Mr. Chuck Mettler, R&D/QC

Plastic Safety Systems, Inc. 

2444 Baldwin Road 

Cleveland, Ohio 44104 

Dear Mr. Mettler: 

Thank you for your email correspondence of December 9, 2005, requesting the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of the addition of lightweight warning lights to 

your company’s Type III Barricades. You requested that we find these modified devices

acceptable for use on the National Highway System (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.

Plastic Safety Systems Type III barricades were found acceptable in the following FHWA 

acceptance letters: 

WZ­61  December 13, 2000  8 foot wide PSS Type III Plastic Barricade

WZ­102  April 12, 2002  8 foot wide PSS Type III Plastic Barricade with lightweight 

warning light and modified rail spacing 

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

In Reply Refer To: 

HSA­10/WZ­233 

April 13, 2006
2 

WZ­152  April 10, 2003  Type III barricade with “ANCHOR” base system 

WZ­166  November 12, 2003  12 foot wide PSS Type III Plastic Barricade, 5 feet high 

6 foot wide PSST Type III Plastic Barricade, 7 feet high 

8 foot wide PSST Type III, Telespar frame, 5 feet high

Findings

Past crash testing of generic and proprietary Type III barricades have shown that lightweight 

warning lights (approximately 1.5 kg or less) pose little risk of injury to vehicle occupants.

Indeed, in our acceptance letter WZ­85 we accepted the use of lightweight warning lights to 

previously accepted Type III steel framed barricades. Your own tests have shown that the PSS 

plastic framed barricades performed in an acceptable manner when using lightweight lights. Therefore, the Type III Barricades in the FHWA acceptance letters listed above are acceptable 

for use on the NHS under the range of conditions tested with or without one or two lightweight 

warning lights, when proposed by a State. 

This letter may be considered an amendment to the FHWA acceptance letters WZ­61, WZ­102,

WZ­152, and WZ­166.

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 

WZ­233, 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 PSS Type III barricades may include patented elements, and if so are 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 proprietary products on 

Federal­aid projects. On the other hand, if proprietary devices are specified by a highway 

agency for use on Federal­aid projects:  (a) they must be supplied through competitive
3 

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, copies of which were included with previous

correspondence.

· 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 George E. Rice, Jr./  ~for~

John R. Baxter, P.E.

Director, Office of Safety Design 

Office of Safety 

FHWA:HSA­10:NArtimovich:tb:x61331:4/5/06 

File:  h://directory folder/artimovich/WZ233­PlasticSafetyFIN.doc 

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

N.Artimovich, HSA­10)