Mr. Chase Gauger 

Vice President 

Plasticade Products

7700 Austin Avenue 

Skokie, Illinois 60077 

Dear Mr. Gauger: 

Thank you for your letter of December 7, 2005, requesting the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) acceptance of the addition of Alpolic signs to your company’s Type II

Plasticade and Fibercade barricades as crashworthy traffic control devices for use in work 

zones on the National Highway System (NHS). Accompanying your letter was a testimonial 

from Korman signs agreeing to the use of their crash test results to validate the performance of

the sign/barricade combination. You requested that we find these 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 are those lightweight devices which are to be self­certified by the vendor, Category II

devices are other lightweight devices which need individual crash testing but with reduced 

instrumentation, Category III devices are barriers and other fixed or heavy devices also 

needing crash testing with normal instrumentation, and Category IV devices are trailer 

mounted lighted signs, arrow panels, etc. for which crash testing requirements have not yet 

been established.  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. Our new 

acceptance process was outlined in our memorandum “FHWA Hardware Acceptance

Procedures – Category 2 Work Zone Devices” dated November 11, 2005.

400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

In Reply Refer To: 

HSA­10/WZ­226 

March 6, 2006
2

Testing

Crash testing of your company’s Plasticade and Fibercade Type II barricades was conducted by 

the Texas Transportation Institute in 1998. The two barricade designs were the subject of our

acceptance letter WZ­14 dated May 28, 1999. The only windshield damage seen in three tests of

the barricades was minor cracking at two contact points of the Plasticade Sign Stand, which was

supporting a roll­up sign.

Findings

After reviewing the crash testing conducted on your company’s Plasticade and Fibercade

barricades, the Type II barricade sign stands of Korman Inc., and the discussion provided by 

Korman on the use of the Alpolic material on Type II barricades we concur in your request to use 

48 x 48 inch Alpolic signs on these barricades. The Alpolic material has been tested in various

orientations and, even with direct high­speed impacts on windshields, there is only moderate 

damage with little or no potential for occupant compartment intrusion.

The Plasticade and Fibercade Type II barricade sign supports described above and detailed in the 

enclosed drawings are acceptable for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested, when 

proposed by a State. The Alpolic signs will be affixed to the top rail of the Plasticade and 

Fibercade barricades using bolts or pop rivets. Signs on the Plasticade will also be secured by 

the sign sleeve. 

Please note the following standard provisions that apply to the 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. · 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 in­service 

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 

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 the FHWA and 

the NCHRP Report 350.

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

WZ­226 shall not be reproduced except in full. This letter, and the test documentation 

upon which this letter is based, is public information. All such letters and documentation 

may be reviewed at our office upon request. · The Plasticade and Fibercade barricades, and Alpolic sign substrate material are patented 

products and considered "proprietary." The use of proprietary work zone traffic control 

devices in Federal­aid 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
3 

proprietary products on Federal­aid projects. On the other hand, if proprietary devices

are specified by a highway agency for use on Federal­aid 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.

· This acceptance letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to 

use, manufacture, or sell any patented device for which the applicant is not the patent 

holder. The acceptance letter is limited to the crashworthiness characteristics of the 

candidate device, and the FHWA is neither prepared nor required to become involved in 

issues concerning patent law.  Patent issues, if any, are to be resolved by the applicant.

Sincerely yours,

/original signed by/

John R. Baxter, P.E.

Director, Office of Safety Design 

Office of Safety 

Enclosures

FHWA:HSA­10:NArtimovich:tb:x61331:3/1/06 

File:  h://directory folder/artimovich/WZ226­PlasticadeFIN.doc 

cc:  HSA­10 (Reader, HSA­1; Chron File, HSA­10; 

N.Artimovich, HSA­10)