U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 

Federal Highway 

Administration March 15, 2017 

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1 /CC-126D 

Mr. Kaddo Kothman 

Road Systems, Inc. 

36 161 Howard County Airport 

Big Spring, TX 79720 

Dear Mr. Kothman: 

This letter is in response to the, 2016, request from Stephen Matsusaka for the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHW A) to review a roadside safety device, hardware, or system for eligibility 

for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. This FHW A letter of eligibility is 

assigned FHW A control number CC-126D and is valid until a subsequent letter is issued by 

FHW A that expressly references this device. 

Decision 

The following devices are eligible, with details provided in the form which is attached as an 

integral part of this letter: 

• 	 Test Level 2 MSKT- SP-MGS (MASH Sequential Kinking Terminal, Standard Posts, 

Midwest Guardrail System) 

Scope of this Letter 

To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, new roadside safety devices should meet the crash 

test and evaluation criteria contained in the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials' Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). However, the 

FHWA, the Department ofTransportation, and the United States Government do not regulate the 

manufacture ofroadside safety devices. Eligibility for reimbursement under the Federal-aid 

highway program does not establish approval, certification or endorsement of the device for any 

particular purpose or use. 

This letter is not a determination by the FHW A, the Department ofTransportation, or the United 

States Government that a vehicle crash involving the device will result in any particular 

outcome, nor is it a guarantee of the in-service performance of this device. Proper 

manufacturing, installation, and maintenance are required in order for this device to function as 

tested. 
2 

This finding of eligibility is limited to the crashworthiness of the system and does not cover other 

structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Eligibility for Reimbursement 

FHWA previously issued an eligibility letter for the roadside safety system described in your 

pending request. Your pending request now identifies a modification to that roadside safety 

system. 

The original roadside safety device information is provided here: 

Name of system: MSKT- MASH Sequential Kinking Terminal 

Type of system: W-Beam Guardrail Terminal 

Date of original request: January 20, 2016 

Original FHWA eligibility letter: September 21 , 2016 

FHWA Control number: CC-126 

The pending modification(s) consists ofthe following changes: 

1. 	 Shorten nominal length ofthe system from 50 feet to 25 feet. Anchor and impact head are 

unaffected by this change in system length. 

FHWA concurs with the recommendation of the accredited crash testing laboratory as stated 

within the attached form. 

Full Description of the Eligible Device 

The device and supporting documentation, including reports of the crash tests or other testing 

done, videos of any crash testing, and/or drawings of the device, are described in the attached 

form. 

Notice 

If a manufacturer makes any modification to any of their roadside safety hardware that has an 

existing eligibility letter from FHWA, the manufacturer must notify FHWA of such modification 

with a request for continued eligibility for reimbursement. The notice of all modifications to a 

device must be accompanied by: 

o 	 Significant modifications - For these modifications, crash test results must be submitted 

with accompanying documentation and videos. 

o 	 Non-signification modifications - For these modifications, a statement from the crash test 

laboratory on the potential effect of the modification on the ability of the device to meet 

the relevant crash test criteria. 

FHWA's determination of continued eligibility for the modified hardware will be based on 

whether the modified hardware will continue to meet the relevant crash test criteria. 
3 

You are expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design, installation and 

maintenance requirements to ensure proper performance. 

You are expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has the same chemistry, 

mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for review, and that it will meet the test 

and evaluation criteria of the MASH. 

Issuance of this letter does not convey property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege. This 

letter is based on the premise that information and reports submitted by you are accurate and 

correct. We reserve the right to modify or revoke this letter if: (1) there are any inaccuracies in 

the information submitted in support of your request for this letter, (2) the qualification testing 

was flawed, (3) in-service performance or other information reveals safety problems, (4) the 

system is significantly different from the version that was crash tested, or (5) any other 

information indicates that the letter was issued in error or otherwise does not reflect full and 

complete information about the crash worthiness of the system. 

Standard Provisions 

• 	 To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of eligibility designated as FHWA 

control numbers CC-126D shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter and the test 

documentation upon which it is based are public information. All such letters and 

documentation may be reviewed upon request. 

• 	 This letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHW A to use, 

manufacture, or sell any patented system for which the applicant is not the patent holder. 

• 	 Ifthe subject device is a patented product it may be considered to be proprietary. If 

proprietary systems are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal-aid projects: 

(a) they must be supplied through competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented 

items; (b) the highway agency must certify that they are essential for synchronization 

with the existing highway facilities or that no equally suitable alternative exists; or ( c) 

they must be used for research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short 

sections of road for experimental purposes. Our regulations concerning proprietary 

products are contained in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 63 5 .411. 

Sincerely yours, 

Michael S. Griffith 

Director, Office of Safety Technologies 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1 of 1: 

Request for Federal Aid Reimbursement Eligibility 

of Highway Safety Hardware 

Date of Request: February 09, 2017 I 

Name: Balbi no A. Beltran 

... 

QI Company: KARCO Engineering, LLC. ... ... .E Address: 9270 Holly Road Adelanto, CA 92301 

..c 

I/) 

:J Country: United States 

To: Michael S. Griffith, Director 

FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies 

r. New (' Resubmission 

I request the following devices be considered eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid 

highway program. 

Device & Testing Criterion - Enter from right to left starting with Test Level I! - ! - ! I 

System Type Submission Type Device Name I Variant Testing Criterion Test 

Level 

(' Physical Crash Testing 

(9 Engineering Analysis 

MSKTTerminal 

AASHTOMASH TL2 

By submitting this request for review and evaluation by the Federal Highway Administration, I certify 

that the product(s) was (were) tested in conformity with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware and that the evaluation results meet the appropriate evaluation criteria in the MASH. 

Individual or Organization responsible for the product: 

Contact Name: Kaddo Kothman Same as Submitter 0 

Company Name: Road Systems, Inc. Same as Submitter 0 

Address: 3616 Howard County Airport, Big Spring TX 79720 Same as Submitter 0 

Country: United States Same as Submitter 0 

Enter below all disclosures of financial interests as required by the FHWA ' Federal-Aid Reimbursement 

Eligibility Process for Safety Hardware Devices' document. 

Road Systems, Inc. is the manufacturer and marketer of device. 

KARCO Engineering, LLC is an independent research and testing laboratory having no affiliation with any other 

entity. The company is solely-owned and operated by Mr. Frank D. Richardson and Ms. Jennifer W. Peng 

(husband and wife) and was established on September 2, 1994. KARCO is actively involved in data acquisition 

and compliance/certification testing for a variety of government agencies and equipment manufacturers. The 

principals and staff of KARCO Engineering have no past or present financial, contractual or organizational 

interest in any company or entity directly or indirectly related to the products that KARCO tests. If any financial 

interest should arise, other than receiving fees for testing, reporting, etc., with respect to any project, the 

company will provide, in writing, a full and immediate disclosure to the FHWA. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 2 of 1: 

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 

(' New Hardware or (9 Modification to Non-Significant 

Significant Modification Existing Hardware 

The MSKT-SP-MGS (MASH Sequential Kinking Terminal - Standard Post - Midwest Guardrail System) term inal, as 

approved in CC-126 dated June 10, 2016, is a W-beam guardrail terminal consisting of an impact head 

assembly, a breakaway cable anchorage system and a 12.5 ft (3.8 m) end section. The system requires use of 

37.5 ft (11 .4 m) of standard guardrail downstream mounted on 8-in. (203-mm) deep wood or composite blocks 

and 6 ft (1 .8 m) long W6x9 (or W6x8.5) steel posts. A 9.4 ft (2.9 m) W-beam rail section is required downstream 

of Post 3 to transition the rail splices to mid-span. 

On lower speed roadways, some State standards allow the use ofTest Level 2 (TL-2) terminals due to site 

restrictions and cost considerations. To accommodate these varying States standards, it is requested that the 

use of a TL-2 version be approved for the MSKT terminal. 

This variation was approved for the NCH RP 350 SKT terminal as shown in CC-40A dated February 4, 2000 and in 

CC-88D dated January 29, 2010. There is no indication that this variation has caused any real-world problem in 

the field . 

Figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of the TL-2 MSKT terminal while a schematic drawing of the TL-3 MSKT 

terminal is shown in Figure 2. Except for the shortening of the nominal length of the termina l from 50 ft (15.2 

m) to 25 ft (7.6 m), the components and layout of the terminals are identical for the TL-2 and TL-3 terminals. 

For head-on tests (Tests 30, 31, 32, and 33), the deceleration and force levels imparted by the terminal on the 

vehicle should be similar, but lower due to the lower initial impact speed of 70 km/ h (43.8 mph) versus 100 km/ 

h (62.2 mph) for TL-3. The kinetic energy to be dissipated for a TL-2 test is slightly less than half (49%) ofthat for 

a TL-3 test. Thus, only half of the length of the TL-3 terminal is required for a TL-2 terminal, i.e., half of 50 ft 

(15.2 m) for a TL-3 terminal or 25 ft (7.6 m) for the TL-2 terminal. Note that, because of the mid-span splices, the 

actual amount of W-Beam rail that will be supplied for a TL-2 application will be either 21 '-10 Vi'' or 28'-1 Vi'' 

depending on the State DOT pay limits. 

Based on acceleration data from Test 3-31 for the MSKT (KARCO Test No. P34149-01), the pickup truck slowed 

from 100.3 km/h (62.4 mph) to 70 km/h (43.5 mph) over a distance of 22 ft 9 in. (6.93 m). In other words, the 

vehicle lost half (51 %) of the kinetic energy in this distance. It is reasonable to assume that the vehicle would 

lose the remaining half (49%) of its kinetic energy in a similar or shorter distance. Thus, a nominal length of 25 

ft (7.6 m) is adequate for a TL-2 MSKT terminal. 

For redirectional impacts (Tests 34 and 35), there is no reason to be concerned about the anchorage capacity 

since the anchorage system is the same as that for the TL-3 terminal which has successfully passed these 

redirectional tests at a higher impact velocity. As for the reverse direction impact (Test 37), the length of the 

terminal has no effect on this test, thus it is reasonable to conclude that this test is also not an issue with the 

TL-2 terminal. 

In summary, TL-2 approvals have been given for other NCH RP 350 and MASH terminals and the in-service 

history has not identified any problem with the field performance. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that 

the MSKT terminal would perform satisfactorily in all the required crash tests as explained above. Thus, it may 

be concluded that the Test Level 2 (TL-2) version of the terminal, with a nominal length of 25 feet (15.2 m}, 

should be approved for the MSKT terminal. 

CRASH TESTING 

By signature below, the Engineer affiliated with the testing laboratory, agrees in support of this submission that 

the Modification to Existing Hardware is deemed Non-significant for the device listed above to meet the MASH 

criteria. 

Engineer Name: Balbi no A. Beltran 

Engineer Signature: Balbino Alexander Beltran Digitally signed by Ba lbino Alexander Beltran 

DN: en=Balbino Alexander Beltran, o=KARCO Eng inee ring, ou. 

email=abeltran@ka rco.com, c::US 

Date: 2017.01 .06 09:20:10 -08'00' 

Address: 9270 Holly Road Adelanto, CA 92301 Same as Submitter i:gJ 

Country: United States Same as Submitter i:gJ 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 3 of 1: 

A brief description of each crash test and its result: 

Required Test Narrative 
 Evaluation 


Number Description 
 Results 


KARCO Test No. P35125-01. An 11 OOC (2,425 

lb) passenger car impacting the terminal 

end-on at a nominal impact speed and 

angle of 100 km/ h (62.2 mph) and 0 

degrees, respectively, with the quarter point 

of the vehicle aligned with the center line of 

the nose of the terminal. This test is 

primarily intended to evaluate occupant risk 

and vehicle trajectory criteria. 

The test vehicle, a 2009 Kia Rio 4-door sedan 

weighing 2,390.9 lb (1,084.5 kg), impacted 

the MASH SKT terminal head on at impact 

speed and angle of 61.54 mph (99.05 km/h) 

and 0.9 degree, respectively. The vehicle 

pushed the impact head down the length of 

the guardrail past the fifth post, at which 

point the rail began to buckle and the 

vehicle began to yaw counter-clockwise 2-30 (1100() Modification has no effect on crashworthiness until it impacted the rail at the bend before 

coming to a stop next to the rail on the 

traffic side. The test vehicle sustained 

moderate damage to the front end with no 

occupant compartment deformation. The 

vehicle remained upright without excessive 

roll or pitch. The test article was extensively 

damage from Post 1 through Post 5 and the 

rail wrapped around Post 6. The Occupant 

Impact Velocities (OIV) and ridedown 

accelerations are within the recommended 

limits. The MSKT-SP-MGS terminal passed all 

evaluation criteria for Test 3-30. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform ' 

satisfactorily to test 2-30. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 4 of 1: 

Required Test 

Number 

2-31 (2270P) 

Narrative 

Description 

KARCO Test No. P34149-01. A 2270P (5,000 

lb) pickup truck impacting the terminal endon at a nominal impact speed and angle of 

100 km/h (62.2 mph) and 0 degrees, 

respectively, with the center line of the 

vehicle aligned with the center line of the 

nose of the terminal. This test is primarily 

intended to evaluate occupant risk and 

vehicle trajectory criteria. 

The test vehicle, a 2008 Dodge Ram 4-door 

pickup truck, with a test inertial mass 

weighing 4,896.4 lb (2,221 kg). impacted the 

MASH SKT terminal head-on at impact 

speed and angle of 62.33 mph (100.31 km/ 

h) and 0.4 degrees, respectively. The vehicle 

pushed the impact head down the length of 

the guardrail past Post 8 and came to rest 

50.5 ft (15.4 m) from the point of initial 

impact The test vehicle sustained moderate 

damage to the front end with no occupant 

compartment deformation. The vehicle 

remained upright and stable. The test article 

was extensively damaged from Post 1 

through Post 8. The Occupant Impact 

Velocities (OIV) and ridedown accelerations 

are within the recommended limits. The 

MSKT-SP terminal passed all evaluation 

criteria for Test 3-31. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform 

satisfactorily to test 2-31 

Evaluation 

Results 

Modification has no effect on crashworthiness 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 5 of 1: 

2-32 (1100() 

KARCO Test No. P35025-01. An 11 OOC (2,425 

lb) passenger car impacting the terminal 

end-on at a nominal impact speed 

and angle of 100 km/h (62.2 mph} and 5 

degrees, respectively, with the center line of 

the vehicle aligned with the center line of 

the nose of the terminal. This test is 

primarily intended to evaluate occupant risk 

and vehicle trajectory criteria. 

The test vehicle, a 2010 Kia Rio 4-door sedan 

weighing 2,457.0 lb {1 ,114.5 kg}, impacted 

the MASH SKT terminal head-on at impact 

speed and angle of 61.47 mph (98.93 km/h} 

and 4.4 degrees, respectively. The vehicle 

pushed the impact head down the length of 

the guardrail past the fifth post, at which 

point the vehicle mounted the guardrail. 

Upon dismounting the rail, the vehicle 

proceeded forward and to the left and 

remained upright throughout the impact 

sequence. The test vehicle sustained 

moderate damage to the front and left side 

with no occupant compartment 

deformation. The vehicle remained upright 

and stable. The test article was extensively 

damaged from Post 1 through Post 5. The 

Occupant Impact Velocities (OIV) and 

ridedown accelerations are within the 

recommended limits. The MSKT-SP-MGS 

terminal passed all evaluation criteria for 

Test 3-32. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform 

satisfactorily to test 2-32. 

Modification has no effect on crashworthiness 
KARCO Test No. P34149-04. A 2270P (5,000 

lb) pickup truck impacting the terminal endon at a nominal impact speed and angle of 

100 km/ h (62.2 mph) and 5 degrees, 

respectively, with the center line of the 

vehicle aligned with the center line of the 

nose of the terminal. This test is primarily 

intended to evaluate occupant risk and 

vehicle trajectory criteria. 

The test vehicle, a 2008 Dodge Ram 4-door 

pickup truck weighing 4,895.3 lb (2,220.5 

kg), impacted the MASH SKT terminal headon at an impact speed and angle of 62.74 

mph (100.97 km/h} and 5.7 degrees, 

respectively. The vehicle pushed the impact 

head down the guardrail past the fifth post 

at which point the vehicle mounted the 

guardrail in a controlled manner without 

excessive deceleration and proceeded 

forward. The vehicle then impacted Post 6 2-33 (2270P) Modification has no effect on crashworthiness before separating from the guardrail. The 

vehicle impacted the test article again 

between Posts 23 and 24. The vehicle 

sustained moderate damage at the front 

and left side and deformations to the 

occupant compartment were negligible. 

The vehicle remained upright and stable. 

The test article was extensively damaged 

from Posts 1 through Post 6. Post 7 was not 

impacted, but separated from the guardrail 

as a result of the rail buckling. The Occupant 

Impact Velocities (OIV) and ridedown 

accelerations are within the recommended 

limits. The MSKT-SP terminal passed all 

evaluation criteria for Test 3-33. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform 

satisfactorily to test 2-33. 

Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 6 of 1: 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 7 of 1: 

KARCO Test No. P35126-01 . An l lOOC (2,425 

lb) passenger car impacting the terminal at 

a nominal impact speed and angle of 62.2 

mph (100 km/h} and 15 degrees, 

respectively, with the corner of the vehicle 

bumper aligned with the critical impact 

point (CIP) of the length of need (LON) of 

the terminal. This test is primarily intended 

to evaluate occupant risk and vehicle 

trajectory criteria. 

The test vehicle, a 201 OKia Rio 4-door sedan 

weighing 2,436.1 lb (1,105.0 kg}, impacted 

the downstream end of the impact head 

between Posts 1 and 2 at impact speed and 

angle of 61.37 mph (98.77 km/ h} and 15.3 

degrees, respectively. The vehicle was 

contained and redirected by the guardrail 

before separating from the test article near 

2-34 (1100() Post 6 at a velocity of 27.7 mph and an exit Modification has no effect on crashworthiness 

angle of 17.0 degrees and proceeded 

downstream adjacent to the guardrail. The 

vehicle remained upright and stable 

throughout the impact sequence. The test 

vehicle sustained moderate damage to the 

front right side with no occupant 

compartment deformation. The test article 

was extensively damaged from Post 1 

through Post 5. The Occupant Impact 

Velocities (OIV) and ridedown accelerations 

are within the recommended limits. The 

MSKT-SP-MGS terminal passed all 

evaluation criteria for Test 3-34. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform 

satisfactorily to test 2-34. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 8 of 1: 

KARCO Test No. P35103-01 . A 2270P (5,000 

lb) pickup truck impacting the terminal at a 

nominal impact speed and angle of 100 km/ 

h (62.2 mph) and 25 degrees, respectively, 

with the corner of the vehicle bumper 

aligned with the beginning of the length-ofneed (LON) of the terminal. This test is 

primarily intended to evaluate structural 

adequacy and vehicle trajectory criteria. 

The test vehicle, a 2011 Dodge Ram 4-door 

pickup truck weighing 4,942.6 lb {2,242.0 

kg), impacted the guardrail at Post 3, the 

beginning of length-of-need, at impact 

speed and angle of 62.36 mph (100.36 km/ 

h) and 26 degrees, respectively. The vehicle 

was contained and redirected by the 

guardrail before separating from the test 

article near Post 9 at a velocity of 32.75 mph 

(52.71 km/h) and an exit angle of 34.93 

degrees and proceeded downstream 

adjacent to the guardrail on the traffic side. 2-35 (2270P) Modification has no effect on crashworthiness The vehicle then veered back toward the 

guardrail and impacted Post 20 before 

coming to rest at Post 26. The vehicle 

remained upright and stable throughout 

the impact sequence. The test vehicle 

sustained moderate damage to the front 

right side with no occupant compartment 

deformation. The test article was extensively 

damaged from Post 1 through Post 9. The 

maximum static lateral deformation was 

30.2 in (768 mm) between Posts 5 and 6. 

The Occupant Impact Velocities (OIV) and 

ridedown accelerations are within the 

recommended limits. The MSKT-SP-MGS 

terminal passed all evaluation criteria for 

Test 3-35. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform 

satisfactorily to test 2-35. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 9 of 1: 

MASH Test Designation 3-36. A 2270P {S,000 

lb) pickup truck impacting the terminal at a 

nominal impact speed and angle of 100 km/ 

h (62 mph) and 25 degrees, respectively, 

with the corner of the vehicle bumper 

aligned with the critical impact point (CIP) 

with respect to the transition to the stiff 

barrier or backup structure. This test is 

primarily intended to evaluate the 2-36 (2270P) Non-Relevant Test, not conducted performance of the terminal when 

connected to a stiff barrier or a backup 

structure. 

As a W-beam guardrail terminal, the MSKTSP-MGS terminal is designed to attach to Wbeam barrier, transitions to alternative 

barriers downstream of the terminal will 

require case-by-case evaluation. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page lC of 1: 

2-37 (2270P) 

Test No. P35025-02. A 2270P (5,000 lb) 

pickup truck impacting the terminal at a 

nom.inal impact speed and angle of 62.2 

mph (100 km/ h) and 25 degrees, 

respectively, midpoint between the nose 

and the end of the terminal in the reverse 

direction. This test is intended to evaluate 

the performance of a terminal for a 

"reverse" hit. Successful testing of other 

cable anchor systems with the 11 OOC 

indicates that the 2270P is more critical with 

the concern of override and interaction with 

the terminal head. 

The test vehicle, a 2009 Dodge Ram 4-door 

pickup truck weighing 4,964.7 lb (2,252.0 

kg), impacted the guardrail at Post 3 with an 

impact speed and angle of 63.13 mph (101.6 

km/ h) and 24.9 degrees, respectively. The 

vehicle impacted Post 2, the back side of the 

impact head, and then Post 1 before 

separating from the test article at an angle 

of 13.37 degrees clockwise from its original 

path. The vehicle sustained moderate front 

end damage with no deformation to the 

occupant compartment. The test article 

received extensive damage between Posts 1 

and 2. The impact head was forced off the 

rail element and the cable anchor assembly 

was separated from the guardrail. The 

Occupant Impact Velocities (OIV) and 

ridedown accelerations are within the 

recommended limits. The MSKT-SP-MGS 

terminal passed all evaluation criteria for 

Test 3-37. 

Based on engineering judgment it is 

reasonable to conclude that the TL-2 

version of the MSKT terminal with a nominal 

length of 25 ft. (15.2 m) would perform 

satisfactorily to test 2-37. 

Modification has no effect on crashworthiness 

2-38 (1500A) 

MASH Test Designation 3-38. A 1500A 

(3,307 lb) passenger car impacting the 

terminal end-on at a nominal impact speed 

and angle of 100 km/h (62.2 mph) and O 

degree, respectively, with the center line of 

the vehicle aligned with the center line of 

the nose of the terminal. This test is 

primarily intended to evaluate the 

performance of the staged attenuator/ 

terminal when impacted by a mid-size 

vehicle. 

The MSKT-SP-MGS terminal is not a staged 

device, because the force required to move 

the impact head down the rail does not 

change. The 3-30 test with the 11 OOC 

vehicle makes this test unnecessary. 

Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 11 of 1: 

2-40 (1 lOOC) Test for non-redirective crash cushion, not 

applicable for terminals Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

2-41 (2270P) Test for non-redirective crash cushion, not 

applicable for terminals Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

2-42 (1 lOOC) Test for non-redirective crash cushion, not 

applicable for terminals Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

2-43 (2270P) Test for non-redirective crash cushion, not 

applicable for terminals Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

2-44 (2270P) Test for non-redirective crash cushion, not 

applicable for terminals Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

2-45 (1500A) Test for non-redirective crash cushion, not 

applicable for terminals Non-Relevant Test, not conducted 

Testing Laboratory's signature concurs that these modifications are considered Non-Significant. 

Laboratory Name: 

Laboratory Signature: 

KARCO Engineering, INC 

Balbino Alexander Beltran Digitally signed by Ba lbino Alexander Beltran 

DN: cn =Balbino Alexander Beltran, o=KARCO Engineering, ou, 

emai l=abeltran@karco.com, c=US 

Date: 2017.01.06 09:20:45 -08'00' 

Address: 9270 Holly Road Adelanto, CA 92301 Same as Submitter ~ 

Country: United States Same as Submitter ~ 

Accreditation Certificate 

Number and Dates of current 

Accreditation period : 

TL-371; December 18, 2015 through December 18, 2017 

Submit Form 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attach to this form: 


1) Additional disclosures ofrelated financial interest as indicated above. 


2) A copy of the full test report, video, and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in 

support of this request. 

3) A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that conform to the Task Force-13 Drawing Specifications 

[Hardware Guide Drawing Standards]. For proprietary products, a single isometric line drawing is 

usually acceptable to illustrate the product, with detailed specifications, intended use, and contact 

information provided on the reverse. Additional drawings (not in TF-13 format) showing details that 

are relevant to understanding the dimensions and performance of the device should also be submitted 

to facilitate our review. 
Version 10.0 (05/16) 

Page 1~ of 1: 

FHWA Official Business Only: 

Eligibility Letter 

Number Date Key Words