Interpretation ID: aiam1073
D'ANCONA
PFLAUM
WYATT & RISKIND
33 North LaSalle Street
Chicago
Illinois 60602;
Dear Mr. Mikva: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1973, in which yo asked that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to disallow the addition of devices such as flags to the warning devices regulated by motor vehicle safety standard No. 125. Your argument was that 'the motion of the flag makes it far more visible as objective test previously submitted to the Department of Transportation have suggested.'; We do not disagree with your assertion that the visibility of th device could be increased by the addition of flags. It is obviously true, and could be said of a variety of devices that could be added to the triangle to increase its size, brightness, or movement. The basic decision involved in the issuance of this standard, however, is that uniformity, and the recognition advantages that are associated with visibility. Although the addition of flags or other devices could increase the visibility of the warning devices, they would decrease their uniformity and recognizability.; For these reasons, your request that the NHTSA reconsider it requirement that warning device consist only of the specified triangle and its supports is denied. I assure you that no 'considerations not of the record' have entered into this decision.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator