[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 77092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21990]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25525; Notice 2]


Fulmer Helmets, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Fulmer Helmets, Inc. (Fulmer) has determined that certain helmets 
it produced in 2001 through 2006 do not comply with S5.2 of 49 CFR 
571.218, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, 
``Motorcycle Helmets.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), 
Fulmer has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate 
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance 
Reports.'' Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30 
day comment period, on August 8, 2006 in the Federal Register (71 FR 
45106). NHTSA received no comments.
    Affected are a total of approximately 32,052 helmets which Fulmer 
certified as complying with FMVSS No. 218. These consist of 
approximately 26,762 Modular Motorcycle Helmets AF-M produced between 
January 2002 and April 2006, and approximately 5,290 Modular Snowmobile 
Helmets SN-M produced between November 2001 and November 2005. S5.2 of 
FMVSS No. 218, Penetration, requires that ``when a penetration test is 
conducted in accordance with S7.2, the striker shall not contact the 
surface of the test headform.'' When this test was conducted on the 
subject helmets, the striker contacted the surface of the test 
headform. Fulmer has corrected the problem that caused these errors so 
that they will not be repeated in future production.
    Fulmer believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Fulmer 
states that it asked Harry Hurt, ``a leading expert in helmet testing 
and motorcycle crash research * * * [whose] experience is more than 50 
years,'' to review the test results. Fulmer further states,

    [Harry Hurt's] opinion is that the noncompliance on the 
penetration test is inconsequential because the helmets performed 
exceptionally well on all impact attenuation tests. In his 
experience, there has never been any correlation between the 
penetration test and accident performance, and damage like the 
penetration test is never seen in crash involved motorcycle helmets.

    NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has determined that the 
noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The 
petitioner has not provided sufficient arguments or data to meet its 
burden of persuasion.
    Fulmer asserts that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety based on the opinion of Hugh H. (Harry) Hurt, Jr., 
President of the Head Protection Research Laboratory. Mr. Hurt contends 
that ``there has never been any correlation between the penetration 
test and accident performance.'' While Mr. Hurt may have significant 
research experience related to motorcycle helmets, his statement alone 
is insufficient to justify that the failure of the Fulmer AF-M and SN-M 
helmets to meet S5.2 of the standard is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety.
    The agency adopted the penetration performance requirement from 
ANSI Z90.1-1971. This performance requirement was adopted by the 
Standards Committee Z90 which included representatives from various 
consumer groups, helmet manufacturers, testing organizations, and 
government organizations.
    Since its adoption, NHTSA has reviewed the relationship of the 
penetration test to motor vehicle safety. The agency requested comments 
on the merits of the penetration performance test in 1988 (53 FR 11280) 
but received no comments regarding the elimination of this performance 
requirement, or proving or disproving the benefits. In 1997, a study 
was commissioned to evaluate upgrading FMVSS No. 218 (``Feasibility 
Study of Upgrading FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets,'' D.R. Thom, H.H. 
Hurt, T.A. Smith, J.V. Ouelelet, Head Protection Research Laboratory, 
University of Southern California, DTNH22-97-P-02001). The study 
considered potential areas for FMVSS No. 218 to be upgraded, including 
the penetration test. With regard to the latter, the authors, including 
Mr. Hurt, stated that ``[t]he advantage [of the FMVSS No. 218 
penetration test] is that the test is very severe, simple, repeatable, 
and absolutely denies qualification to an inferior helmet.'' (pg. 11) 
The study (at pages 1 and 54) recommended that the agency retain the 
penetration tests. These reviews provide ample support for the value of 
the penetration test within FMVSS No. 218.
    At an independent test lab, NHTSA conducted FMVSS No. 218 
compliance tests on eight of the subject Fulmer AF-M motorcycle 
helmets. Six of the eight helmets failed the penetration requirement of 
S5.2, representing a 75 percent failure rate of the sample set. NHTSA 
believes that the rate of noncompliance presents a safety concern, and 
the arguments presented by the petitioner have not alleviated this 
concern.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
Fulmer's petition is hereby denied.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: December 18, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-21990 Filed 12-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P