U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
March 24, 2014
In Reply Refer To:
HSST/WZ-332
Mr. Juan Banuelos
Professional Traffic Solutions
401 South Park Avenue, Suite B
Montebello, CA 90640
Dear Mr. Banuelos:
This letter is in response to your request for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to review a roadside safety system for eligibility for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program.
| Name of system: | Professional Traffic Solutions Flashing Arrow Sign/ |
|---|---|
| Type of system: | Type III Barricade with arrow panel |
| Test Level: | MASH Test Level 3 |
| Testing conducted by: | KARCO Inc. |
| Date of request: | October 28, 2013 |
| Date initially acknowledged | October 28, 2013 |
| Date of complete package | January 18, 2014 |
Decision:
The following device is eligible, with details provided in the form which is attached as an integral part of this letter:
Based on a review of crash test results submitted by the manufacturer certifying the device described herein meets the crash test and evaluation criteria of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), the device is eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. Eligibility for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program does not establish approval or endorsement by the FHWA for any particular purpose or use.
The FHWA, the Department of Transportation, and the United States Government do not endorse products or services and the issuance of a reimbursement eligibility letter is not an endorsement of any product or service.
Requirements
To be found eligible for Federal-aid funding, 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).
Description
The device and supporting documentation are described in the attached form.
Work Zone Traffic Control Devices are typically tested in two orientations – head on, and perpendicular. In the case of your device, the Type III barricade with flashing arrow panel was impacted head-on only, but with the arrow panel deployed, and with the arrow panel lowered as when not in use. This satisfies the need to demonstrate successful performance in two different positions of the device.
In your first series of tests the vehicle impacted between the uprights of the Type III barricade. While this is the worst-case scenario for the barricade with the arrow panel, we requested testing where the vehicle contacts the upright support of the barricade. You had this test run successfully, and also tested your concrete-barrier-mounted arrow panel with successful results.
Summary and Standard Provisions
Therefore, the system described and detailed in the attached form is eligible for reimbursement and may be installed under the range of conditions tested.
Please note the following standard provisions that apply to FHWA eligibility letters:
Sincerely yours, /* Signature of Michael S. Griffith*/ Michael S. Griffith |
Enclosures
| Submitter | Date of Request: | October 28, 2014 |  New  Resubmission |
| Name: | Juan Banuelos | Signature: Juan Banuelos | |
| Company: | Professional Traffic Solution, LLC | ||
| Address: | 401 S Park Ave. Ste B, Montebello, CA 90640 | ||
| Country: | USA | ||
| To: | Michael S. Griffith, Director FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies |
||
I request the following devices be considered eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program.
| System Type | Submission Type | Device Name/Variant | Testing Criterion | Test Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 'WZ': Crash Worthy Work Zone Traffic Control Devices | Physical Crash Testing FEA & V&V Analysis |
Flashing Arrow Sign/ |
AASHTO MASH |
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.
Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product:
| Contact Name: | Juan Banuelos | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| Company Name: | Professional Traffic Solutions, LLC | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| Address: | 401 S Park Ave, Ste 8, Montebello, CA 90640 | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| Country: | USA | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| New Hardware |
|---|
Light weight Flashing Arrow Sign for temporary traffic control in and around an active work zone |
A brief description of each crash test and its result:
| Required Test Number | Narrative Description | Evaluation Results |
|---|---|---|
| 3-71 | The overall test assessment for the Professional Traffic Solutions 4'×8' FAS/Barricade Combo to Test 3-71 is a pass. The Impact with the work zone traffic control device did not cause significant hazard to the driver. The test vehicle remained upright and did not leave its lane. |
PASS |
Full Scale Crash Testing was done in compliance with MASH by the following accredited crash test laboratory (cite the laboratory's accreditation status as noted in the crash test reports.):
| Laboratory Name: | KARCO Engineering, INC | |
| Laboratory Name: | Director. Michael L Dunlop | Same as Submitter □ |
| Address | 9270 Holly Rd, Adelanto, CA 92301 | Same as Submitter □ |
| Country: | USA | Same as Submitter □ |
| Accreditation Certificate Number and Date: |
TL-371 July 1, 2008 | |
Attach to this form:
1) A copy of the full test report, video, and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in
support of this request.
2)A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that conform to the Task Force-13 Drawing Specifications [ ]. 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 key to understanding the performance of the device should also be submitted to facilitate our review.
FHWA Official Business Only:
| Eligibility Letter | AASHTOTF13 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Date | Designator | Key Words |
| Submitter | Date of Request: | October 28, 2013 | New Resubmission |
| Name: | Juan Banuelos | Signature: Juan Banuelos | |
| Company: | Professional Traffic Solution, LLC | ||
| Address: | 401 S Park Ave. Ste B, Montebello, CA 90640 | ||
| Country: | USA | ||
| To: | Michael S. Griffith, Director FHWA, Office of Safety Technologies |
||
I request the following devices be considered eligible for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program.
| System Type | Submission Type | Device Name/Variant | Testing Criterion | Test Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 'WZ': Crash Worthy Work Zone Traffic Control Devices | Physical Crash Testing FEA & V&V Analysis |
Flashing Arrow Board/ |
AASHTO MASH |
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.
Identification of the individual or organization responsible for the product:
| Contact Name: | Juan Banuelos | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| Company Name: | Professional Traffic Solutions, LLC | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| Address: | 401 S Park Ave, Ste 8, Montebello, CA 90640 | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| Country: | USA | Same as Submitter ☒ |
| New Hardware |
|---|
Light weight Flashing Arrow Sign for temporary traffic control in and around an active work zone |
A brief description of each crash test and its result:
| Required Test Number | Narrative Description | Evaluation Results |
|---|---|---|
| 3-72 | The overall test assessment for the Professional Traffic Solutions 4'×8' FAS/Barricade Combo to Test 3-72 is a pass. The impact with the work zone traffic control device did not cause significant hazard to the driver. The test vehicle remained upright and did not leave its lane. The test device remained upright and did not change position. |
PASS |
Full Scale Crash Testing was done In compliance with MASH by the following accredited crash test laboratory (cite the laboratory's accreditation status as noted in the crash test reports.):
| Laboratory Name: | KARCO Engineering, INC | |
| Laboratory Name: | Director. Michael L Dunlop | Same as Submitter □ |
| Address | 9270 Holly Rd, Adelanto, CA 92301 | Same as Submitter □ |
| Country: | USA | Same as Submitter □ |
| Accreditation Certificate Number and Date: |
TL-371 July 1, 2008 | |
Attach to this form:
1) A copy of the full test report, video, and a Test Data Summary Sheet for each test conducted in
support of this request.
2)A drawing or drawings of the device(s) that conform to the Task Force-13 Drawing Specifications [ ]. 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 key to understanding the performance of the device should also be submitted to facilitate our review.
FHWA Official Business Only:
| Eligibility Letter | AASHTOTF13 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Date | Designator | Key Words |
Professional Traffic Solutions
630 West Duarte Road #202
Arcadia, CA 91007
Attention: Juan Banuelos
Date: 12/30/13
Mr. Banuelos,
On December 23, 2013, one (1) full scale impact test was performed on two (2) Professional Traffic Solutions Work-Zone Traffic Control Devices: one (1) 4ft. × 8ft. FAS / Barricade Combo and one (1) 4 ft. × 8 ft. FAS / K-Rail Combo. The impact involved a 1082.0 kg (2,385.4 lbs) 2007 Kia Rio 4-door sedan traveling at a nominal velocity of 100 km/h (62.0 mph). The test articles were oriented at a critical angle of 0° and 25.0° to the normal direction of vehicle motion.
The test was conducted with both the 4 ft. × 8 ft.FAS / Barricade Combo and the 4 ft. × 8 ft.FAS / K-Rail Combo spaced 20 m (65.6 ft.) apart with the test vehicle impacting the 4 ft. × 8 ft.FAS / Barricade Combo first. The test vehicle engaged the left support post of the 4ft. × 8 ft.FAS / Barricade Combo. The test vehicle remained in its lane and continued to impact the second test article. The 4 ft. × 8 ft. FAS / K-Rail combo was mounted on a K-Rail set at an angle of 25.0° to the direction of vehicle travel. The vehicle impacted the K-rail and the arrow board bracket before coming to a stop.
The test vehicle's right front end was crushed as a result of the impact with the K-Rail. The vehicle windshield also cracked as a result of the K-Rail impact. The vehicle was redirected and came to a stop after the second impact. The vehicle was not penetrated by any test article components, and there was no intrusion to any of the vehicle's sections that exceeded their allowable limits.
The first impacted article's support posts were separated from the arrow board. The bottom two (2) support panels' breakaways were activated and they broke along the center of the width. The second article's support bracket was broken at its base where it attached to the K-rail.
Complete information relating to the test can be found in CD serial number 2013-2888 from KARCO Engineering, LLC. including Pre- and Post-Test article conditions, vehicle condition, manufacturer drawings, and impact video documentation.
Sincerely yours,
/* Signature of Frank D. Richardson */
Juan Banuelos
Frank D. Richardson
President
KARCO Engineering, LLC.
| Tel: (760) 246-1672 Fax: (760) 246-8112 |
KARCO Engineering, LLC. 9270 Holly Road, Adelanto, CA 92301 |
info@karco.com www.karco.com |
