1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

 Washington, D.C. 20590

In Reply Refer To: 

HSST-1 /WZ-437 

December 14, 2022 

BY U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL 

Kevin Harrison 

President 

Eastern Metal Sign and Safety 

1430 Sullivan Street 

Elmira, New York 14901 

kevin@signssafety.com 

RE: Eligibility Letter Number WZ-437 

Dear Mr. Harrison: 

Thank you for your correspondence of September 20, 2022, requesting reconsideration of the 

decision to rescind Federal Highway Administration (FHWA or agency) eligibility letter WZ437 of June 22, 2022, for Eastern Metal' s APEX Dual Recoil (device) work zone sign stand. 

FHWA issues Federal-aid reimbursement eligibility letters for new roadside safety devices that 

are crash tested in accordance with the industry standard of the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 

(MASH). FHWA, the Department of Transportation, and the United States Government do not 

regulate roadside safety devices, crash test facilities, or the manufacturing industry. Issuance of 

eligibility letters is discretionary and provided only as a service to the states. FHW A may, at its 

discretion, revise, rescind, or decline to issue an eligibility letter. 

We met with Eastern Metal and a representative of the testing facility on September 15, 2022. 

During that meeting we explained our initial impression was the device met MASH crash test 

criteria because it did not penetrate the occupant compartment liner; however, on September 7, 

2022, discussion with AASHTO provided clarity about occupant compartment penetration. That 

clarification is inconsistent with our initial impression and, for the reasons discussed below, the 

agency rescinds the eligibility letter for the device. 

AASHTO referred the agency to its MASH questions and answers (Q&A) number 12 and 13, 

which were issued in May 2018. Number 12 asked whether rear window damage is cause for a 

test failure. The answer is "[ u ]ntil additional research is conducted, no penetration of any 

element of the test article through the rear window is allowed." Next, number 13 asked whether 

floorboard penetration or tearing was cause for a test failure. The answer is "because cutting or 

tearing of the floorboard by the test article is evidence of penetration, it is cause for failure. Until 

additional research is conducted, no penetration of any element of the test article through the 

floorboard is allowed." 

1 
Based on the information AASHTO provided, any tearing of the roof is penetration ofthe 

occupant compartment and a crash test failure. The device caused a tear in the roof of the test 

vehicle in test 3-72 and such a tear is penetration into the occupant compartment. Therefore, the 

device failed a MASH crash test and necessitates FHW A rescind the eligibility letter for the 

device. 

Eastern Metal's correspondence asked for an official letter from AASHTO requesting that the 

eligibility letter for the device be rescinded and the evidence that supports rescinding the letter. 

AASHTO is an organization external to FHW A and a request for such a letter should be directed 

to it. 

AASHTO did clarify that a cut into the metal part of the roof is an occupant compartment 

penetration and consequently a MASH crash test failure. AASHTO indicated it does not plan to 

issue a specific Q&A regarding this case because its already existing ones address similar 

situations. In addition, AASHTO is not directly involved in the issuance of FHW A eligibility 

letters. As discussed above, issuance of eligibility letters is discretionary, and the agency may 

rescind one at any time. 

Eastern Metal's correspondence also requested an official letter from AASHTO, FHWA, or both 

defining MASH penetration and deformation crash test failures. MASH is an AASHTO product 

and as such FHW A neither defines its terms nor offers interpretations of it. Furthermore, Eastern 

Metal' s letter cites MASH for the proposition that no penetration is allowed. Moreover, MASH 

already defines thresholds for deformation. 

For the foregoing reasons, FHW A eligibility letter WZ-43 7 is rescinded. If you disagree with 

this decision, you may appeal it as described at the link below.

1 An appeal must be in writing 

and directed to FHWA's Associate Administrator for Safety at the address above. It should 

express the specific topic(s) of disagreement, reasons for such disagreement, and the remedy 

sought. Evidence or documentation supporting an appeal should also be provided. FHWA's 

decision on appeal is the agency's final determination. 

Sincerely, 

Louisa M. Ward 

Acting Office Director 

Office of Safety Technologies 

cc: BY EMAIL ONLY 

Mark Parisi 

Calspan Corporation 

Mark.Parisi@calspan.com 

1 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/reduce-crash-severity/requesting-letter-federal-aid-reimbursement-eligibilitysafety. 

2