''.......... Yellow
which could result in minor or background with
moderate injury. black text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANSI standard specifies that pictograms should be black on white,
with occasional uses of color for emphasis, and that message text
should be black on white.
The NPRM proposed three different labels for comment. Proposed
label 1 used the ANSI color format with the heading background in
orange with the words in black. The remainder of the label had a white
background with black text and drawings. Proposed label 2 used a color
scheme like the air bag warning labels, which is the same as the ANSI
color format except that the background color for the heading in the
label is yellow. Proposed label 3 employed the color scheme used in the
focus groups--the heading area had a red background with white text.
The graphic areas had a yellow background with black and white
drawings. The text area had a black background with yellow text.
Proposed label 1 used two graphics to the left of the areas with
heading and text. Proposed labels 2 and 3 had a heading area across the
top of the label, with two graphics surrounding a text area below. All
three proposed labels had a graphic of the area on a seat belt where
the buckle is, with the belt not fully buckled. Proposed labels 1 and 2
had a graphic with a vehicle on a curved road that was tipping.
Proposed label 3 had a graphic of a tipped vehicle with a curved arrow
under it and a person being ejected from the vehicle.
Despite focus group preference for the signal word ``danger,'' the
agency proposed the use of the word ``warning'' as more appropriate to
the level of risk. The agency also noted that the word ``warning'' is
used in the air bag warning label. NHTSA sought comment on whether to
use the phrases ``High Risk of Rollover'' or ``Higher Rollover Risk''
in the label. Proposed labels 1 and 2 used the phrase ``High Risk of
Rollover'' in the text and heading areas respectively. Proposed label 3
used the phrase ``Higher Rollover Risk.'' Proposed label 3 also used
the phrase ``Always Buckle Up.'' Proposed labels 1 and 2 included the
phrase ``Avoid Sudden Stops and Sharp Turns.''
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 11726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MR99.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MR99.054
[[Page 11727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MR99.055
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Prior to publication of the NPRM, NHTSA had received a petition for
reconsideration from the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) of a provision in the air bag warning label requirements that
prohibits the utility vehicle rollover warning label and the air bag
label from being on the same side of the sun visor. Currently, the
utility vehicle rollover warning label must be permanently affixed to
the instrument panel, windshield frame, driver's side sun visor, or
some other location on the vehicle interior visible from the driver's
position. Under current requirements, if the utility vehicle rollover
warning label is placed on the sun visor, it must be on the front side.
Thus, a manufacturer which chooses this popular location must place the
air bag warning label on the back side of the sun visor with the air
bag alert label on the front. In the April 1998 NPRM, NHTSA sought
comments on whether it should: (1) retain the current location
requirements; (2) retain the current utility vehicle warning label
location requirements and remove the prohibition from the air bag
warning label location requirements; or (3) amend the utility vehicle
rollover warning label requirements to prohibit its placement on the
driver's side sun visor. As part of the last possibility, NHTSA sought
comment on an additional possible location, i.e., the lower, rear
corner of the driver's side door window visible from the vehicle
exterior. NHTSA also sought comment on whether a size should be
specified for the label.
NHTSA also asked for comments on possible changes to the owner's
manual requirement. NHTSA proposed three possible approaches to an
owner's manual information requirement: (1) retain the current owner's
manual information requirement, (2) specify that information on design
features which may make a vehicle more likely to rollover (e.g., higher
center of gravity) and driving practices which can reduce the risk that
a rollover will occur (e.g., avoiding sharp turns) or which can reduce
the likelihood of death or serious injury if a rollover occurs (e.g.,
wearing seat belts) be included in the owner's manual without
specifying the exact content of such information, or (3) specify the
inclusion of information beyond what is now specified. The agency
explained that this additional information could include: statistical
information comparing the rollover risk of utility vehicles with other
light passenger vehicles, statistical information demonstrating the
lower risk of fatality or injury if seat belts are worn, information on
the types of situations that can result in a rollover, and information
on how to properly recover from a driving scenario that could result in
rollover.
On May 15, 1997, American Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki)
petitioned NHTSA to modify the existing utility vehicle label to
include additional language on the circumstances which may lead to
rollovers and the specific actions a driver can take to reduce the risk
of rollovers in those circumstances.7 Suzuki also asked the
agency to amend the requirement to require the label in all light
trucks, not just utility vehicles. The agency explained that it
considered the Suzuki petition moot, since the requested actions were
under consideration in several open rulemakings, including this
rulemaking, regarding consumer information on rollover prevention, and
in other agency consumer information activities and sought comment on
whether to extend the utility vehicle label requirement to all light
trucks (trucks, buses, and MPVs) or to any subset of this category
(e.g., all utility vehicles). The agency proposed a lead time of 180
days between the final rule and its implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Suzuki suggested the following language in its petition:
If, for any reason, your vehicle slides sideways or spins out of
control at highway speeds, the risk of rollover is greatly
increased. This condition can be created when two or more wheels
drop off onto the shoulder and the driver steers sharply in an
attempt to reenter the roadway. To reduce the risk of rollover in
these circumstances, if conditions permit, hold the steering wheel
firmly and slow down before pulling back into the travel lanes with
controlled steering movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of the Comments
NHTSA received 19 comments on the NPRM from six manufacturers, two
consumer interest groups, three trade associations, six business
students, and two other organizations.
[[Page 11728]]
A. Revision and Upgrade of the Label
Only one commenter, Exponent Failure Analysis, explicitly opposed
the new label, based on a belief that it could lead consumers to
purchase vehicles that are overall less safe.8 Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) reiterated its long-standing belief
that a rollover standard is needed and expressed skepticism about
whether a new label can reduce rollovers. Consumers Union also stated
that additional activities are needed to reduce rollovers. Mercedes-
Benz, who currently does not produce any vehicles that are subject to
the requirement, believes that the current label should be sufficient
to inform its customers of the special driving characteristics of
utility vehicles.9 Honda Motor Corporation (Honda) agreed
that the new label might be more effective, but stated that NHTSA
should set performance requirements for labels instead of mandating
specific designs. Honda did not, however, suggest any method that could
be used to measure performance for a label. All other commenters either
did not object to changing the label or explicitly supported the
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NHTSA notes that the rationale given for this opposition
applies equally to the current label.
\9\ NHTSA notes that any voluntary label would not have to
comply with the Federal requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the commenters who expressed a particular preference for
one of the proposed labels supported label number 2, citing as bases
for their support both the color scheme and layout. With respect to the
color of the label's header, commenters expressed strong support for a
yellow background. The Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM) and AAMA stated that NHTSA should allow the choice
of yellow or orange.
Except for Consumers Union which supports any message encouraging
belt use, most commenters objected to the graphic depicting the rider
being thrown from the vehicle. They believed this graphic shifted
emphasis away from rollover prevention to belt use. Commenters also
objected to graphics showing a curved road as implying that rollovers
only occur on curves. AIAM disliked the arrow in the graphic without a
road because it believed it was redundant of the depicted vehicle
attitude. AIAM, AAMA, and Honda all preferred the standard belt use
graphic, the three-point seat belt symbol (see 49 CFR 571.101), to the
graphic used on the proposed labels. Honda also suggested retesting the
graphics using ANSI's protocol for safety symbols (ANSI Z535.3-1991,
Criteria for Safety Symbols).
Overall, commenters expressed strong support for the word
``warning.'' Only one comment supported using the word ``danger'' for
the warning label. Three business students, Felix Bonet, Jeana Jewett
and Yuladys Sanchez, submitted a survey they conducted in which 70
percent of respondents said that the word ``danger'' would attract
attention more. AAMA stated that either ``Warning'' or ``Caution''
should be allowed since there is no evidence that consumers would react
differently to the two words. Some of the commenters preferred label 2
because the reason for the warning (rollover) was stated on the same
line as the word ``warning.'' Finally, AAMA, AIAM, and Honda asked that
the use of the safety alert symbol (triangle with an exclamation point)
be allowed on the label.
None of the commenters expressed explicit support for or opposition
to using either the phrase ``High Rollover Risk'' or the phrase
``Higher Risk of Rollover.'' Instead, commenters suggested other
alternative statements such as: ``Reduce Rollover Risk,'' ``To Avoid
Rollovers . . .,'' and ``This vehicle handles differently than a car.''
Those commenters who addressed the issue of what seat belt phrase
to use preferred the phrase ``Always Buckle Up,'' which was used on
proposed label 3. Honda stated that any belt use message should be
secondary since there are already numerous belt use messages. With
respect to the phrase ``Avoid Sudden Stops and Sharp Turns,'' which was
included on proposed labels 1 and 2, commenters stated that they
disliked both maneuver statements because these maneuvers are often
used to avoid crashes. The commenters suggested adding a statement
regarding speed and alcohol use since these are common factors in
rollover crashes. Commenters also suggested adding a statement to the
label to see the owner's manual and allowing foreign language
translations of the label.
B. Location and Size of the Label in the Vehicle
With respect to the label's location, only one commenter, the
Insurance Institute for Highway (IIHS), stated that NHTSA should
prohibit the utility vehicle label from being placed on the sun visor.
IIHS believed that the utility label's presence on the sun visor would
diminish the effect of the air bag label. IIHS, along with Consumers
Union, preferred the location of the driver's side window. Advocates
stated that it did not have a strong position on the location of the
label, except that it believed that safety labels (including air bag
labels) should be visible at all times and should not be located on the
back of the sun visor. Many commenters believe the agency should allow
flexibility on the label's location, including allowing both the air
bag label and the utility vehicle label to be on the same side of the
sun visor.
In general, commenters supported giving manufacturers flexibility
on the size of the label. One commenter suggested specifying a specific
minimum font size so that manufacturers would not be tempted to make
the labels too small. Other commenters opposed specifying a minimum
size and supported maintaining the current ``prominent and visible to
the driver'' language.
C. Inclusion of New Rollover Statement in the Owner's Manual
AIAM believes that NHTSA should specify the exact wording of the
discussion in the owner's manual, but that it should not be the
currently required discussion. Several of the commenters stated that
the current requirement should be changed. Advocates stated that
statistical information should not be required because it can change
from year to year. Finally, several commenters expressed support for
option two (specifying topics to cover but not exact language) because
it provides manufacturers with more flexibility.
D. Vehicle Applicability and Effective Date
In the April 1998 NPRM, NHTSA asked for comments on extending the
utility vehicle rollover requirement to all light trucks (trucks,
buses, and MPVs) or to any subset of this category (such as all utility
vehicles). The commenters were split on whether NHTSA should extend
this requirement to other vehicles. Some commenters stated that this
should be the subject of a separate rulemaking, while others said that
the agency should wait to determine the effectiveness of a new label
before extending the requirement to other vehicles. There were no
comments on extending the labeling requirement to all utility vehicles.
With regard to the issue of leadtime, all commenters said 180 days
was adequate for label changes. However, commenters said that they
would need at least one year if changes were made to the owner's
manual, as these manuals are often ordered at one time for the entire
model year.
E. Additional Issues
In its comments on the NPRM, AAMA asked NHTSA to write the rule so
that
[[Page 11729]]
individual manufacturers could change the language and graphics on the
label upon seeking and receiving the Administrator's permission to
allow for changes in technology without the need for rulemaking.
IV. Agency's Decision and Response to Comments
A. Revision and Upgrade of the Label
NHTSA has decided to amend the existing utility vehicle rollover
warning labeling requirement. The agency believes the modifications
made by this final rule will make the information more noticeable and
understandable to consumers and, therefore, increase the chance that
the labels can affect driver behavior to reduce rollovers and thus
reduce fatalities and injuries. NHTSA has decided to use the format in
label 2 with two graphics surrounding the label's text and a heading
above. The rule requires the graphic depicting the use of a seat belt
to be on the right and the rollover graphic to be on the left.
The agency has decided to use the color yellow in the header. The
agency recognizes that the use of the color yellow is inconsistent with
the ANSI standard, which specifies the use of orange for headers
relating to potentially hazardous situations, such as the ones
addressed by this final rule, which could result in death or serious
injury. However, the use of yellow is consistent with the color chosen
by the agency for the header of the air bag label. NHTSA specified the
use of yellow for air bag warning labels because of an overwhelming
focus group preference for that color and the meaning associated with
that color (focus groups associated the word ``caution'' with yellow
and associated no meaning with the word orange).10 The
agency believes that the use of orange for rollover warning labels and
yellow for air bar warning labels could create confusion. In addition,
commenters expressed strong support for the color yellow. The rule does
not allow the use of orange in the header. This prohibition is
consistent with the air bag warning label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Only two of the 53 focus group participants preferred
orange. Participants generally stated that yellow was more eye-
catching than orange. Participants also noted that red (stop) and
yellow (caution) had meaning to them, but not orange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency agrees with the comments of AIAM, AAMA, and Honda and
has decided to adopt the standard belt use graphic, the three-point
seat belt symbol (see 49 CFR 571.101), instead of the buckle graphic
used on the three proposed labels. NHTSA believes that consistency in
graphics will prevent any confusion about the meaning of a particular
pictogram. NHTSA understands the commenters' belief that a curved road
in the vehicle graphic might lead consumers to believe that rollovers
can only occur on a curved road and should be removed. In addition, the
agency agrees that the arrow underneath the tilting vehicle clutters
the graphic and should also be removed. The agency believes, however,
that some frame of reference is needed so that people will not be
confused and conclude either that the graphic was misprinted on the
label or that the label was placed on the vehicle crooked. NHTSA has,
therefore, decided to change the vehicle graphic to show a tilting
vehicle on a horizontal plane.
In response to Honda's comment and to determine which graphics
would be most effective, NHTSA conducted additional consumer testing of
the recommended graphics in accordance with the ANSI protocol for
evaluating symbol comprehension. Focus group testing was done on the
tilting vehicle graphic and on the two alternate seat belt graphics
(the graphic used in Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, and a
graphic like the one used in the NPRM except depicting a 3-point belt
instead of a lap belt). In addition, to test the overall comprehension
of the graphics, NHTSA tested the label with all text deleted except
the word ``warning''.
Participants were shown the three graphics (the tilting vehicle
graphic and the two seat belt graphics), asked to identify what the
graphic meant or was trying to tell them, and asked to choose from four
possible responses. Of the four responses provided, one was correct,
two were incorrect, and one indicated ``critical confusion.''
11 With respect to the two seat belt graphics, 95 percent of
the participants chose the correct response for the seat belt graphic
used in Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, 1 percent chose the
incorrect response and 4 percent chose the critical confusion response.
For the 3-point seat belt graphic, 86 percent chose the correct
response, 5 percent chose incorrectly and 7 percent chose the critical
confusion response. With respect to the tilting vehicle graphic, 81
percent of the participants chose the correct response, 18 percent
chose the incorrect response and 1 percent chose the critical confusion
response. Participants were also shown the new label with all text
deleted except the word ``warning'' and asked to identify what the
label as a whole meant or was trying to tell them. Ninety-four percent
of the participants chose the correct meaning of the label (5 percent
chose the incorrect meaning and 1 percent chose the critical confusion
response). NHTSA believes the addition of the seat belt graphic along
with the word ``warning'' provided a context for the tilting vehicle
graphic so that participants understood the overall meaning of the
label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Critical confusion'' is the term used to describe the
situation in which a participant concludes that the meaning of the
graphic is the opposite of the meaning intended by the graphic's
designer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA believes that these results demonstrate that the label is
readily understandable to the vast majority of people. The ANSI
standard calls for at least 85 percent of correct responses and not
more than 5 percent critical confusion. The seat belt graphic used in
Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, (with 95 percent of the
responses correct and only 1 percent critical confusion) is well within
the requirements of ANSI's standard. While the tilting vehicle graphic
did not receive a correct response of 85 percent when it was viewed in
isolation, the ANSI standard indicates that a label's graphic judged
unacceptable when so viewed may nevertheless become acceptable if
explanatory text is added. The new rollover label has such explanatory
text. In addition, the tilting vehicle graphic had a critical confusion
response of only 1 percent. Further, the overall recognition level of
the label as a whole was high, with 94 percent of the participants
correctly identifying the meaning of the label.
The agency does not have any evidence that any of the suggested
signal words, i.e., ``danger'', ``warning'' or ``caution,'' would be
more effective than the others. It also does not have any information
showing that ``danger'' would be more appropriate than ``warning'' for
labels regarding the particular hazard addressed by this rulemaking.
The agency, therefore, sees no reason to depart from the voluntary
industry standard and has decided to use the word ``warning'' to comply
with the ANSI standard. The final rule also mandates the use of the
safety alert symbol. Manufacturers asked that the use of the alert
symbol be permitted instead of required. The agency believes that this
requirement will make the label more attention getting and will,
therefore, increase the effectiveness of the label. In addition,
requiring the safety alert symbol will also make the label's appearance
uniform with that of the air bag label.
With respect to the use of the phrases ``Higher Rollover Risk'' and
``High Risk of Rollover,'' NHTSA believes that the alternatives
suggested by the
[[Page 11730]]
commenters, ``Reduce Rollover Risk * * *'' and ``To Avoid Rollovers * *
*'', are less appropriate. While the proposed phrases invite the reader
to respond by taking both crash avoidance measures (i.e., more careful
driving) and injury reduction measures (i.e., seat belt use), the
alternative phrases invite crash avoidance measures only. Further, the
agency believes the phrase ``This vehicle handles differently than a
car'' is too wordy. One of the reasons the agency is modifying the
label is because the current one is too wordy. NHTSA also notes that
focus groups emphasized that statements should be short.
NHTSA is aware that the rollover risk is not ``high'' in absolute
terms, but it is higher for SUVs than other vehicle types.
Consequently, the final rule requires the label to include the phrase
``Higher Rollover Risk.'' In addition, the rule requires that this
phrase be placed on the first line of the label following the signal
word ``Warning.'' NHTSA believes that the placement of this phrase at
the top of the label is important to highlight the purpose of the label
and to help alert the driver to the importance of heeding its warnings.
NHTSA chose to delete the ``sudden stops'' statement from the label
since both the focus group and the commenters expressed concern that
these maneuvers are often used to avoid crashes. The final rule
requires the statement: AVOID ABRUPT MANEUVERS AND EXCESSIVE SPEED.
NHTSA believes that this statement makes the driver aware of particular
practices that should be avoided. The final rule also requires the use
of the phrase ``Always Buckle Up'', which was preferred by commenters,
and specifies that it be placed as the second statement on the label.
The agency believes that this message is easily understood and
effectively conveys the importance of wearing a seat belt. The agency
has decided not to adopt an alcohol use statement as suggested by the
commenters as it believes this issue is better addressed in other ways.
NHTSA agrees with the commenters that the label should include a
statement urging the driver to look in the vehicle owner's manual for
further information. NHTSA recognizes that it did not adopt a similar
statement proposed for the air bag warning labels. It did not do so
because some members of the air bag focus groups expressly objected to
it, and indicated they wanted the label itself to tell them what they
need to know about air bag dangers and how to avoid them. The agency
believes that it is harder, within the practical limitations imposed by
a relatively small warning label, to provide the basic information
necessary for avoiding rollover dangers than it is to provide
information necessary for avoiding air bag dangers. These limitations
make it necessary to place much of the basic information about rollover
dangers in the owner's manual. The owner's manual will include a
discussion of the vehicle design features which cause this type of
vehicle to be more likely to rollover (e.g., higher center of gravity),
a discussion of the driving practices that can reduce the risk of a
rollover (e.g., avoiding sharp turns at excessive speed), and an
explanation of why it is important to wear a seat belt (i.e., that
unbelted occupants are significantly more likely to die in a rollover
crash than belted occupants). The agency believes that it is both
important and appropriate to have a statement on the label reminding
the driver to read the information in the owner's manual and is
requiring that it be included.
B. Location and Size of the Label in the Vehicle
NHTSA conducted a literature search for information on warning
placement to assist the agency in determining the most appropriate
location for the label. The agency found a number of sources of
guidance. ANSI Z535.4 (1991) permits multiple hazard warnings in the
same location if more than one hazard exists for a product and either
the sources of the hazards are in close proximity to each other or the
hazards are preventable from a common location. However, the standard
recommends that individual messages have sufficient space around them
to prevent them from visually blending together. The Westinghouse
Electric Corporation (1981) guidelines recommend against placing
multiple hazard warnings in the same location. In cases in which
multiple warnings are provided, the guidelines prohibit placing
warnings concerning hazards with different levels of seriousness in
close proximity to each other. Further, according to a study done for
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, label recognition decreases as
the number of labels increases. This was a limited study (10 subjects
for each condition) done on all terrain vehicles (ATV) warnings. It
tested label recognition when there were different numbers (4, 7, 9, or
11) of warning labels present.
In response to comments and in light of the results of its
literature review, the agency is allowing the utility vehicle label to
be placed on either (1) the driver's sun visor (either side) or (2) the
driver's side window. The agency believes that this will allow
manufacturers two alternatives if it is not possible to place both the
air bag label and the utility vehicle label on the same side of the sun
visor. Allowing manufacturers to put the utility vehicle label on
either side of the sun visor, they could choose to put the air bag
label on the front, increasing its prominence, if it is not possible to
put both labels on the front. Based on the research, allowing both
labels on the sun visor should not result in information overload
because: (1) There are only 2 hazards being warned about; (2) actions
that would avoid both rollover and air bag hazards can be avoided from
the driver's seating position; and (3) both hazards have the same
degree of seriousness.
However, to maintain the separateness of the labels and their
messages, the agency is specifying that the labels cannot be
contiguous. Further, to keep the pictograms of the two labels from
running together visually, the final rule also specifies that the air
bag warning label must be to the left of the utility vehicle rollover
warning label when both labels are placed on the same side of the sun
visor. Since the pictogram on the air bag warning label is on its left
side, placing that label to the left of the rollover warning label puts
that pictogram far from the pictograms on the rollover warning label.
Finally, the final rule requires that a rollover alert label, similar
to the air bag alert label, must be placed on the front of the sun
visor if the utility vehicle label is put on the back of the sun visor.
With respect to specifying a particular size for the label, NHTSA
believes that concerns over liability make it unlikely that
manufacturers would make the label, or its contents, too small.
Further, despite the absence of any current requirement about label
size, no commenter gave an example of a rollover warning label that the
commenter regarded as too small. As to lettering size, NHTSA believes
that specifying a minimum font size is unnecessary at this time. NHTSA
has not required any particular font face or size for the air bag
warning label. Manufacturers, particularly those which choose to place
both the air bag warning label and the rollover warning label on the
same side of the sunvisor, may wish to use the same font face and size
in both labels. Today's rule allows them the flexibility to do so.
NHTSA, therefore, decided not to specify either a particular font face
or font size for the rollover label. As the label size has not been a
problem in the past, the final rule retains the current requirement
that the
[[Page 11731]]
label be ``legible, visible and prominent'' to the driver. If the
agency becomes aware of cases in which the size of the label or label's
text is too small, we will revise the rule to specify label and font
size.
C. Inclusion of New Rollover Statement in the Owner's Manual
Today's rule requires owner's manuals to include the following
statements and information:
(1) The statement ``Utility vehicles have a significantly higher
rollover rate than other types of vehicles.''
(2) A discussion of the vehicle design features which cause this
type of vehicles to be more likely to rollover (e.g., higher center of
gravity);
(3) A discussion of the driving practices that can reduce the risk
of a rollover (e.g., avoiding sharp turns at excessive speed); and
(4) The statement: ``In a rollover crash, an unbelted person is
significantly more likely to die than a person wearing a seat belt.''
The agency believes that the general nature of the requirements
about discussions of design features and driving practices will allow
manufacturers to tailor language to their specific vehicles. At the
same time, the requirements are specific enough to ensure that critical
topics are included. NHTSA believes that uniformity in the two required
statements is important in order to underscore the message contained on
the label. The agency believes that uniformity is not needed with
respect to the discussion of vehicle design features which make these
vehicles more prone to rollover or the driving practices that can
reduce the risk of rollover. The agency believes that manufacturers are
in a better position to advise drivers as to which particular features
of their vehicles are most relevant.
D. Vehicle Applicability and Effective Date
In light of the lack of comments on the issue of extending the
requirement to all utility vehicles, NHTSA analyzed the statistics for
percent rollovers per single vehicle crashes (%RO/SVC) for vehicles
with a wheelbase of 110 inches compared to the %RO/SVC for
vehicles with a wheelbase of >110 inches to determine the rollover rate
for different vehicle types. The rollover rate for utility vehicles
with a wheelbase of 110 inches was 57.5 percent, the highest
of all the types. The rollover rate was 9.5 percent for utility
vehicles with a wheelbase of >110 inches and 48.9 percent for all
utility vehicles.12 Small pickup trucks (those with a
wheelbase of 110 inches) had the next highest rollover rate,
with 41.4 percent. The results are summarized in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Utility vehicles with a wheelbase 110 inches had
a rollover rate of only 9.5 percent. These statistics were generated
from 1997 National Automotive Sampling System data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of these numbers, NHTSA has decided not to extend the
requirement to other vehicles at this time. The vehicles with the
highest rollover rate are already required to have a rollover warning
label. Therefore, the costs associated with the new labeling
requirement should be minimal.
The agency notes that it is undertaking a research program to
examine various measurements to determine susceptibility to rollover on
an individual vehicle basis instead of on a vehicle type basis.
Depending on the results of this research, NHTSA may revisit the issue
of what vehicles should be required to have a rollover warning label.
Table 1.--Percent Rollover per Single Vehicle Crashes (% RO/SVC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
110'' >110''
All wheelbase wheelbase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car........................... 17.4 20.1 11.0
Utility Vehicle............... 48.9 57.5 9.5
Van........................... 22.2 \1\ 8.3 30.4
Pickup........................ 37.5 41.4 25.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This number may not be reliable. It reflects a very small number of
vans with wheelbases 110 inches. This is because the most
popular minivans have wheelbases longer than 110 inches.
The new label and owner's manual requirements contain important
information that more effectively alerts drivers to the risk the
vehicles will roll over, the steps to take to avoid that risk, and the
steps to take to reduce the chance of injury in the event of a
rollover. NHTSA, therefore, believes that a September 1, 1999 effective
date for the label and owner's manual requirements is appropriate.
NHTSA believes that manufacturers will have sufficient leadtime to
design new labels and revise owner's manuals to include the information
required by today's rule. With respect to the labeling requirement, all
of the commenters agreed that a leadtime of 180 days was sufficient to
design, produce and install a new label. In addition, the new label
directs the driver to consult the owner's manual for further
information, as the agency believes that drivers and passengers should
be aware of the information contained in the owner's manual. Although
commenters said that they would need at least one year to make any
changes to the owner's manual as these manuals are often ordered at one
time for the entire model year, the agency believes that any changes
can be made within 180 days. Manufacturers generally order owner's
manuals three to four months (in June or July) before the start of the
new model year of production. NHTSA believes that a September 1, 1999,
effective date will provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time to
make all the changes required by today's rule prior to publication of
the new owner's manuals. Further, the agency notes that if for any
reason a manufacturer is unable to make the changes before the new
manual is published, the manufacturer may place an insert with the
required information in the owner's manual.
E. Additional Issues
Today's rule does not permit manufacturers to make changes to the
label upon seeking and receiving special permission from the
Administrator. NHTSA believes it is important that people see the same
message in all utility vehicles subject to this final rule. The agency
believes that inconsistency in the content of the label could cause
confusion and undermine the
[[Page 11732]]
effectiveness of the label's safety message.
V. Policy on Use of Standards vs. Focus Groups
In the NPRM, NHTSA also raised the issue of the circumstances in
which it is appropriate in its rulemaking not to follow standards
established by voluntary consensus standards organizations. The agency
explained that under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Federal agencies must consider and adopt the use
of ``voluntary consensus standards'' to implement their ``policy
objectives or activities,'' unless doing so would be ``inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' A ``voluntary consensus
standard'' is defined as a technical standard developed or adopted by a
legitimate standards-developing organization (``voluntary consensus
standards body''). According to NTTAA's legislative history, a
``technical standard'' pertains to ``products and processes, such as
the size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or
material.'' Further, a voluntary consensus standards organization under
the NTTAA is one that produces standards by consensus and observes the
principles of due process, openness, and balance of interests.
Consistent with the NTTAA, NHTSA requested comments on the extent
to which any final choice regarding colors and signal words should be
guided by the focus group preferences instead of the ANSI standard.
NHTSA also requested comments on the broader issue of the circumstances
in which it would be appropriate for agency rulemaking decisions to be
guided by focus group results or other information when such
information is contrary to a voluntary consensus standard such as the
ANSI standard.
The agency received little comment on this issue. In general, both
manufacturers and consumer groups stated that while NHTSA should seek
and consider input from focus groups and voluntary standards, the
agency should rely on its own expertise and judgment when making any
regulatory or policy decisions. Advocates and Honda were concerned that
focus groups preferences were unscientific and unreliable and
therefore, did not believe too much emphasis should be placed upon
them.
NHTSA recognizes that the ANSI's mission in developing and issuing
its standard for communicating information about a comprehensive
hierarchy of hazards differs somewhat from that of the agency's focus
groups in designing an effective label for a specific hazard and that
their conclusions about the manner of communication may therefore
differ. Given that agency labeling decisions are highly dependent on
the facts regarding the specific hazard being addressed, the agency
will make case-by-case determinations of the extent to which NHTSA
should follow voluntary standards versus information from focus groups
and other sources. As it has in this rulemaking, NHTSA will rely on its
own expertise and judgement in making its determinations under the
NTTAA and the statutory provisions regarding vehicle safety standards.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866. Further, this action has been determined to be not
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures.
NHTSA believes that this rule will result in a minimal cost to
manufacturers and consumers of utility vehicles with a wheel base of
less than 110 inches since this rule only changes the format of an
existing label and involves a minor modification of existing text in
the owner's manual.
The consumer cost of the new modified rollover warning label with
two pictograms, short bulleted text and bright colors is dependent upon
the type of label used, the size of the label and the number of colors
used. The agency did not specify a print font face or size requirement
for the new label, but instead retained the current requirement that
the label be ``legible, visible and prominent'' to the driver. Thus,
the agency believes that manufacturer changes in label size will not
add an incremental cost to the present label. However, the requirement
for the new label to have black text on a yellow background and two
black pictograms on a white background requires the use of three
colors, and will add an incremental cost to the present requirement
dependent upon the type of label used by the manufacturer. The agency
estimates that incremental cost of the additional label colors could be
as little as $0.01 and as much as $0.10 per label, dependent upon the
type of label applied by the manufacturer.
Since new owner's manuals are printed for each production year, the
agency believes minor changes to the manual text will not increase its
cost.
Therefore, the total annual incremental cost of the new warning
rollover labels is estimated to be between $15,000 to $200,000. These
figures are based on the assumption that average number of utility
vehicles with wheelbases less than 110 inches sold per year in the U.S.
will continue to be between 1.5 and 2 million per year. Since these
costs are so minimal, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant
[[Page 11733]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As explained above, NHTSA believes this rule will have minimal economic
impact.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB Clearance
number for the utility vehicle label (49 CFR 575.105) is 2127-0049.
NHTSA has considered the impact of the changes required by today's rule
and determined that they will not have any affect on the total burden
hours imposed on the public by 49 CFR 575.105.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it will not have a significant impact on
the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and does not have a
disproportionate effect on children.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
We reviewed all relevant American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) standards as part of developing the labeling and information
requirements that are the subject of this document. To the extent
consistent with our authorizing legislation, we used the following
voluntary consensus standard in developing the labeling and information
requirements:
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standard for
product safety signs and labels (ANSI Z535.4).
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
49 CFR Part 575
Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends chapter V of Title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. In Sec. 571.208, in S4.5.1, revise the heading for paragraph (b)
and revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S4.5.1 * * *
(b) Sun visor air bag warning label.
* * * * *
(3) Except for the information on an air bag maintenance label
placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, or on a
utility vehicle label placed on the visor pursuant to 49 CFR
575.105(d)(1), no other information shall appear on the same side of
the sun visor to which the sun visor air bag warning label is affixed.
Except for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the
visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, no other information
about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on
the sun visor.
* * * * *
PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
4. Section 575.105 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 575.105 Vehicle rollover.
(a) Purpose and scope. This section requires manufacturers of
utility vehicles to alert the drivers of those vehicles that they have
a higher possibility of rollover than other vehicle types and to advise
them of steps that can be taken to reduce the possibility of rollover
and/or to reduce the likelihood of injury in a rollover.
(b) Application. This section applies to utility vehicles.
(c) Definitions.
Utility vehicles means multipurpose passenger vehicles (other than
those which are passenger car derivatives) which have a wheelbase of
110 inches or less and special features for occasional off-road
operation.
(d) Required information. (1) Rollover Warning Label. (i) Except as
provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, each
[[Page 11734]]
vehicle must have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun
visor, at the manufacturer's option, at the driver's seating position.
The label must conform in content, form and sequence to the label shown
in Figure 1 of this section, and must comply with the following
requirements:
(A) The heading area must be yellow, with the text and the alert
symbol in black.
(B) The message area must be white with black text.
(C) The pictograms must be black with a white background.
(D) The label must be appropriately sized so that it is legible,
visible and prominent to the driver.
(ii) When the rollover warning label required by paragraph
(d)(1)(i) of this section and the air bag warning label required by
paragraph S4.5.1(b) of 49 CFR 571.208 are affixed to the same side of
the driver side sun visor, the rollover warning label must be affixed
to the right (as viewed from the driver's seat) of the air bag warning
label and the labels may not be contiguous.
(2) Alternate location for warning label. As an alternative to
affixing the warning label required by paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section to the driver's sun visor, a manufacturer may permanently affix
the label to the lower rear corner of the forwardmost driver's side
window. The label must be legible, visible and prominent to a person
next to the exterior of the driver's door.
(3) Rollover Alert Label. If the label required by paragraph (d)(1)
of this section and affixed to the driver side sun visor is not visible
when the sun visor is in the stowed position, an alert label must be
permanently affixed to that visor so that the label is visible when the
visor is in that position. The alert label must comply with the
following requirements:
(i) The label must read:
ROLLOVER WARNING
Flip Visor Over
(ii) The label must be black with yellow text.
(iii) The label must be no less than 20 square cm.
(4) Owner's Manual. The owner's manual must include the following
statements and discussions:
(i) The statement ``Utility vehicles have a significantly higher
rollover rate than other types of vehicles.''
(ii) A discussion of the vehicle design features which cause this
type of vehicles to be more likely to rollover (e.g., higher center of
gravity);
(iii) A discussion of the driving practices that can reduce the
risk of a rollover (e.g., avoiding sharp turns at excessive speed); and
(iv) The statement: ``In a rollover crash, an unbelted person is
significantly more likely to die than a person wearing a seat belt.''
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Figure 1 to Sec. 575.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MR99.056
Issued: March 3, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-5735 Filed 3-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C