ATSSA The Signal January February 2020

American Traffic Safety Services Association 20 Innovation & Technical News The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi- cials ’ (AASHTO) Boardof Directors issued a resolution in October recommend- ing the updated Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) be changed to a performance-based specification. The resolution also asks for the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) tocommu- nicate “its decision-makingprocesses and decisions with states to ensure FHWA division offices are consistently imple- menting MASH in a practical manner.” The Council of Highways and Streets (Chief Engineers), an AASHTO subcom- mittee, recommended the resolution. MASH is a uniform set of guidelines for crash testing temporary or permanent roadway safety devices and recommen- dations for evaluation criteria for the results of those tests. Industry officials are evaluating how to apply the 2016 guidelines. Under this new approach, state Depart- ments of Transportation (DOTs) would adopt specifications, product owners would test devices against the criteria via independent testing houses—simi- lar to what is done today—and product owners would then self-certify to ensure devices meet DOT specifications based on the test results. “It has beenmore than a year since there has been an established need for a third party to administer official certification of roadway devices, documenting their conformance with MASH standards,” said Eric Perry, ATSSA director of inno- vation and technical services. “There is also a great need for the dissemination of letters of eligibility, following determi- nations of conformance or a lack thereof.” ATSSA President and CEO Roger Wentz said discussions were heldwith both the American Society for Testing andMateri- als (ASTM) andUnderwriters Laboratory (UL) to serve as a third-party administra- tor, but both entities ultimately declined. The resolution also called for “flexibility” for states to continue using National CooperativeHighway Research Program (NCHRP)-350 products if there are no MASH-tested products available or “suit- able” for that state. An exact definition of the term “suitable” was not included in the resolution. However, Wentz said ATSSAstaffunderstands this relates to the unavailability of aMASH-tested product that meets a state’s usual specifications. During the discussion at the Council on Highways and Streets meeting the following points weremade or clarified: • This new approach does not include the extension of any of the MASH deadlines. • There was a general desire to “reward” companies that had moved forward with testing their devices to the MASH criteria. • FHWA would put an emphasis on communication with its Division Offices so there is consistent interpretation and administration of this process. • FHWA would continue to issue letters of eligibility, presumably until this new approach is in place. The discussion and resolution adopted at the AASHTOmeeting did not include any reference to the challenge faced by manufacturers who have tested their devices and are awaiting “release” of their eligibility letters by FHWA. “ATSSA understands that the delay in their release is due to a technical ques- tion that FHWA has posed to AASHTO regarding the small vehicle, or substi- tution of the small vehicle, used in the crash tests,” Wentz said. “The goal is to designate an administrative author- ity, which will subsequently determine whether or not devices meet national or state-specific standards—increasing roadway safety overall.”  AASHTO recommends MASH be changed to performance specification Association endorses motion to provide criteria for product owners to test and certify traffic safety devices The goal is to designate an administrative authority, whichwill subsequently determinewhether or not devicesmeet national or state-specific standards.