ANSWERS FROM THE US FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TO 16X9S

QUESTIONS.
1. Last year, the FHWA ordered eight crash tests of the 4-inch ET-Plus. In March, FHWA
announced that the guardrails had passed the tests, including a final crash test that revealed a
situation where the guardrail end terminal did significant damage to the crash test vehicle.
Many safety advocates say it should have been a fail. How does the FHWA defend the
decision to pass test 8?
Analyses of the final crash relative to the crash test evaluation criteria were conducted by the
crash test facility, FHWA and Dr. Clay Gabler (an independent expert and Professor and
Chair for Biomedical Engineering Graduate Studies in the Department of Biomedical
Engineering and Mechanics at Virginia Tech) and are all available on FHWA's website. All
concluded that test 8 met the applicable crash test criteria. How FHWA and Dr. Gabler came
to this conclusion is posted there for all to read.
2. Senator Richard Blumenthal criticized the retesting saying the FHWA is allowing flawed and
inadequate testing methods and supporting sham safety tests conducted by guardrail
manufacturers. He has urged the Government Accountability Office to conduct an
independent investigation into what he describes as the FHWAs continued lax oversight.
What is your response?
FHWA has conducted the review of the performance of the ET-Plus in an engineering-based,
data-driven and transparent manner in full compliance with the AASHTO criteria adopted by
the states. Specifically:
the tests were conducted in full accordance and compliance with NCHRP 350 protocols,
the test facility was fully accredited,
the test facility was satisfactorily evaluated by an independent expert with no legal,
personal, professional or financial stake in any of the guardrail terminal brands;
the installations, the devices, and the tests were made available to and witnessed by the
independent expert and members of State DOTs, and
the crash tests themselves were made available to the media. The complete set of data for
each and every crash test including the videos are all available for anyone to review on
FHWA's website.
3. Congressman Mark DeSaulnier told 16x9 that the province of Ontario should not look to the
FHWA for reliable data.
He told us, I think what's going on here is corruption, incompetence, lack of accountability
and a culture that refuses to accept that mistakes were made.
He went on to say, Federal Highway Administration is to not be trusted in this instance.

When asked about the eight tests conducted on the ET Plus he said, To say that it passed
every test and then continues to have, continues to risk the public including killing people... I
just think that's surreal. I don't know how else to describe it.
What is your response?
We are unaware of the Congressmans statements or the specific context in which they were
made. Nevertheless, FHWA emphasizes that it has partnered with AASHTO, state DOTs
and independent experts in reaching its conclusions. FHWA is confident in the data-driven
and engineering-based analyses that this partnership has achieved. All the results and data
have been transparent and are available for anyone to review. FHWAs only interest is in
answering and addressing concerns about the safety performance of the ET-Plus and other
guardrail end terminals.
4. Sean Kane, President of the Safety Institute, told 16x9 that relying on US regulators is
dangerous.
He told us, They've [FHWA] enabled Trinity to continue to sell a product that has all the
appearance of diminished safety in comparison to its predecessor....In short the FHWA did
nothing. They did absolutely nothing but look for ways to enable Trinity to continue on with
its product as a qualified end terminal that could be used by the States, rather than
investigate thoroughly what was really happening. What is your response?
We are unaware of Mr. Kanes statements or the specific context in which they were made.
Nevertheless, FHWA emphasizes that it has partnered with AASHTO, State DOTs and
independent experts in reaching its conclusions. FHWA is confident in the data-driven and
engineering-based analyses that this partnership has achieved. All the results and data have
been transparent and are available for anyone to review. FHWAs only interest is in
answering and addressing concerns about the safety performance of the ET-Plus and other
guardrail end terminals. We think safety advocates would welcome the findings of the
AASHTO/FHWA joint task force that identified performance limitations of multiple
guardrail terminals. This task force recommended moving to the next generation of
guardrails as quickly as possible and FHWA agrees.
5. The most recent Report from Joint AASHTO-FHWA Task Force on Guardrail Terminal
Crash Analysis did not offer a relative comparison of one type of guardrail with another, but
found that vulnerabilities were not limited to any one brand. How do you respond to critics
who describe the conclusions as whitewashing?
We would encourage critics to read the report that was written by the task force that included
FHWA experts as well as representatives from the states. In addition, three independent
experts also reviewed all of the crash cases and provided their assessments. These experts
have no legal, personal, professional or financial stake in any of the guardrail terminal
brands. The report makes clear that the data were not sufficient to conduct a comparative

analysis. FHWA supports the task force recommendation of transitioning to the next
generation of devices as quickly as possible.