The most consequential change in ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026 is a test for whether a helmet stays on during a fall. The revision, announced Sept. 11 by the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), adds optional ratings that make retention performance visible on a helmet’s label.
That fills a gap in a standard that already covered top and off-center impacts but didn’t test how well a helmet remained secured to a worker’s head. ISEA President and CEO Cam Mackey cited nearly 700 worker fatalities involving head injuries in the last year when announcing the revision, the first update since 2014.
New ratings build on existing helmet types
The revision retains Type I and Type II classifications. Type I helmets are tested for top impact; Type II helmets also face off-center impact and penetration tests. The new Type I+ and Type II+ designations add retention requirements, with Type I+ also extending impact protection beyond the crown.
Both “+” ratings require a chin strap that meets minimum width, strength and elongation standards. They also require a retention effectiveness test, which applies force to a headform to check whether the helmet stays in place. A chin strap by itself doesn’t qualify a helmet for either rating.
Type I+ adds front, rear and side impact protection to Type I’s top-impact coverage. ISEA used selected provisions of EN 12492, the European mountaineering standard, as a benchmark for that testing. The revision also requires testing “+” helmets when worn in reverse.
Type I+ and Type II+ aren’t interchangeable
The plus sign marks added requirements, but it doesn’t rank Type I+ above Type II. Their off-center impact tests differ, and Type II includes off-center penetration testing that Type I+ doesn’t. Type II and Type II+ retain the more demanding impact testing of the two classifications.
For employers comparing products, the type and class on the helmet label matter more than the product’s style or a general description. Z89.1 uses “helmet” as its formal term; “hard hat” and “safety helmet” appear only as industry terms in a definitions footnote. Neither term identifies a protection level. Full-brim and cap-style describe appearance, while the label records the type, class and standard revision.
Visibility wording changes; performance does not
The revision renames the “High Visibility” marking “Enhanced Visibility.” The performance requirements stay the same. ISEA says the new wording clarifies that head protection is outside ANSI/ISEA 107, the standard for high-visibility apparel.
The revision still addresses linear impact from direct blows. It acknowledges rotational energy in the foreword but sets no performance requirement for it. ISEA’s head protection product group says companies use different test methods, and a repeatable laboratory approach is needed before rotational testing can be added to the standard. The group says it will continue investigating.
What the revision means for employers and manufacturers
ISEA describes the new ratings as a way to standardize features already available in the market. The “+” designations are optional, and the source says OSHA does not currently reference the 2026 revision. Publishing the standard doesn’t automatically change OSHA rules; Type I and Type II helmets remain recognized, with employers selecting protection based on their hazard assessments.
The practical shift is that an assessment calling for tested retention can now point to a specific designation. Manufacturers must test helmets to the new revision before marking them accordingly, and that work takes time.
STUDSON says its SHK-2 is designed, engineered and built to meet ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026 Type II+ requirements. The company also says its existing ANSI-certified helmets are being tested to the revision at COLTS Laboratories, with markings and documentation to be updated as reports are completed. For buyers, the label will show which revision and rating a helmet has actually been tested against.
