----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
helmet 1...............             250            3.84            0.96            4.80             2.0
helmet 2...............             240            4.00            1.00            5.00             1.9
helmet 3...............             230            4.18            1.04            5.22             1.7
helmet 4...............             220            4.37            1.09            5.46             1.5
helmet 5...............             210            4.57            1.14            5.72             1.1
helmet 6...............             201            4.78            1.19            5.97             0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using this formula, Snell calculated that half of the helmets would
not comply with the standard if tested at 6.4 m/s. The calculations for
an impact velocity of 6.4 m/s are shown in Table 6.

                                                     Table 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pulse time at
       Velocity (6.4 m/s)             Peak G        Pulse time-     Pulse time-    Pulse  time-   or above 200 G
                                                      loading        unloading         total         (T@200g)
                                             (G)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
helmet 1...............           266.7            3.84            0.96            4.80             2.2
helmet 2...............           256.0            4.00            1.00            5.00             2.1
helmet 3...............           245.0            4.18            1.04            5.22             2.1
helmet 4...............           234.7            4.37            1.09            5.46             1.9
helmet 5...............           224.0            4.57            1.14            5.72             1.7
helmet 6...............           214.4            4.78            1.19            5.97             1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to assess whether the  0.2 m/s tolerance
interval would not cause undue burdens for helmet manufacturers, we
employed the mathematical model of helmet impact testing used by Snell.
We measured whether the compliance burdens would be more difficult
using the  0.2 m/s than the  0.15 m/s tolerance
recommended by Shark, Arai, and Shoei, as well as the  0.18
m/s tolerance recommended by MIC and ASTM.\68\ The peak G (peak
acceleration of the impact pulse) at the different impact velocities
examined (6.15 m/s, 6.18 m/s, and 6.2 m/s) were determined by linearly
interpolating between the peak G values in Table 5 for the 6 m/s impact
velocity and those in Table 6 for the 6.4 m/s impact velocity. The
calculations for  0.15 m/s and  0.18 m/s impact
velocity tolerance are shown in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. The
calculations for a  0.2 m/s impact velocity tolerance
(impact velocity at 6.2 m/s) are shown in Table 9. As shown, only one
of the hypothetical helmets in Snell's analysis (helmet 1,
which marginally complied with the standard S5.1(b) when tested at
exactly 6.0 m/s) showed only a marginal failure when tested at the
other three impact velocities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Docket NHTSA-2008-0157-0164.3.

                                                     Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pulse time at
       Velocity (6.15 m/s)            Peak G        Pulse time-     Pulse time-    Pulse  time-   or above 200 G
                                                      loading        unloading         total         (T@200g)
                                             (G)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
helmet 1...............           256.3            3.84            0.96            4.80             2.1
helmet 2...............           246.0            4.00            1.00            5.00             2.0
helmet 3...............           235.8            4.18            1.04            5.22             1.9
helmet 4...............           225.5            4.37            1.09            5.46             1.7
helmet 5...............           215.3            4.57            1.14            5.72             1.4
helmet 6...............           206.0            4.78            1.19            5.97             0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Table 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pulse time at
       Velocity (6.18 m/s)            Peak G        Pulse time-     Pulse time-    Pulse  time-   or above 200 G
                                                      loading        unloading         total         (T@200g)
                                             (G)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
helmet 1...............           257.5            3.84            0.96            4.80             2.1
helmet 2...............           247.2            4.00            1.00            5.00             2.0
helmet 3...............           236.9            4.18            1.04            5.22             1.9
helmet 4...............           226.6            4.37            1.09            5.46             1.7
helmet 5...............           216.3            4.57            1.14            5.72             1.4
helmet 6...............           207.0            4.78            1.19            5.97             1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Table 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pulse time at
        Velocity 6.2 m/s              Peak G        Pulse time-     Pulse time-    Pulse  time-   or above 200 G
                                                      loading        unloading         total         (T@200g)
                                             (G)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)          (msec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
helmet 1...............           258.3            3.84            0.96            4.80             2.1
helmet 2...............           248.0            4.00            1.00            5.00             2.0
helmet 3...............           237.7            4.18            1.04            5.22             1.9
helmet 4...............           227.0            4.37            1.09            5.46             1.7
helmet 5...............           217.0            4.57            1.14            5.72             1.4
helmet 6...............           207.7            4.78            1.19            5.97             1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these calculations, we do not believe that there is a
significant difference if a helmet is tested at the outer limits of a
 0.2,  0.18, or  0.15 m/s tolerance
range. Further, as discussed above, we believe that the energy
differential is small enough at a  0.2 m/s tolerance that
there will be little if any difference in the marginal number of
helmets that may experience compliance difficulty if tested at the
outermost extremes of the tolerance range.
B. Achievable Tolerances
    While the agency's desire to limit the potential increased impact
energy brings the tolerance down, we are also careful to make sure the
tolerances we specify are readily achievable by testing laboratories.
In the NPRM, NHTSA used a statistical analysis of calibration error and
non-calibration errors (derived from uncertainties in the test setup
and testing variability) to determine the overall maximum possible
error resulting from all variations combined. Based on our statistical
analysis, we determined that in 95 percent of trials, a maximum error
of 0.4 m/s was possible given the compound effect of all errors.
Therefore, we proposed that the impact speed be specified as 5.2 m/s
(6.0 m/s for the flat anvil)  0.4 m/s.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 73 FR 57306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, numerous commenters took issue with the  0.4 m/s figure, stating that if a helmet were tested at the
upper end of the tolerance range, the significant amounts of extra
energy gained could cause it to not meet the requirements of the impact
attenuation test. Therefore, we have taken a new look at the available
data to determine if a narrower tolerance range is practical given the
limitations of testing equipment. After having performed an analysis of
statistical data collected on 2,496 impact attenuation tests done by
two test labs during 2007 and 2008, the agency has determined that it
is feasible to narrow the tolerance to  0.2 m/s and still
have nearly all tests fall within the bounds of the required tolerance.
The goal was to ensure that whatever tolerance was adopted would
capture at least 99 percent of the potential total test variability.
    In determining a suitable interval of velocities for the helmet
drop test, NHTSA examined a wide variety of factors that could
contribute to test variability.\70\ These included the velocity of the
helmet, between-lab variability in velocity measurement, the effect of
helmet conditioning, the location of the drop on the anvil, the
difference between the first and second drops on the same location on
the anvil, and a ``random error'' variable. After performing a
statistical analysis of all variables, NHTSA determined that only
helmet velocity (a standard deviation of 0.045 m/s for the
hemispherical anvil, and 0.048 m/s for the flat anvil) and between-lab
variability (a standard deviation of 0.017 m/s for the hemispherical
anvil, and 0.020 m/s for the flat anvil) showed statistically
significant differences in overall test performance. Combining these
two independent sources of variability by the Root Sum Square method,
NHTSA derived the following ranges for the 99 percent confidence
interval:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The analysis is presented in more detail in ``Analysis of
Helmet Impact Velocity Experimental Data and Statistical Tolerance
Design,'' NHTSA, DOT HS 811 305, April 2010. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811305.pdf.

                                                    Table 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nominal velocity
           Anvil type              Nominal velocity     99% confidence       3%    0.2 m/
                                                           interval            velocity                s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherical...................  5.2 m/s...........  5.06-5.34 m/s.....  5.04-5.36 m/s.....  5.0-5.4 m/s.
Flat............................  6.0 m/s...........  5.84-6.16 m/s.....  5.82-6.18 m/s.....  5.8-6.2 m/s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the table, the maximum possible allowable tolerance
needed to ensure 99 percent of tests fall within the allowable range is
 0.16 m/s. This is larger than the  0.15 m/s
proposed by Shoei, Shark, and Arai, but just within the  3
percent velocity tolerance proposed by MIC and ASTM. Therefore, we
believe that this is a feasible tolerance to use for testing purposes.
We note that we have increased the maximum tolerance slightly to  0.2 m/s for rounding purposes, but do not believe that that will
have a significant effect on the test, as shown in the section above.

d. Penetration Test

    In addition to the impact attenuation and retention tests, the
helmet standard also requires that compliant helmets meet a penetration
test. The penetration test, described in paragraphs S7.2 through S7.2.8
of FMVSS No. 218, specifies that a penetration striker makes two
separate blows to the exterior of the helmet, with the striker on a
guided free fall. In the NPRM, NHTSA described the penetration test and
proposed modifications to the helmet conditioning procedure that
precedes it and the other two performance tests in paragraph S7. While
NHTSA did not specifically propose adding test tolerances for the
penetration test, several commenters suggested that the need for
tolerances in this test was no different than the need for tolerances
in the other performance specifications. The commenters recommended
that, similar to other modifications in this rulemaking, small
tolerances be added to the various specified dimensions of the striker
and the drop height.
1. Comments Received
    Four commenters discussed the penetration test. Two commenters,
Andy F. Malinowski and ASTM, recommended that the penetration test be
removed from the standard. Mr. Malinowski stated that it was
unnecessary because ``in an accident a helmet will normally hit a flat
surface.'' ASTM cited research on helmet performance in Europe (the
COST 327 study),\71\ which recommended that penetration testing be
deleted from standards. The commenter also stated it believes the
epidemiology of U.S. accidents supports this position. Two helmet
manufacturers, Shark and Arai, recommended that tolerances be added to
the specifications for the drop height, mass, angle, cone height, and
tip radius of the penetration striker. While Arai did not provide a
specific rationale for its recommendations, Shark stated that its
recommendations were made ``in order to harmonize the equipment and
repeatability of tests.'' \72\ The recommendations made by the two
manufacturers were nearly identical (with a slight difference in the
cone height recommendation), and are reproduced below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Chinn B., Canaple B., Derler S., Doyle D., Otte D.,
Schuller E., Willinger R. (2001) COST 327 Motorcycle Safety Helmets.
Final Report of the Action.
    \72\ Docket NHTSA-2008-0157-0166.

                                                    Table 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Test specification (current requirement)       Arai recommendation                Shark recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop height of penetration striker (3 m).   0.015 m........   0.015 m.
Mass of penetration striker (3 kg).......   0.05 kg........   0.05 kg.
Included angle of penetration striker (60   0.5 degrees....   0.5 degrees.
 degrees).
Cone height of penetration striker (3.8     0.38 mm........   0.35 mm.
 cm).
Tip radius of penetration striker (0.5      0.1 mm.........   0.1 mm.
 mm).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NHTSA Analysis and Conclusion
    After carefully considering the comments, NHTSA has decided to add
the recommended tolerances to the penetration test standard.\73\ Given
that the purpose of this rulemaking action is to increase the
repeatability and enforceability of FMVSS No. 218,\74\ we believe that
the addition of these tolerances to the penetration test procedures is
well within the scope of this rulemaking. Further, we believe that the
specific test tolerances proposed by the two manufacturers are
reasonable. We note that, with the exception of the suggested tip
radius tolerance, no suggested tolerance is more than  2
percent of the total requirement. Even the tip radius tolerance, which
is  20 percent of the total radius requirement, is still
only 0.1 mm, and we do not believe that a difference of this magnitude
would significantly alter the test. The agency believes that the
tolerances suggested are appropriate for the manufacturing capabilities
of test equipment manufacturers, and the calibration abilities of test
laboratories, and notes that the values are similar to those expressed
in NHTSA's test procedure.\75\ Further, we do not believe that
adjusting any or all of the properties of the penetration striker by
the limit of the proposed tolerances would substantially alter the test
results or have a deleterious effect on safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ With regard to the small difference in the recommended cone
height tolerances, we have decided to use Arai's recommendation of
0.38 mm, rather than Shark's recommendation of 0.35 mm, so that the
tolerance is exactly 1 percent of the 3.8 cm cone height
requirement. With regard to the recommendation to adopt the  0.5 kg tolerance to the mass of the penetration striker,
FMVSS No. 218 uses English units as the primary units cited in the
standard and due to rounding, we have decided to use  2
ounces as the tolerance.
    \74\ See 73 FR at 57308, which reads ``[i]n keeping with the
theme of providing more clearly defined, enforceable testing
procedures for FMVSS No. 218 * * *''
    \75\ NHTSA test procedure TP-218-06, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is not following the suggestion of those commenters who
requested that the penetration test be removed from the standard. To
begin, we believe that such an action would be well outside of the
scope of this rulemaking, which is designed to

increase enforceability and clarity and make minor updates to the
standard. Removing one of three performance tests would be a major
modification to the substantive safety requirements and a major
deviation from the NPRM. Second, we do not agree with the commenters
that the penetration test is not meaningful. In 1997, an agency study
on the feasibility of upgrading FMVSS No. 218 suggested that the agency
retain the current penetration tests, describing them as
meaningful.\76\ The agency relied on this study in 2006, in its denial
of a petition of inconsequential noncompliance for Fulmer Helmets.\77\
While we recognize that ASTM submitted a 2007 petition for rulemaking
regarding substantive updates to the helmet standard, including, among
other issues, removing the penetration test, we will address that
subject in response to ASTM's original petition at a later date.
Therefore, in this final rule, we are not removing the penetration test
requirement from the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ D.R. Thom, H.H. Hurt, T.A. Smith, J.V. Ouellet,
``Feasibility Study of Upgrading FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle
Helmets,'' Head Protection Research Laboratory, University of
Southern California, DTNH22-97-P-02001. See conclusions, p. 54.
    \77\ 71 FR 77092, December 22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons above, we are amending paragraphs S7.2.4, S7.2.6,
and S7.2.7 to reflect the addition of tolerances for the penetration
test.

e. Quasi-Static Retention Test

    FMVSS No. 218 specifies a static retention test as part of the
performance specifications. The purpose of the test is to demonstrate
that the retention system has the structural integrity necessary to
help ensure that a motorcyclist's helmet stays on his or her head in
the event of a crash. The test was originally adopted from the ANSI
Z90.1 standard, which applied a static tensile load to the retention
assembly of a complete helmet. Currently, the retention test, described
in paragraphs S7.3 through S7.3.4 of the standard, specifies that a 50-
pound (22.7 kg) preliminary load, followed by a 250-pound (113.4 kg)
test load, is applied to the retention assembly. However, testing
laboratories must apply the load at some rate, and the current
regulation does not specify how this load is applied to the retention
assembly.\78\ Without that specification, there is some latitude as to
what rate a test laboratory should increase the force until the full
300-pound load is applied to the retention assembly. Such latitude is
what led to the dispute between NexL and NHTSA, described above, over
whether certain NexL helmets complied with the retention requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ While the regulation does not specify it, NHTSA's test
procedures specify that the load is applied at 1.0-3.0 cm/min. See
NHTSA TP-218-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to increase the clarity and enforceability of the
retention specification, the NPRM proposed adding a specific load
application test to the requirements, and recharacterizing the test as
a ``quasi-static'' test, to reflect the new dynamic aspect. There were
three reasons for proposing a rate. First, NHTSA believed that
specifying the rate would help helmet manufacturers self-certify their
products with a greater degree of certainty. Second, providing a load
application rate would prevent manufacturers from using a significantly
different rate from NHTSA's compliance laboratories, and thus attaining
different results, as occurred in the NexL case.
    The proposed load application rate was 0.4 to 1.2 inches (1 to 3
cm) per minute, the same rate as was specified in NHTSA's test
procedures. We believe that this rate is reasonable and consistent with
what the agency and the majority of manufacturers have been using in
their compliance testing.
    NHTSA received three comments that discussed the load application
rate. Arai, ASTM, and MIC all agreed with the specification of a quasi-
static load application rate, all of them stating that specifying such
a rate would be appropriate and that they have no objections to the
0.4-1.2 inches (1-3 cm) per minute value proposed by the agency. The
agency also received numerous comments, discussed below, that helmet
retention strength can cause neck injuries, although without supporting
information.
    Based on our analysis and the comments received, we are adopting
the load application rate proposed in the NPRM. We are not altering the
proposal in response to comments suggesting that increased retention
system strength may cause neck injuries. First, we note that this
change does not increase the retention strength; it merely clarifies
how it is to be measured. Second, as noted in the NPRM, our research
indicates that helmets do not change injury rates to any areas of the
body, and the commenters provided no data to indicate otherwise.
Therefore, we are amending paragraphs S7.3.1 and S7.3.2 to reflect the
specified load application rate.

f. Helmet Conditioning Tolerances

    In order to ensure repeatability of testing, FMVSS No. 218 requires
that helmets be conditioned in a certain manner before testing. These
conditioning specifications are laid out in paragraph S6.4.1. This
paragraph describes four conditions to which a helmet must be exposed
for a 12-hour period of time before being subjected to the testing
sequences described in paragraph S7 of the regulation; and specifies
temperatures, relative humidity, and the time periods for which the
helmet must be exposed.
    As described in the NPRM, the agency proposed to modify the
temperatures to include a range of temperatures and relative humidity.
The NPRM also proposed that the current 12-hour time period be
specified as a minimum time period for conditioning. Similar to the
rationale for proposing tolerances throughout FMVSS No. 218, we stated
that this would enable NHTSA to undertake legally enforceable testing
of helmets at the conditions specified within the tolerances. The
specific values proposed in the NPRM \79\ were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ It should be noted that there was a discrepancy in the
preamble and proposed regulatory text of the NPRM. While the
preamble cited a temperature range for the water immersion test of
68-86 degrees F, the regulatory text specified a range of 61-79
degrees. The figures for the water immersion test in the preamble
are a clerical error, and we note that the tests should be conducted
at ambient temperatures, and the range of 61-79 degrees corresponds
to the dry ambient temperature range given in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Ambient conditions. Expose to any temperature from 61 [deg]F to
and including 79 [deg]F (from 16 [deg]C to and including 26 [deg]C) and
any relative humidity from 30 to and including 70 percent for a minimum
of 12 hours.
    (b) Low temperature. Expose to any temperature from 5 [deg]F to and
including 23 [deg]F (from -15 [deg]C to and including -5 [deg]C) for a
minimum of 12 hours.
    (c) High temperature. Expose to any temperature from 113 [deg]F to
and including 131 [deg]F (from 45 [deg]C to and including 55 [deg]C)
for a minimum of 12 hours.
    (d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at any temperature from 61
[deg]F to and including 79 [deg]F (from 16 [deg]C to and including 26
[deg]C) for a minimum of 12 hours.
    Comments received on the matter of helmet conditioning were
received from ASTM, MIC, Arai, Shoei, and Shark. Two issues were raised
by commenters that warrant reconsideration of the proposed values by
the agency. Many groups suggested that the conditioning time proposed
by the agency be substantially revised, from the proposed 12-hour
minimum period to a range of 4 to 24 hours. Additionally, while some
commenters agreed with NHTSA's proposed temperature and humidity
tolerances, several suggested narrowing the limits.

    With regard to helmet conditioning time, the basic argument cited
by multiple commenters is that the values in this range would permit
helmets to be conditioned during normal business hours, thereby
reducing the burden of testing. Further, they argued that the helmet is
in a steady state during this entire range, so that additional
conditioning time beyond four hours does not affect the ability of the
helmet to meet the performance specifications. Finally, commenters
requested that a maximum conditioning time be specified, to prevent a
situation where a helmet is subject to indefinite conditioning.
    Based on our analysis of the comments and further research into the
subject, in this final rule NHTSA is modifying the conditioning times
based on suggestions from the commenters and further analysis done by
the agency. Given the commenter's arguments, we investigated the claims
that a four-hour conditioning period would adequately condition a
helmet, and note the statement in ASTM's comment that a 1997 study
commissioned by NHTSA stated, ``The data * * * show no statistically
significant effect of reducing the pre-test environmental conditioning
time from 12 to 4 hours.'' \80\ Based on this more recent study, and
the comments received by multiple sources, NHTSA has agreed to adopt a
minimum helmet conditioning time of no less than four hours for all
helmet conditions. Additionally, to address concerns of helmets being
conditioned indefinitely, we are adopting a maximum helmet conditioning
time of 24 hours for the low and high temperature conditions, and water
immersion procedures. In addition to preventing indefinite
conditioning, this figure will permit overnight conditioning of helmets
and the agency does not believe that it will affect compliance at all.
It also aligns NHTSA's standard with other helmet standards that use 4-
24 hour conditioning periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Thom, Hurt, Smith & Ouellet, ``Feasibility Study of
Upgrading FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets,'' Head Protection
Research Laboratory, University of Southern California, Final
Report, September 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the conditioning temperature and relative humidity,
the agency received comments that both supported the proposed values as
well as those that suggested alternative values for these conditions.
ASTM and MIC supported the values proposed in the NPRM, stating that
there has never been any evidence that ambient humidity affects helmet
performance, as well as supporting the proposal to equalize ambient
room and water temperatures.
    Foreign-based motorcycle helmet makers suggested that the agency
adopt different values. Arai suggested the following test conditions:
    Ambient Condition: temperature 25  5 [deg]C; relative
humidity 60  20%.
    Hot Condition: temperature 50  2 [deg]C.
    Cold Condition: temperature -10  2 [deg]C.
    Water Immersion: temperature 25  5 [deg]C.
    In its comment, Arai argued that these conditioning values would
make NHTSA's condition nearly identical to other national standards,
including JIS T8133: 2007; \81\ BS6658: 1985; \82\ and ECE R22-05.\83\
Shark recommended the same values as Arai, except that it recommended a
cold condition of -20  2 [deg]C. Similarly, Shoei
recommended narrower  2 [deg]C tolerances for hot and cold
temperature tolerances, stating that their current conditioning unit
controls temperature very precisely, and that it is possible to
maintain this narrow range. It also specifically commented that the
range for the cold condition was problematic due to the sensitivity of
plastics to cold temperatures, and stated that it had experience that a
product not affected at -5 [deg]C was broken at -15 [deg]C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Japan.
    \82\ United Kingdom.
    \83\ UN Economic Commission for Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the comments and issues involved, NHTSA
has decided to adopt the temperature and humidity values and tolerances
proposed in the NPRM. While we are cognizant of the desire by some
manufacturers to use the tolerances they use for foreign testing, we do
not believe that the use of such narrow tolerance ranges is necessary
to ensure safety or produce repeatable results. Further, based on the
equipment familiar to the agency, and contrary to Shoei's comment, the
equipment necessary to maintain this tight tolerance across all
conditions is cost prohibitive and would be an additional burden on
helmet testers. For these reasons, the agency declines to alter the
proposed values and will maintain a  5 [deg]C tolerance for
each of the conditioning procedures.

g. Other Tolerances

    While not discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA received comments regarding
several other parts of FMVSS No. 218 where tolerances could provide
additional flexibility and/or guidance. Two helmet manufacturers, Arai
and Shark, suggested adding tolerances to the values in Table 1 of the
standard, which specifies weights for the impact attenuation test drop
assembly for small, medium, and large test headforms. According to
paragraph S7.1.7, the drop assembly weights listed in Table 1 consist
of the weight of the test headform and the supporting assembly.
    Both Arai and Shark commented that NHTSA should specify a tolerance
for the drop assembly weights in Table 1 of the standard. Currently,
the weights specified are 3.5, 5.0, and 6.1 kg, for the small, medium,
and large test headform drop assemblies, respectively. The commenters
(specifically Arai) stated that it is not realistic for test labs to
provide  0.0 kg drop assembly mass, as this degree of
precision is nearly impossible for test equipment manufacturers. Arai
requested that NHTSA add tolerances of  0.1 kg to the
weights in Table 1, while Shark requested a  0.15 kg
tolerance be added to these values. While not specifically proposed in
the NPRM, this minor clarification is closely related to the goals of
adding reasonable and enforceable tolerances to FMVSS No. 218.
    After considering the comments, NHTSA is adding a tolerance of
 0.1 kg ( 0.2 lb) to the weights specified
Table 1. We believe that because the weight of the supporting assembly
\84\ is specified as a range of 0.9-1.1 kg (i.e., 1.0  0.1
kg), in paragraph S7.1.7, a tolerance level is appropriate for the
combined weight of the drop assembly. NHTSA examined the increase in
impact energy for the upper bound of allowable drop assembly weight
(3.6 kg for small headform, 5.1 kg for medium headform and 6.2 kg for
large headform) and found that it only increased by 1.5 to 3 percent
from that currently in the standard. The change in impact energy due to
the allowable tolerance in drop assembly weight is significantly
smaller than that due to the allowable tolerance in impact velocity.
Therefore, we believe the drop assembly weight tolerance of  0.1 kg is practicable and will have little, if any, effect on
helmets that currently comply with the standard. The addition of the
 0.1 kg tolerances will be added to the drop assembly
weights in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The supporting assembly weight is defined as the drop
assembly weight minus the combined weight of the test headform, the
headform's clamp down ring, and its tie down screws. See S7.1.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Other Issues Addressed in the NPRM

    As discussed in the NPRM, the agency is updating the standard to
include a more recent version of the SAE Recommended Practice currently
incorporated by reference in the standard. Paragraph S7.1.9 currently

specifies that ``the acceleration data channel complies with SAE
Recommended Practice J211 JUN 80, Instrumentation for Impact Tests,
requirements for channel class 1,000.'' SAE Recommended Practice J211
has been revised several times since June of 1980 and the agency
proposed to update the cited practice to SAE Recommended Practice J211/
1, revised March 1995, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation.'' This version is consistent with the
current requirements for the regulation's filter needs, and it is also
consistent with other recently updated standards and regulations. As
the agency did not receive any comments regarding this part of the
proposal, the new updated version of J211 is being incorporated into
the standard.
    The agency is also correcting a typographical mistake regarding the
labeling of Figures 7 and 8 in the standard. We noted that Figures 7
and 8 in FMVSS No. 218 were inadvertently switched at some time in the
past. To correct this error, NHTSA proposed to keep the titles the same
for each Figure, and to switch the diagrams so the diagrams for the
medium and large headforms properly correspond to the figure titles.
This change is being made to the standard.

i. Other Issues Raised by Commenters

    In addition to the issues specifically addressed in the NPRM, many
commenters addressed matters that were not central to the issues of
helmet labeling or changing the tolerances for test procedures.
Nonetheless, we will address those issues briefly in this section.
1. Necessity of Universal State Helmet Use Laws and Specifications
    Many commenters, including many of the individual commenters who
submitted their statements to the docket, took the opportunity to argue
for or against State helmet use laws. Given the substantial
contributions by helmets to reducing deaths and injuries, and the
inability of other measures to reduce substantially the need for those
contributions, NHTSA strongly encourages the use of motorcycle helmets
by all motorcyclists while riding, and the enactment of State laws
requiring such use.
    In addition, NHTSA seeks to ensure that helmets sold for use by
motorcyclists are safe and effective. To that end, NHTSA promulgated
FMVSS No. 218, which provides a minimum set of performance requirements
that all motorcycle helmets must meet. To aid in the enforcing of State
helmet use laws, we are adopting improved labeling requirements in this
rule so that law enforcement officers can better distinguish compliant
motorcycle helmets from noncompliant helmets or other headwear that
riders may be wearing or purchasing.
    MRF also asked questions about existing helmets. They asked whether
existing helmets would continue to be legal, or whether riders would
need to purchase new helmets after the final rule becomes effective.
MRF also asked what would become of unsold older helmets. Questions
regarding State helmet use laws need to be directed to the States. As
to FMVSS No. 218, it applies to newly-manufactured motorcycle helmets.
Manufacturers may continue to produce helmets and certify them to the
current version of FMVSS No. 218 until the effective date of this final
rule. Those older certified helmets may be sold even after the
effective date of this rule.
2. Recent Actions by the National Transportation Safety Board and
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in Support of Universal State
Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws
    In November 2010, NTSB updated its Most Wanted List of
Transportation Safety Improvements by adding motorcycle safety to it
and urging all States to require that all persons shall wear a FMVSS
No. 218-compliant motorcycle helmet while riding (operating), or as a
passenger on, any motorcycle.\85\ NTSB released a map of the United
States detailing \86\ which States have full and effective laws and
which States do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/motorcycle_safety.htm.
    \86\ http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/motorcycle_helmet_laws_map_2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, it issued a safety alert \87\ documenting the extent
of the motorcycle safety problem and the contributions that helmets can
make to address that problem. It published the following information
and urged States to enact universal helmet use laws:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The full safety alert is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/SA_012.pdf.

    The grim facts:
     Deaths from motorcycle crashes had more than doubled in
the past decade--from 2,294 in 1998 to 5,290 in 2008--Another 96,000
people were injured in motorcycle crashes in 2008.
     Although there was a decline in 2009, 4,462
motorcyclists, or an average of 12 motorcyclists everyday, were
still lost! Another 90,000 motorcyclists were injured.
     The number of motorcycle deaths in 2009 is more than
double the total number of people killed in 2009 in all aviation,
rail, marine and pipeline accidents combined.
     Head injuries are a leading cause of death in
motorcycle crashes.
     Motorcyclists who crash without a helmet are three
times more likely to have brain injuries than those wearing a
helmet.
     In addition to the tragic loss of life, the economic
cost to society is enormous. In 2005, motorcyclists without helmets
were involved in 36 percent of all motorcycle crashes, but
represented 70 percent of the total cost of all motorcycle crashes--
$12.2 billion.
     Medical and other costs for unhelmeted riders involved
in crashes are staggering, estimated at $310,000 per crash-involved
motorcyclist. That's more than four times the overall cost of
accidents involving helmeted riders.

Helmets save lives

     DOT-compliant helmets (DOT FMVSS 218) are extremely
effective. They can prevent injury and death from motorcycle
crashes.
     Wearing a helmet reduces the overall risk of dying in a
crash by 37%.
     In addition to preventing fatalities, the use of
helmets reduces the need for ambulance service, hospitalization,
intensive care, rehabilitation, and long-term care as a result of
motorcycle crashes.
     Wearing a helmet does not increase the risk of other
types of injury.

Motorcycle helmet laws

     20 states, D.C., and 4 territories require all riders
and passengers to wear helmets; 27 states and 1 territory have
partial laws requiring minors and/or passengers to wear helmets;
currently 3 states, Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire have no helmet
use requirement.
     States that have repealed laws requiring all riders and
passengers to wear helmets have seen dramatically lower helmet usage
rates and significant increases in deaths and injuries.
     Partial laws do not protect younger riders. Only
universal helmet laws significantly reduce fatality rates for riders
aged 15-20.

    In September 2010, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
(AAOS) revised its position statement urging the States to enact laws
requiring the use of motorcycle helmet use laws.\88\ The statement
says, in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ http://www.aaos.org/about/papers/position/1110.asp.

    Orthopaedic surgeons, the medical specialists most often called
upon to treat injuries to cyclists, believe a significant reduction
in fatalities and head injuries could be effected through the
implementation of laws mandating the use of helmets by all
motorcycle and bicycle drivers and passengers. The AAOS strongly
endorses such mandatory helmet laws.
    Numerous studies in various parts of the United States have
shown that helmet use reduces the severity and cost associated with
injuries to motorcycle riders. Federal efforts beginning with the
Highway Safety Act of 1966 achieved the passage of state laws

mandating helmet use and by 1975, 47 states had enacted such laws.
With the Highway Safety Act of 1977, however, Section 208 of which
relaxed the pressure on states to have helmet laws, the federal
government created the opportunity to measure the effectiveness of
helmet use when 27 states repealed their helmet laws in the
following three years.
    Objective analysis of data from the mid 1990s (when helmet laws
were widespread) and the late 1990s (when more than half the states
had repealed such laws) shows clearly that head injuries and
fatalities of motorcycle riders are reduced when motorcyclists wear
helmets.
    Moreover, the costs associated with treating motorcycle riders
head injuries have been demonstrated to be significantly reduced--up
to 80 percent in one university study--when helmet laws are in
effect.
    Recent studies again confirmed that the use of helmets reduces
the risk of mortality and severe head injury with motorcycle riders
who crash, although the former effect may be modified by other crash
factors such as speed.
3. Role of Rider Education
    Another issue raised extensively in comments is rider education.
Many commenters argued that education could play a far larger role in
creating benefits than the current rulemaking action. We agree that
education and safe operating and riding practices are important.
However, for the reasons discussed above near the beginning of this
preamble, such education and practices do not and cannot reduce the
need for enactment and implementation of up-to-date universal State
helmet use laws. Even with education and safe operating and riding
practices, there will continue to be substantial numbers of motorcycle
crashes. As we have shown above, in the event of a crash, wearing a
compliant helmet produces significant benefits at a relatively modest
cost. NHTSA encourages motorcycle operators and riders and drivers of
other motor vehicles to be cognizant of all road traffic and to drive
in a safe manner.
4. Allegations of Potential for Helmets To Cause Harm
    A number of opponents of mandatory helmet use argued that helmets
cause injuries, rather than, or in addition to, alleviating others.
Some commenters stated that helmet use has been linked to neck and
spinal injuries. One commenter \89\ submitted a report describing how
full face helmets have been linked to basal skull fractures due to the
transmission of impact energy from the face bar through the chin strap
and into the skull.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Comment from Dennis Salter, Docket NHTSA 2008-0157-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overwhelming preponderance of data and research demonstrates
the positive effectiveness of compliant helmets. NHTSA has determined
that motorcycle helmets are 37 percent effective in preventing
fatalities \90\ and 35 percent effective in preventing head injuries
\91\ to motorcycle riders. The agency estimates that motorcycle helmets
have saved 1,800 lives in 2008 and an additional 823 lives would have
been saved in that year had helmet use been 100 percent.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness Revisited, March 2004, DOT
HS 809 715, Technical Report, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, NHTSA.
    \91\ Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial Injuries: Crash
Outcomes in CODES-Linked DATA, DOT HIS 811 208, NCSA Technical
Report, NHTSA, October 2009.
    \92\ Lives Saved in 2008 by Restraint Use and Minimum Drinking
Age Laws, DOT HS 811 153, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) data files
from 18 States, the agency examined the relationship between motorcycle
helmet use and motorcycle crash outcomes in terms of head/face injuries
and societal costs. In this data set, 6.6 percent of unhelmeted
motorcyclists suffered a moderate to severe head or facial injury
compared to 5.1 percent of helmeted motorcyclists. Unhelmeted
motorcyclists sustained more severe head injuries than helmeted
motorcyclists and as a result incurred higher hospital charges and
societal costs associated with rehabilitation and lost work time. This
study estimated that motorcycle helmets are 35 percent effective at
preventing head injuries and 27 percent effective at preventing
traumatic brain injury. While helmets were found to effectively
mitigate head and face injuries, their use was not found to increase
neck, thorax, or other body injuries. There were very few neck injuries
in this data set with 0.04 percent unhelmeted motorcyclists and 0.07
percent helmeted motorcyclists sustaining moderate to severe neck
injuries. There was also no significant difference in injury rate and
severity levels between unhelmeted and helmeted motorcyclists for the
neck, thorax, abdomen, and extremity regions.
    An analysis of linked data files of FARS and Multiple Cause of
Death (MCOD) \93\ for the years 2000-2002 showed that among 8,539
motorcyclists (4,412 helmeted motorcyclists, 3,829 unhelmeted
motorcyclists, and 298 motorcyclists with unknown helmet use) 51
percent of unhelmeted riders suffered a head injury as compared to
about 35 percent of the helmeted riders. In addition, 83 percent of
unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities were attributed to head injuries,
while 63 percent of helmeted motorcyclist fatalities were attributed to
head injuries. Neck, thorax, and abdomen injuries were attributed to
the cause of death in 3, 9, and 4 percent of fatally injured unhelmeted
motorcyclists, respectively and to 7, 21, and 8 percent of fatally
injured helmeted motorcyclists, respectively. This data shows that head
injury is the predominant cause of death among motorcyclists and that
death due to head injuries is 20 percent lower among helmeted
motorcyclists than among unhelmeted motorcyclists. The higher
proportion of injuries to other body regions that are attributed to the
cause of death among helmeted motorcyclists is due to the concomitant
lower proportion of fatalities attributed to head injuries and is not
an indication that helmet use causes injuries to these other body
regions, including the neck, thorax, and abdomen. Instead, helmet use
increases the survival rate to the point that more neck, thoracic, and
abdominal injuries are detected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Subramanian, R., Bodily Injury Locations in Fatally Injured
Motorcycle Riders, DOT HS 810 856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the claims of helmet opponents, helmeted motorcyclists
are less likely than unhelmeted motorcyclists to suffer a cervical
spine (neck) injury as a result of a motorcycle crash. These claims are
based on a single, well-refuted study. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety addressed \94\ that study as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ ``Q&As: Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws, Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety,'' available at http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html (Last accessed March 16, 2011).

    Claims have been made that helmets increase the risk of neck
injury and reduce peripheral vision and hearing, but there is no
credible evidence to support these arguments. A study by J.P.
Goldstein often is cited by helmet opponents as evidence that
helmets cause neck injuries, allegedly by adding to head mass in a
crash. More than a dozen studies have refuted Goldstein's findings.
A study reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1994
analyzed 1,153 motorcycle crashes in four Midwestern states and
determined that ``helmets reduce head injuries without an increased
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma.''

(Footnotes omitted.)
    More recent information further refutes that single study. Based on
a retrospective analysis of all registered cases (62,840) of motorcycle
collision in the National Trauma Data Bank that occurred between 2002
and 2006, the authors of a 2010 study found that helmeted motorcyclists
had lower adjusted odds and a lower proportion of cervical spine injury
than unhelmeted ones.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Crompton, J. G., Bone, C., Oyetunji, T., Pollack, K.,
Bolorunduro, O., Villegas, C., Stevens, K., Cornwell III, E. E.,
Efron, D., Haut, E. R.. ``Motorcycle Helmets Associated with Lower
Risk of Cervical Spine Injury: Debunking the Myth.'' Journal of the
American College of Surgeons, 2011; DOI: 10.1016/
j.jamcollsurg.2010.09.032. Available at http://www.dor.state.ne.us/nohs/pdf/HelmetsSpine.pdf (Last accessed March 15, 2011).

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

    The agency evaluated the effect of motorcycle helmet law repeal on
motorcyclist fatalities in Florida,\96\ Kentucky, Louisiana,\97\ Texas,
and Arkansas.\98\ The evaluation showed a significant drop in helmet
use and concomitant increase in fatalities and head injuries among
motorcyclists after the repeal of helmet use laws in each of these
States. Motorcyclist fatalities increased by 81 percent and
motorcyclist hospital admissions for head injuries increased by 82
percent in Florida after the repeal. This increase in motorcyclist
fatalities after the repeal of helmet laws in Florida was more than 40
percent higher than the national average for those years and was
greater than the increase in motorcycle registrations and the vehicle
miles travelled. Similar results were observed in Kentucky, Louisiana,
Texas, and Arkansas after helmet laws were repealed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Evaluation of the Repeal of the All-Rider Motorcycle Helmet
Law in Florida, DOT HS 809 849, August 2005. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/motorcycles/pdf/809849.pdf
    \97\ Evaluation of the Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws in
Kentucky and Louisiana, DOT HS 809 530, October 2003, http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/kentuky-la03/index.html
    \98\ Evaluation of Motorcycle Helmet Law Repeal in Arkansas and
Texas, September 2000, http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/EvalofMotor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data presented in this section clearly demonstrate that the
predominant cause of motorcyclist fatalities is injury to the head and
that helmet use significantly reduces the risk of head injuries. The
effect of helmet use on the risk of injury to other body regions is
small or nonexistent. As a result, the benefits of helmet use far
outweigh any disbenefits that may arise.
5. Allegations That Helmets Reduce Vision and Hearing
    Some opponents of helmet use allege that helmets reduce vision and
hearing. Neither of these allegations have merit.
    Regarding claims that helmets obstruct vision, full-coverage
helmets create only very minor and inconsequential restrictions in
horizontal peripheral vision. Normal peripheral vision is between
100[deg] and 110[deg] to the left, and 100[deg] and 110[deg] to the
right, of straight ahead.\99\ Standard No. 218 requires that helmets
provide 105[deg] of vision to the left and 105[deg] to the right.\100\
Since over 90 percent of crashes happen within a range of 80[deg] to
the left or to the right (with the majority of the remainder occurring
in rear-end collisions), it is clear that helmets do not affect
peripheral vision or contribute to crashes. Further, a 1994 study found
that wearing helmets does not restrict the likelihood of seeing a
vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change.\101\ The
test subjects compensated for the slight narrowing of the field of
vision due to helmet use by rotating their heads slightly farther prior
to making a lane change with no resulting reduction in the likelihood
of their detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ ``Without Motorcycle Helmets We all Pay the Price.''
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/. (Last
accessed March 16, 2011.)
    \100\ S5.4 Configuration of Standard No. 218 provides: * * * The
helmet shall provide peripheral vision clearance of at least
105[deg] to each side of the mid-sagittal plane, when the helmet is
adjusted as specified in S6.3. * * *
    \101\ McKnight, A. J. and McKnight, A. S., ``The Effects of
Motorcycle Helmets Upon Seeing and Hearing.'' February 1994 (DOT HS
808 399).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The allegation regarding effects on hearing is also contradicted by
the 1994 study. In addition to examining the effect of wearing a helmet
on the ability of motorcycle riders operating at normal highway speeds
to visually detect the presence of vehicles in adjacent lanes before
changing lanes, it also examined the effect on riders' ability to
detect traffic sounds. While helmet use had no significant effect on
hearing, wind speed did. As motorcycle speed and thus wind speed
increased, the ability of both helmeted and unhelmeted riders to detect
auditory signals was reduced.
6. Impact of Traumatic Brain Injury on Family, Friends and Co-Workers
    Helmet use opponents argue that they are willing to bear the risks
of their non-use of helmets and therefore should be given the freedom
to do so.
    However, no man is an island. The wish of helmet opponents to ride
unprotected should be weighed together with the impact of traumatic
brain injury on family, friends and co-workers. Helmet opponents do not
alone bear the consequences of the risks they wish to assume, i.e.,
suffering traumatic brain injury as a result of riding unhelmeted. The
interrelatedness of the brain-injured persons, regardless of the
sources or circumstances of injury, was addressed at a conference held
under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health: \102\

    \102\ National Institutes of Health Consensus Development
Conference Statement, Rehabilitation of Persons with Traumatic Brain
Injury, October 26-28, 1998. Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/TBI_1999/NIH_Consensus_Statement.cfm. (Last
visited March 15, 2011)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traumatic brain injury (TBI), broadly defined as brain injury
from externally inflicted trauma, may result in significant
impairment of an individual's physical, cognitive, and psychosocial
functioning. In the United States, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million
people incur TBI each year, principally as a result of vehicular
incidents, falls, acts of violence, and sports accidents. The number
of people surviving TBI with impairment has increased significantly
in recent years, which is attributed to faster and more effective
emergency care, quicker and safer transportation to specialized
treatment facilities, and advances in acute medical management. TBI
affects people of all ages and is the leading cause of long-term
disability among children and young adults.
    Each year, approximately 70,000 to 90,000 individuals incur a
TBI resulting in a long-term, substantial loss of functioning. The
consequences of TBI include a dramatic change in the individual's
life-course, profound disruption of the family, enormous loss of
income or earning potential, and large expenses over a lifetime.
There are approximately 300,000 hospital admissions annually for
persons with mild or moderate TBI, and an additional unknown number
of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) that are not diagnosed but may
result in long-term disability.
    Although TBI may result in physical impairment, the more
problematic consequences involve the individual's cognition,
emotional functioning, and behavior. These impact interpersonal
relationships, school, and work. Cognitive-behavioral remediation,
pharmacologic management, assistive technology, environmental
manipulation, education, and counseling are among currently used
treatments of these sequelae. These treatments are provided in
freestanding rehabilitation hospitals, rehabilitation departments in
general hospitals, a variety of day treatment or residential
programs, skilled nursing facilities, schools, the community, and
the home.
7. Recommended Changes to the Helmet Standard
    Several commenters, including MIC, ASTM, and Snell, provided
extensive recommendations on suggested improvements to the motorcycle
helmet standard. These issues included:
     Reduction of the peak allowable headform acceleration from
400 to 300g.
     Impact attenuation tests for full-facial coverage helmets.
     Adoption of face shield tests, based on VESC-8
specifications.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, Regulation VESC-8,
``Minimum Requirements for Motorcyclists' Eye Protection,'' July
1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Elimination of penetration resistance requirements.
     Test procedures for external rigid projections.
     Addition of a positional stability test.

     New means to measure helmet velocity.
     Reconsideration of the time duration criteria of the
impact attenuation test.

Further, several commenters requested that a FMVSS No. 218 Advisory
Committee should be created to confer with NHTSA and to facilitate more
regular updates of the standard.
    Because this rulemaking action is limited in scope to labeling
upgrades and minor clarifications of test conditions and procedures for
purposes of improving testing and enforceability, we are not making any
of the substantive changes that these commenters requested at this
time. We will continue to assess whether additional improvements should
be made to the standard in the future.
8. Compliance Date
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed a lead time of two years for the
new requirements to become effective. We noted that the changes were
such that helmet manufacturers should not have to purchase new test
equipment or make any structural changes to their helmets to ensure
compliance with the revised tests or updated SAE Recommended Practice
J211. As the only changes being made to the standard are moderate
changes to the labeling requirements and slight clarifications to test
conditions and procedures to facilitate enforcement, we continue to
believe that two years is adequate lead time. In response, MIC
requested that the final rule be clarified to state that it will apply
to helmets manufactured two years after publication of the final rule.
MIC has correctly stated how the amended standard will apply. We do not
believe the regulatory text needs to be modified to provide additional
clarity on this point.

IV. Estimated Costs and Benefits

    The total benefits deriving from this final rule depends upon how
many motorcycle riders in States having motorcycle helmet use laws
(``Law States'') will change from using noncompliant helmets (novelty
helmets) to FMVSS No. 218-certified helmets. As NHTSA does not have a
reliable method of estimating how many riders may switch based on this
final rule, we have created three reference scenarios, reflecting
conditions where different numbers of users switched from novelty
helmets to FMVSS No. 218-compliant helmets. Because we expect that most
of the effects of this rule will come from the improved enforcement due
to the labeling changes, we have limited the potential pool of
switching riders to those in States with universal helmet laws. As the
three scenarios show, while the scale of the overall costs and benefits
changes dramatically depending on how many riders switch, the net cost
per life saved remains relatively constant in all scenarios.
    The estimated benefits are as follows. If 5 percent of the novelty
helmet users in universal helmet law States make a switch (i.e., the 5-
percent scenario), the rule would save 22 to 38 lives. Under the 10-
percent scenario, the final rule would save 44 to 75 lives. The rule
would potentially save a maximum of 438 to 754 lives if all novelty
helmet users in States with universal helmet laws switched to compliant
helmets. Due to relatively small sample of non-fatal head injuries to
fatal head injuries, the impact of the rule on non-fatal head injuries
would be negligible.
    There are two components to the total cost of the final rule. These
are the incremental cost to manufacturers for implementing the
recommended labeling requirements and the incremental cost to novelty
helmet users who switch to use a FMVSS No. 218-certified helmet. With
regard to the increased costs of labeling, the cost to manufacturers is
estimated to be two cents per helmet. We do not believe that the other
changes to the standard will result in significant costs to
manufacturers or testers of helmets. For a total estimate of 5.2
million certified helmets manufactured per year, the cost translates to
$0.1 million.
    With regard to the costs to consumers, the incremental cost per
replaced novelty helmet is estimated to be $46.02. Annually, an
estimated 45,979, 91,958, and 919,579 novelty helmets sold in States
with universal helmet laws would be replaced by compliant helmets for
the 5-, 10-, and 100-percent scenarios, respectively. The corresponding
total cost to novelty helmet users who switch to compliant helmets
would be $2.1, $4.2, and $42.3 million. Considering the two factors,
the total costs of the final rule would be:
     $2.2 million for the 5-percent scenario (= $0.1 + $2.1
million)
     $4.3 million for the 10-percent scenario (= $0.1 + $4.2
million)
     $42.4 million for the 100-percent scenario (= $0.1 + $42.3
million).
    No matter what scenario is used, the net cost per equivalent life
saved, discounted at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, is less
than $150,000. The net cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to
range from $62,479 to $110,998 at a 3 percent rate and $71,180 to
$130,586 at a 7 percent discount rate. The higher bound is from the
100-percent scenario and the lower bound is from the 5-percent
scenario. These figures are well below the $6.23 million per life saved
threshold that the agency generally takes into consideration when
promulgating rulemaking.

                         Table 12--Net Cost per Equivalent Life Saved by Three Scenarios
                                                 [2008 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         3% Discount rate                7% Discount rate
                    Scenarios                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Low            High             Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Percent.......................................         $65,293        $110,998         $73,998        $130,586
10-Percent......................................          63,763         108,398          73,490         123,883
100-Percent.....................................          62,479         107,673          71,180         122,610
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has also conducted a net benefit analysis for this final
rule. A net benefit analysis differs from a cost effectiveness analysis
in that it requires that benefits be assigned a monetary value. This
benefit value is compared to the monetary value of costs to derive a
net benefit. The net benefits can range from $103.8 to $4,190.8
million. The lower range of the net benefits represents the benefit of
the final rule for the 5-percent scenario using a 7 percent discount
rate and the high end represents the maximum potential benefits using a
3 percent discount rate. Both of these are based on a $6.1 million
comprehensive value for preventing a fatality, adjusted to $6.23
million to account for inflation.

                         Table 13--Net Benefits With $6.23 M Comprehensive Cost per Life
                                          [In millions of 2008 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        At 3% discount rate             At 7% discount rate
                    Scenarios                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Low            High             Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Percent.......................................        $122.5 M        $209.8 M        $103.8 M        $184.8 M
10-Percent......................................         245.0 M         419.6 M         213.9 M         363.5 M
100-Percent.....................................       2,414.0 M       4,190.8 M       2,114.7 M       3,673.3 M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Related Issues for Future Action

    While this final rule will make it easier for State and local law
enforcement officials to enforce State laws requiring the use of FMVSS
No. 218-compliant helmets, the agency anticipates that only a low
percentage of motorcyclists using novelty helmets in States that have a
universal helmet use law will switch to using compliant helmets. The
agency's survey data indicates that in 2010, 22 percent of
motorcyclists in States with a universal helmet use law wore novelty
helmets while this was 11 percent in 2009. The popularity of novelty
helmets may be related to a variety of factors, including opposition of
some motorcyclists to helmet use laws, the lower cost of novelty
helmets compared to compliant helmets, marketing strategies, and the
ease of purchasing novelty helmets. Even in states with universal
helmet use laws, motorcyclists are purchasing novelty helmets for on-
road use despite disclaimers by retailers and manufacturers of novelty
helmets stating that they are not intended for on-road use and are not
protective gear and despite general knowledge among most motorcyclists
in those states that wearing a novelty helmet does not meet those laws.
As the Governors Highway Safety Association noted in its comments,

    [T]there is a growing problem with evasion of mandatory
motorcycle laws in all states. Novelty helmets use is popular among
a large segment of motorcycle riders, and these helmets do not meet
FMVSS 218 standards, nor are they in compliance with a state's
motorcycle helmet law. Many of these riders use the novelty helmets
as a means of expressing displeasure with mandatory motorcycle
helmet laws. They are also using counterfeit ``DOT'' stickers on
these helmets so as to appear to be in compliance with the federal
standards when, in fact, they are not in compliance. * * *
* * * * *
    GHSA applauds the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
for promulgating this NPRM and directly addressing a problem that is
a growing and pervasive one. Developing a regulation in the face of
a vocal minority that opposes helmet laws and flagrantly violates
those laws is not an easy task. We encourage the Agency to move
forward and finalize this NPRM as quickly as possible so that helmet
manufacturers can begin to produce helmets that meet the new
standards and law enforcement officers will have the information
they need to enforce improper helmet use.

    Therefore, in order to increase further the percentage of
motorcyclists who wear helmets that provide adequate head impact
protection, the agency is assessing other actions that should be taken
to address the marketing and selling of novelty helmets to
motorcyclists for on-road use. In making that assessment, the agency is
considering a variety of issues, including the following ones.

a. Are there examples of novelty ``safety'' equipment other than
novelty helmets?

    The agency is unaware of any motor vehicle equipment manufacturers
that produce both compliant and ``novelty'' noncompliant versions of
those items of equipment. For example, manufacturers of seat belts that
comply with FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' or child seats
that comply with FMVSS Nos. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' and 225,
``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' do not also produce ``novelty''
seat belts or child seats that they declare, explicitly or implicitly,
are not intended to provide protection, are not motor vehicle equipment
subject to the FMVSSs and do not comply with them. Likewise, the agency
is unaware of any manufacturers that produce only novelty safety belts
or child seats. In either case, it is difficult to imagine any
manufacturer, importer or seller of seat belts or child seats arguing
that their seat belts or child seats are not motor vehicle equipment
and making statements similar to the following disclaimer about their
seat belts--

    Novelty seat belts are intended for display. They are not
intended to be used in motor vehicles and are not designed to
provide protection in a crash. Their use in a crash may result in
serious injury. Use this seat belt at your own risk.

or child seats--

    Novelty child seats are intended for display. They are not
intended to be used in motor vehicles and are not designed to
provide protection in a crash. Their use in a crash may result in
serious injury. Use this child seat at your own risk.

b. Where are novelty helmets manufactured?

    Although novelty helmets are typically not labeled with either the
name or location of their manufacturer, the agency believes that few of
the novelty helmets are manufactured in the United States. NHTSA
believes that a very high percentage of them are, instead, manufactured
in South Asia or Southeast Asia.

c. How do novelty helmet manufacturers, importers and dealers attempt
to rationalize their manufacture, importation and sale of noncompliant,
non-protective helmets?

    Despite widespread knowledge among motorcyclists that novelty
motorcycle helmets do not meet federal safety performance requirements
and are used nevertheless primarily by motorcyclists while riding on
public roads and highways, importers and sellers of novelty helmets
continue to produce, import and sell novelty motorcycle helmets.
Although novelty motorcycle helmets are--
    (1) Often either sold online on the same Web sites, even the same
webpages, as FMVSS No. 218 compliant helmets, or by businesses that
also sell motorcycles or motorcycle related products,
    (2) documented by NHTSA as being used by as many as 22 percent
(2010) of motorcyclists in States with motorcycle helmet use laws, and
    (3) only minimally used for any purpose other than while riding a
motorcycle, sellers of novelty helmets provide disclaimers like the
following one to consumers:

    Novelty motorcycle helmets are for display or show purposes
only. They are not intended to be used in motor vehicles and are not
designed to provide protection in a crash. Their use in a crash may
result in serious injury. Use at your own risk.

    At least some novelty helmet manufacturers affix to their helmets a
label bearing similar statements. Novelty helmet manufacturers do not,

however, typically affix any sort of label identifying themselves as
the manufacturers. In contrast, manufacturers of compliant helmets
attach a label to each of their helmets clearly identifying themselves,
as required by FMVSS No. 218.

d. Is it permissible to sell noncompliant helmets in a state that does
not have a law requiring the use of helmets?

    If a type of equipment is an item of ``motor vehicle equipment''
within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act \104\ and is subject to a
FMVSS, but does not comply with that standard, it is impermissible to
manufacture, import or sell that equipment in any state in the United
States, regardless of whether that state requires the use of such
equipment for some or all motorcyclists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This rulemaking action amends FMVSS No. 218 to help reduce the use
of novelty helmets and improve enforceability of that Standard. This
action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. The agency has considered the impact of this
action under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has determined that it
is not ``significant'' under them.
    NHTSA has prepared a final regulatory evaluation for this action
that discusses its potential benefits, costs, and other impacts. A
summary of those impacts appears immediately before this section. A
copy of the evaluation has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking action.
    The evaluation suggests several aspects of this action that could
directly or indirectly result in costs to consumers or industry. First,
the agency believes that this rule will indirectly induce 5 to 10
percent of novelty helmet users, in States that have a universal helmet
use law, to make a switch to purchase and use FMVSS No. 218-compliant
helmets. We believe this is a reasonable assumption given that this
rule will make it easier for law enforcement personnel to distinguish
between helmets that have been certified to FMVSS No. 218 and novelty
helmets to which misleading look-alike ``certification'' labels have
been attached by users to create the misleading appearance of a
certified helmet. This greater ease of identification is expected to
lead to greater enforcement efforts and thus increased compliance with
State motorcycle helmet use laws.
    Second, this action amends labeling requirements that will cause
helmet manufacturers to bear minimal costs and will not necessitate any
changes to existing designs. The agency estimates that the cost of the
labeling requirement will not exceed $0.02 per helmet.
    Third, this rule adds tolerances to the compliance tests of FMVSS
No. 218 and clarifies language in the standard to provide clear
guidance to manufacturers on conducting compliance tests and to enable
the agency to better undertake enforcement actions when a noncompliance
is discovered. However, we do not believe that it will result in
significant expenses or changes in helmet design or manufacture or
testing procedures. Further information about the benefits and costs of
this rulemaking action may be found above in Section IV of this
preamble.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule imposes minimal cost burdens on
helmet manufacturers, on the order of 2 cents per helmet. While the
costs of designing a unique certification label for each model of
helmet depend on the number of units of the model manufactured and sold
(and therefore may cost more on a per-helmet basis for small
manufacturers), the costs are still minimal compared to the overall
cost of manufacturing a compliant motorcycle helmet. I certify that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the consultation already conducted and the rulemaking
process.
    The agency's proposals regarding the issue of misleading labels on
novelty helmets are based on substantial analysis of the needs of law
enforcement personnel and the concerns of manufacturers. In 2005,
NHTSA's Office of Traffic Injury Control and Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance conducted an informal telephone survey of seven law
enforcement offices,\105\ a law enforcement organization,\106\ and five
motorcycle helmet manufacturers to discuss the problem of misleading
``DOT'' symbols. Respondents were asked their opinion on various
approaches to the problem, the advantages and disadvantages of
suggested approaches, and on other changes in the requirements that
could help identify noncompliant helmets. Additionally, NHTSA published
a Motorcycle Safety Program Plan on July 3, 2006. This plan discussed--
among other topics--proposed initiatives to amend FMVSS No. 218 to
address the problem of misleading labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The seven law enforcement offices surveyed were Pittsburgh
Bureau of Police; Louisiana State Police; Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation; Canadian Officers; Riverside, California Police
Department; Nebraska State Police; and the Maryland Department of
Transportation.
    \106\ The law enforcement organization surveyed was the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Law Enforcement
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in response to the NPRM, the agency received
supportive comments from the Governors Highway Safety Association and
the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. The Governors
Highway Safety Association said: \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Docket NHTSA-2008-0157-0021.

    One of the most effective strategies for reducing motorcycle
fatalities is to encourage the use of motorcycle helmets. As noted
in the NPRM, motorcycle helmets are 37% effective in reducing
fatalities. Few other countermeasures can boast such a high level of
effectiveness. GHSA strongly supports mandatory motorcycle helmet
laws for all riders and encourages the thirty states without such
laws to enact them.

    Not only do many states fail to have the most protective
motorcycle helmet laws, there is a growing problem with evasion of
mandatory motorcycle laws in all states. Novelty helmets use is
popular among a large segment of motorcycle riders, and these
helmets do not meet FMVSS 218 standards, nor are they in compliance
with a state's motorcycle helmet law. Many of these riders use the
novelty helmets as a means of expressing displeasure with mandatory
motorcycle helmet laws. They are also using counterfeit ``DOT''
stickers on these helmets so as to appear to be in compliance with
the federal standards when, in fact, they are not in compliance.
    NHTSA has recently conducted testing of these noncompliant
helmets and found that they do not provide the rider with adequate
coverage. The analysis indicated that the novelty helmets provide
``minimal protection during a crash.'' GHSA is also unaware of any
evidence to support claims that fake DOT labels are being used for
any purposes other than counterfeiting. In short, novelty helmets
are dangerous, and bogus DOT stickers are misleading.
    It is GHSA's position that all states with mandatory motorcycle
helmet laws should enforce them and ensure that motorcycle riders
are using DOT-compliant helmets. The Association also strongly
supports any changes to FMVSS 218 that would make it easier for law
enforcement personnel to enforce their states' motorcycle helmet
laws.
    Accordingly, GHSA strongly supports the changes in the
motorcycling helmet labeling requirements proposed in this NPRM. By
requiring a water decal beneath the clear coating for the helmet,
the label is more likely to be tamper-proof. It will be easier for
law enforcement to determine whether the label was part of the
manufacturing process or simply a decal affixed afterwards. By
specifying that the manufacturer's name or brand and model
designation be included in the outside label and by allowing the
manufacturers to use several different formats, it will be more
difficult for counterfeit label producers to develop a single bogus
decal. By requiring the word ``certified,'' it will put the onus on
legitimate manufacturers of helmets to stand by their products and
will clarify that ``certified'' is a modifier to ``DOT'' and that
the ``DOT'' does not have some other meaning.

The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs provided
similarly supportive comments: \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Docket NHTSA-2008-0157-0161.

    * * * WASPC believes the proposed rule changes for FMVSS 218 are
reasonable and if approved will help reduce misleading labeling of
novelty helmets that creates the impression that uncertified, non-
compliant motorcycle helmets have been properly certified as
compliant.
    The new motorcycle helmet rule changes would help realize the
full potential of compliant helmets by assisting law enforcement
officers in Washington State with enforcing the state helmet use
laws, thereby increasing the percentage of motorcycle riders wearing
compliant helmets.
    The use of the motorcycle safety helmet is the single most
critical factor in the prevention and reduction of head injuries for
motorcycle riders. Safety helmets that comply with FMVSS 218 are a
significantly effective injury countermeasure.

    The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant further consultation with
State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement. The final rule would not have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.

d. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

e. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    FMVSS No. 218 is largely based on ANSI Z90.1-1971, ``Specifications
for Protective Headgear for Vehicular Users,'' and incorporates the SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1, revised March 1995, ``Instrumentation for
Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation,'' both of which are
voluntary consensus standards. While the Snell Memorial Foundation also
produces helmet specifications (e.g., the 2005 and 2010 Helmet
Standards for use in Motorcycling), the agency continues to base its
standard on the ANSI specification, as the purpose of this rulemaking
action is to make minor changes and clarifications to the standard for
labeling and enforcement purposes, and we have not analyzed the
effectiveness of the Snell standard.

f. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule would
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.

g. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

h. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final
rule does not contain any new reporting requirements or requests for
information.

i. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires, Motorcycle helmets.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part
571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.5 by revising paragraph (l)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, revised March 1995,
``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation''
into Sec. Sec.  571.202a; 571.208; 571.218; 571.403.
* * * * *

0
3. Sec.  571.218 is amended by adding two definitions in alphabetical
order in S4, by adding S5.6.2, by revising S5.6.1, S6.4.1, S7.1.2,
S7.1.4(a) and (b), S7.1.9, S7.2.4, S7.2.6, S7.2.7, S7.3.1, and S7.3.2,
and by revising Table 1, Figure 7, and Figure 8 to read as follows:

Sec.  571.218  Standard No. 218; Motorcycle Helmets.

* * * * *
    S4 Definitions
* * * * *
    Discrete size means a numerical value that corresponds to the
diameter of an equivalent circle representing the helmet interior in
inches ( 0.25 inch) or to the circumference of the
equivalent circle in centimeters ( 0.64 centimeters).
* * * * *
    Impact site means the point on the helmet where the helmet shell
first contacts the test anvil during the impact attenuation test.
* * * * *
    S5.6.1 On a label or labels separate from the certification label
required by S5.6.2, each helmet shall be labeled permanently and
legibly, in a manner such that the label(s) can be read easily without
removing padding or any other permanent part, with the following:
    (a) Manufacturer's name.
    (b) Discrete size.
    (c) Month and year of manufacture. This may be spelled out (for
example, June 2010), or expressed in numerals (for example, 6/10).
    (d) Instructions to the purchaser as follows:
    (1) ``Shell and liner constructed of (identify type(s) of
materials).''
    (2) ``Helmet can be seriously damaged by some common substances
without damage being visible to the user. Apply only the following:
(Recommended cleaning agents, paints, adhesives, etc., as
appropriate).''
    (3) ``Make no modifications. Fasten helmet securely. If helmet
experiences a severe blow, return it to the manufacturer for
inspection, or destroy it and replace it.''
    (4) Any additional relevant safety information should be applied at
the time of purchase by means of an attached tag, brochure, or other
suitable means.
    S5.6.2 Certification. Each helmet shall be labeled permanently and
legibly with a label, constituting the manufacturer's certification
that the helmet conforms to the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, that is separate from the label(s) used to comply with
S5.6.1, and complies with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Content, format, and appearance. The label required by
paragraph S5.6.2 shall have the following content, format, and
appearance:
    (1) The symbol ``DOT,'' horizontally centered on the label, in
letters not less than 0.38 inch (1.0 cm) high.
    (2) The term ``FMVSS No. 218,'' horizontally centered beneath the
symbol DOT, in letters not less than 0.09 inches (0.23 cm) high.
    (3) The word ``CERTIFIED,'' horizontally centered beneath the term

``FMVSS No. 218,'' in letters not less than 0.09 inches (0.23 cm) high.
    (4) The precise model designation, horizontally centered above the
symbol DOT, in letters and/or numerals not less than 0.09 inch (0.23
cm) high.
    (5) The manufacturer's name and/or brand, horizontally centered
above the model designation, in letters and/or numerals not less than
0.09 inch (0.23 cm) high.
    (6) All symbols, letters and numerals shall be in a color that
contrasts with the background of the label.
    (b) Other information. No information, other than the information
specified in subparagraph (a), shall appear on the label.
    (c) Location. The label shall appear on the outer surface of the
helmet and be placed so that it is centered laterally with the
horizontal centerline of the DOT symbol located a minimum of 1 inch
(2.5 cm) and a maximum of 3 inches (7.6 cm) from the bottom edge of the
posterior portion of the helmet.
* * * * *
    S6.4.1 Immediately before conducting the testing sequence specified
in S7, condition each test helmet in accordance with any one of the
following procedures:
    (a) Ambient conditions. Expose to any temperature from 61 [deg]F to
and including 79 [deg]F (from 16 [deg]C to and including 26 [deg]C) and
any relative humidity from 30 to and including 70 percent for a minimum
of 4 hours.
    (b) Low temperature. Expose to any temperature from 5 [deg]F to and
including 23 [deg]F (from -15 [deg]C to and including -5 [deg]C) for a
minimum of 4 hours and no more than 24 hours.
    (c) High temperature. Expose to any temperature from 113 [deg]F to
and including 131 [deg]F (from 45 [deg]C to and including 55 [deg]C)
for a minimum of 4 hours and no more than 24 hours.
    (d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at any temperature from 61
[deg]F to and including 79 [deg]F (from 16 [deg]C to and including 26
[deg]C) for a minimum of 4 hours and no more than 24 hours.
* * * * *
    S7.1.2 Each helmet is impacted at four sites with two successive
impacts at each site. Two of these sites are impacted upon a flat steel
anvil and two upon a hemispherical steel anvil as specified in S7.1.10
and S7.1.11. The impact sites are at any point on the area above the
test line described in paragraph S6.2.3, and separated by a distance
not less than one-sixth of the maximum circumference of the helmet in
the test area. For each site, the location where the helmet first
contacts the anvil on the second impact shall not be greater than 0.75
inch (1.9 cm) from the location where the helmet first contacts the
anvil on the first impact.
* * * * *
    S7.1.4(a) The guided free fall drop height for the helmet and test
headform combination onto the hemispherical anvil shall be such that
the impact speed is any speed from 16.4 ft/s to and including 17.7 ft/s
(from 5.0 m/s to and including 5.4 m/s).
    (b) The guided free fall drop height for the helmet and test
headform combination onto the flat anvil shall be such that the impact
speed is any speed from 19.0 ft/s to and including 20.3 ft/s (from 5.8
m/s to and including 6.2 m/s).
* * * * *
    S7.1.9 The acceleration transducer is mounted at the center of
gravity of the test headform with the sensitive axis aligned to within
5[deg] of vertical when the test headform assembly is in the data
impact position. The acceleration data channel complies with the SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1, revised March 1995 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  571.5) requirements for channel class 1,000.''
* * * * *
    S7.2.4 The height of the guided free fall is 118.1  0.6
in (3  0.015 m), as measured from the striker point to the
impact point on the outer surface of the test helmet.
* * * * *
    S7.2.6 The weight of the penetration striker is not less than 6
pounds, 8 ounces and not more than 6 pounds, 12 ounces (2.95 to 3.06
kg).
    S7.2.7 The point of the striker has an included angle of 60  0.5[deg], a cone height of 1.5  0.015 in. (3.8
 0.038 cm), a tip radius of 0.02  0.004 in.
(0.5  0.1 mm), and a minimum hardness of 60 Rockwell, C-
scale.
* * * * *
    S7.3.1 The retention system test is conducted by applying a quasi-
static tensile load at any rate from 0.4 to and including 1.2 inch/min
(from 1.0 to and including 3.0 cm/min) to the retention assembly of a
complete helmet, which is mounted, as described in S6.3, on a
stationary test headform as shown in Figure 4, and by measuring the
movement of the adjustable portion of the retention system test device
under tension.
    S7.3.2 The retention system test device consists of both an
adjustable loading mechanism by which a quasi-static tensile load is
applied at any rate from 0.4 to and including 1.2 inch/min (from 1.0 to
and including 3.0 cm/min) to the helmet retention assembly and a means
for holding the test headform and helmet stationary. The retention
assembly is fastened around two freely moving rollers, both of which
have a 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) diameter and a 3 inch (7.6 cm) center-to-
center separation, and which are mounted on the adjustable portion of
the tensile loading device (Figure 4). The helmet is fixed on the test
headform as necessary to ensure that it does not move during the
application of the test loads to the retention assembly.
* * * * *

    Table 1--Weight Ranges for Impact Attenuation Test Drop Assembly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Test headform size                Weight range \1\--lb kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small.....................................  7.6-8.0 (3.4-3.6)
Medium....................................  10.8-11.2 (4.9-5.1)
Large.....................................  13.2-13.6 (6.0-6.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Combined weight of instrumented test headform and supporting
  assembly for drop test.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY11.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY11.001

    Issued: May 3, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-11367 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C