Air carrier First Officer reported confusion and potential safety hazard with the naming convention between the FOM; available FMS selections; and the Jeppesen charts regarding several approaches that utilize LGA Runway 31.

Narrative

This report is filed to highlight potential hazard at LGA. ATIS at LGA - LGA is using RNAV X Runway 31 approach. FOM states that RNAV Visual Flight Procedures (RVFP) naming logic as displayed in the FMC utilizes 'RNVV' (emphasis on the VV).Confusion and potential hazard may exist because the FMC did not include 'RNAV VV31' (emphasis on the VV) as a choice in accordance with the FOM mnemonic for naming visual flight procedures ('charted visuals'). However; the FMS did list 'RNAV X 31' available for selection. When cross-checked to Jeppesen chart this coincides with the Jeppesen Chart 19-3 that ALSO names the Park Visual as 'RNAV X 31.' This may be misnamed on the chart? If LGA ATIS advertises RNAV X Runway 31 one could very easily select RNAV X 31 (as it is listed in the FMS and on the chart) but not be in compliance with clearance to fly the RNAV X 31. They could unknowingly or mistakenly select the PARK VISUAL (RNAV X 31) instead of the RNAV (GPS) X Runway 31.Further; the naming (labeling) of the RNAV (GPS) X Runway 31-INDUSTRY is confusing. Specifically labeling it 'INDUSTRY.' This might suggest that somehow it is a visual or even related to a visual approach like the Park Visual. Expectation bias might set in when one sees that both approaches have names ('Park Visual' and 'INDUSTRY') as visuals always do. INDUSTRY is not an RVFP.