400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

August 18, 2000

Refer to: HSA-1

Ms. Karen Wasielewski

Traffic Control Products of Florida, Inc.

5514 Carmack Road

Tampa, Florida 33610

Dear Ms. Wasielewski:

Thank you for your May 12 letter requesting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of

various traffic control devices for use in work zones on the National Highway System (NHS). You

requested that we review tests of Type II and Type III barricades and Vertical Panels as manufactured

by Bob’s Barricades of Florida as your company participated in the crash testing program. 

Accompanying your letter was a report from E-Tech Testing Services, Inc., a detailed description and

drawing of each device, and videos of the crash tests. You requested that we find the lights and

channelizing devices acceptable for use on the NHS under the provisions of National Cooperative

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 “Recommended Procedures for the Safety

Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.” 

Introduction

The FHWA guidance on crash testing of work zone traffic control devices is contained in two

memoranda. The first, dated July 25, 1997, titled “Information: Identifying Acceptable Highway

Safety Features,” established four categories of work zone devices: Category I devices were those

lightweight devices which could be self-certified by the vendor, Category II devices were other

lightweight devices which needed individual crash testing, Category III devices were barriers and other

fixed or massive devices also needing crash testing, and Category IV devices were trailer mounted

lighted signs, arrow panels, etc. The second guidance memorandum was issued on August 28, 1998,

and is titled “INFORMATION: Crash Tested Work Zone Traffic Control Devices.” This later 

memorandum lists devices that are acceptable under Categories I, II, and III.

A brief description of the devices for which you are requesting acceptance follows. Drawings of each

are enclosed for reference.

A) Type II Barricade: The legs are 32-mm x 32-mm x 11 gauge mild steel angle iron

attached at the top with 12.7 mm diameter x 25.4 mm long hex cap screws with nuts

and lock washers. The top and bottom panels are 203 mm wide 14 gauge steel. The

panels are attached to the legs with 6.35 mm x 19 mm long hex cap screws with nuts

and lock washers. An Empco-Lite warning light Model 499 Type A & C was attached

to the top of the barricade via a 12.7 mm diameter cadmium plated steel bolt and a
2

38.1mm diameter, 19mm high cup washer. The typical length of the bolt is 95.25 mm. 

The total mass of the tested barricades 15.6 kg each.

B) Type III Barricade: The legs are 38 mm x 38 mm x 4.8 mm mild steel angle iron

supports. Affixed to the upright supports are three 203 mm wide, 22 mm thick hollow

core extruded plastic panels using 7.9 mm x 38.1 long hex cap screws with nuts and

lock washers. An Empco-Lite Warning light Model 212 Type B was attached to the

top of the barricade via a 12.7 mm diameter cadmium plated steel bolt and a 38.1mm

diameter, 19mm high cup washer. The total mass of the tested barricades 25.5 kg

each.

C) Vertical Panel: The legs are 32 mm x 32 mm x 11 gage mild steel angle iron. Two 305

mm wide, 4.8 mm thick plastic panels are affixed to the legs. An Empco-Lite Warning

light Model 499 Type was attached to the top of the barricade via a 12.7 mm diameter

cadmium plated steel bolt and a 38.1mm diameter, 19mm high cup washer. The total

mass of the tested vertical panels was 12.2 kg each.

Testing

Full-scale automobile testing was conducted on Bob’s Barricades Type II barricade and vertical panels

with Empco-Lite warning lights attached. Two stand-alone examples of the device were tested in

tandem, one head-on and the next placed six meters downstream turned at 90 degrees, as called for in

our guidance memoranda.

The crash testing is summarized in the table below:

Test Number 19-0101-001 19-0101-002 19-0101-003

Test Article Type II Type III Vertical Panel

Height to Top of Rails 1092 mm 1524 mm 1067 mm

Width of Barrier unit 610 mm 1524 mm 305 mm

Test Article Mass (each) 15.6 kg 25.5 kg 12.2 kg

Empco-Lite model # Model 499 A & C Model 212 Type B Model 199

Mass of warning light 1.95 kg 2.07 kg 1.95 kg

Vehicle Inertial Mass 818 kg 817 kg 815 kg

Impact Speed, Head-on 102.5 km/h 102.5 km/h 101.1 km/h

Impact Speed, 90 Deg. 101.8 km/h 99.0 km/h 98.3 km/h

Velocity Change, Head-on 0.2 m/sec. 1.0 m/sec. 0.8 m/sec.

Velocity Change, 90 Deg. 0.2 m/sec. 1.0 m/sec. 0.8 m/sec.
3

Vehicle crush Grill & hood dents Grill & hood dents Grill & hood dents

Occupant Compart. Intrusion None None None

Windshield Damage Head-on No contact Moderate cracking No contact

Windshield Damage 90 Deg. No contact No contact No contact

Findings

Damage to the vehicle was limited to dents to the grill and hood. The test articles did not show

potential for penetrating the occupant compartment. The results of this testing met the FHWA

requirements and, therefore, the devices listed above are acceptable for use as Test Level 3 devices on

the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when proposed by a state. Please also note that our

acceptance of Type II barricades extends to Type I barricades of the same design except that the

lower rail is not reflectorized.

In addition, Empco-Lite warning lights are acceptable for use on these channelizing devices as shown in

the following table:

Type II Barricades Type III Barricades Vertical Panel

Empco-Lite model #s Model 499 A & C

Model 199

Model 212 Type B

Model 499

Model 199

Model 199

Model 499 A & C

Mass of warning light 1.95 kg 2.07 kg 1.95 kg

Model 499 and 199 warning lights are interchangeable by virtue of their similar weight and construction,

and may be substituted on Type III barricades because they are lighter than the light tested with the

Type III barricade. Empco-Lite “Y2K” lights may be substituted for any of the above as their 1.2 kg

mass is less than any of the tested lights. Note that all warning light attachments shall use the 38.1mm

diameter, 19mm high cup washer to reduce the possibility of separation. 

Please note the following standard provisions which apply to FHWA letters of acceptance:

! Our acceptance is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the devices and does not

cover their structural features, nor conformity with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices (MUTCD).

! Any changes that may adversely influence the crashworthiness of the device will require a new

acceptance letter.

! Should the FHWA discover that the qualification testing was flawed, that in-service

performance reveals unacceptable safety problems, or that the device being marketed is

significantly different from the version that was crash tested, it reserves the right to modify or

revoke its acceptance.

! You will be expected to supply potential users with sufficient information on design and
4

installation requirements to ensure proper performance.

! You will be expected to certify to potential users that the hardware furnished has essentially the

same chemistry, mechanical properties, and geometry as that submitted for acceptance, and

that they will meet the crashworthiness requirements of FHWA and NCHRP Report 350. 

! To prevent misunderstanding by others, this letter of acceptance , designated as number 

WZ-48, shall not be reproduced except in full. 

! Some features of these lighted barricades may be patented products and considered

"proprietary.” The use of proprietary work zone traffic control devices in Federal-aid projects

is generally of a temporary nature. They are selected by the contractor for use as needed and

removed upon completion of the project. Under such conditions they can be presumed to meet

requirement "a" given below for the use of proprietary products on Federal-aid projects. On

the other hand, if proprietary devices are specified for use on Federal-aid projects, except

exempt, non-NHS projects, they: (a) must be supplied through competitive bidding with

equally suitable unpatented items; (b) the highway agency must certify that they are essential for

synchronization with 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 635.411, a copy of which is

enclosed.

 Sincerely yours,

Frederick G. Wright, Jr.

Program Manager, Safety






[Code of Federal Regulations] 

[Title 23, Volume 1] 

[Revised as of April 1, 1998] 

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access 

[CITE: 23CFR635.411] 

[Page 198-199] 

 

 TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS 

 

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

 

PART 635--CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE--Table of Contents 

 

 Subpart D--General Material Requirements 

 

Sec. 635.411 Material or product selection. 

 (a) Federal funds shall not participate, directly or indirectly, in payment for any 

premium or royalty on any patented or proprietary material, specification, or process 

specifically set forth in the plans and specifications for a project, unless: 

 (1) Such patented or proprietary item is purchased or obtained through competitive 

bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; or 

 (2) The State highway agency certifies either that such patented or proprietary item is 

essential for synchronization with existing highway facilities, or that no equally suitable 

alternate exists; or 

 (3) Such patented or proprietary item is used for research or for a distinctive type of 

construction on relatively short sections of road for experimental purposes. 

 (b) When there is available for purchase more than one nonpatented, nonproprietary 

material, semifinished or finished article or product that will fulfill the requirements for 

an item of work of a project and these available materials or products are judged to be of 

satisfactory quality and equally acceptable on the basis of engineering analysis and the 

anticipated prices for the related item(s) of work are estimated to be approximately the 

same, the PS&E for the project shall either contain or include by reference the 

specifications for each such material or product that is considered acceptable for 

incorporation in the work. If the State highway agency wishes to substitute some other 

acceptable material or product for the material or product designated by the successful 

bidder or bid as the lowest alternate, and such substitution results in an increase in costs, 

there will not be Federal-aid participation in any increase in costs. 

 (c) A State highway agency may require a specific material or product when there are 

other acceptable materials and products, when such specific choice is approved by the 

Division Administrator as being in the public interest. When the Division Administrator's 

approval is not obtained, the item will be nonparticipating unless bidding procedures are 

used that establish the unit price of each acceptable alternative. In this case Federal-aid 

participation will be based on the lowest price so established. 
 (d) Appendix A sets forth the FHWA requirements regarding (1) the specification of 

alternative types of culvert pipes, and (2) the number and types of such alternatives which 

must be set forth in the specifications for various types of drainage installations. 

 (e) Reference in specifications and on plans to single trade name materials will not be 

approved on Federal-aid contracts.