27882 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2010, has a compliance time of ‘‘before the 

next flight after the effective date of this AD.′′ 

This AD requires that the actions be done 

within 7 days after the effective date of AD 

2010–24–08. 

(2) EASA AD 2010–0208–E, dated October 

12, 2010, allows the flightcrew to inspect the 

emergency brake system number 2 specified 

in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin 

F50–515, dated October 12, 2010. However, 

this AD requires the inspection to be 

performed by certificated maintenance 

personnel. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(j) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 

227–1149. Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

Related Information 

(k) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2010–0208– 

E, dated October 12, 2010; and Dassault 

Service Bulletin F50–515, dated October 12, 

2010; for related information. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use Dassault Service Bulletin 

F50–515, dated October 12, 2010, to do the 

actions required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Dassault Service Bulletin F50– 

515, dated October 12, 2010, on December 9, 

2010 (75 FR 71530, November 24, 2010). 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 

2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606; 

telephone 201–440–6700; Internet http:// 

www.dassaultfalcon.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 

2011. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11329 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1217 

RIN 3041–AC79 

Safety Standard for Toddler Beds 

Correction 

In rule document 2011–9421 

beginning on page 22019 in the issue of 

Wednesday, April 20, 2011, make the 

following correction: 

§ 1217.2 [Corrected] 

On page 22029, in § 1217.2(c)(6), at 

the bottom of the page, insert 

§§ 1217.2(c)(6)(iii), 1217.2(c)(6)(iv), and 

1217.2(c)(7), which should read: 

(iii) 8.4.4 Toddler beds that convert 

from a full-size crib, also known as 

convertible cribs, must meet the 

warning requirements specified in 

section 8 of ASTM F 1169–10, instead 

of the requirements of 8.4.3. See 16 CFR 

Part 1219 for complete requirements for 

full-size cribs. 

(iv) 8.4.5 Any toddler bed that can 

convert from a full-size crib, and has the 

warning specified in section 8.1.3 of 

ASTM F 1169–10, must include 

additional text at the end of that 

warning that specifies the minimum 

mattress thickness of 4 inches (100 mm). 

See 16 CFR Part 1219 for complete 

requirements for full-size cribs. 

(7) In addition to figure 10 of ASTM 

F 1821–09, use the following: 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–9421 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0104 

16 CFR Part 1512 

RIN 3041–AC95 

Requirements for Bicycles 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,′′ ‘‘Commission,′′ or 

‘‘we′′) is amending its bicycle 

regulations. The amendments make 

minor changes to the existing 

regulations to reflect new technologies, 

designs, and features in bicycles by 

clarifying that certain provisions or 

testing requirements do not apply to 

specific bicycles or bicycle parts. The 

amendments also clarify several 

ambiguous and confusing provisions. 

The final rule also corrects 

typographical errors and removes an 

outdated reference. 

DATES: The rule is effective June 13, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vincent J. Amodeo, Mechanical 

Engineer, Directorate for Engineering 

Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; e-mail 

vamodeo@cpsc.gov; telephone 301–504– 

7570. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

CPSC regulations, at 16 CFR part 

1512, establish requirements for 

bicycles pursuant to the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act. The 

regulations were first promulgated in 

1978 (43 FR 60034 (Dec. 22, 1978)), with 

minor amendments in 1980 (45 FR 

82627 (Dec. 16, 1980)), 1981 (46 FR 

3204 (Jan. 14, 1981)), 1995 (60 FR 62990 

(Dec. 8, 1995)), and 2003 (68 FR 7073 

(Feb. 12, 2003)); 68 FR 52691 (Sept. 5, 

2003)). 

In recent years, there have been 

technological changes in bicycle design 

and in the materials used to 

manufacture bicycles that have caused 

some bicycle manufacturers to question 

the applicability of a particular CPSC 

regulation or to seek changes to the 

regulations. Additionally, the enactment 

of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

Public Law 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016, has 

resulted in new testing and certification 

requirements for children’s products. 

The Commission recognizes that there 

have been many changes in bicycle 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 27883 

technology, material, and design since 

the bicycle regulations were 

promulgated. The Commission intends 

to undertake a comprehensive review of 

the bicycle regulations at a future point 

to determine how these regulations 

might be further amended to address the 

changes that have taken place. 

In the Federal Register of November 

1, 2010 (75 FR 67043), we issued a 

proposed rule that would amend 16 CFR 

part 1512. The proposed rule would 

make minor changes to the existing 

regulations to reflect new technologies, 

designs and features in bicycles by 

clarifying that certain provisions or 

testing requirements do not apply to 

specific bicycles or bicycle parts. The 

proposal also would clarify several 

ambiguous and confusing provisions, 

correct typographical errors, and delete 

an outdated reference. 

The proposed rule also was intended 

to facilitate the testing and certification 

requirements of section 14 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 

15 U.S.C. 2063, as amended by section 

102 of the CPSIA. Section 14 of the 

CPSA requires manufacturers and 

private labelers of a product subject to 

a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

to certify compliance of the product 

with such rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation. Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA 

requires that certifications for 

nonchildren’s products be based on a 

test of each product or upon a 

reasonable testing program. Section 

14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that 

certifications for children’s products be 

based on tests conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body (also commonly 

referred to as a third party laboratory or 

simply as a laboratory). Under section 

14(a)(3) of the CPSA, the requirement to 

third-party test children’s products 

applies to products manufactured more 

than 90 days after the CPSC has 

established and published notice of the 

requirements for accreditation of third 

party conformity assessment bodies to 

assess conformity with a particular rule. 

In the Federal Register of September 2, 

2009 (74 FR 45428), the CPSC published 

a notice of the requirements for 

accreditation of third party conformity 

assessment bodies to assess conformity 

with 16 CFR part 1512. 

However, in the Federal Register of 

February 9, 2009 (74 FR 6396), the 

Commission published a notice 

announcing that it had stayed, for one 

year, the testing and certification 

requirements of section 14 of the CPSA 

as applied to 16 CFR part 1512, and 

most other CPSC regulations. The stay 

was intended to give the CPSC time to 

address many issues raised by the 

CPSIA’s testing and certification 

requirements (Id. at 6397). Later, in the 

Federal Register of December 28, 2009 

(74 FR 68588), the Commission 

published a notice that revised the 

terms of the stay. The Commission 

maintained the stay on the testing and 

certification requirements for the 

bicycle regulations until May 17, 2010, 

because there was insufficient 

laboratory capacity for third party 

testing of bicycles at that time (Id. at 

68590). The Commission invited bicycle 

manufacturers and laboratories to 

petition the Commission for additional 

relief if the extension of the stay proved 

insufficient. 

On April 1, 2010, the Bicycle 

Products Suppliers Association (BPSA), 

which describes itself as an association 

of suppliers of bicycles, parts, 

accessories, and services who serve 

specialty bicycle retailers, petitioned the 

Commission for an additional extension 

of the stay. (The petition can be found 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for the docket number for this 

rulemaking.) The BPSA contended that 

there still was insufficient laboratory 

capacity to handle testing of children’s 

bicycles. It also asserted that 16 CFR 

part 1512 is out of date in many 

respects, stated its understanding that 

the CPSC may commence rulemaking to 

revise part 1512 in the near future, and 

urged the Commission to begin such 

rulemaking. The BPSA suggested that 

the Commission maintain the stay on 

testing and certification of bicycles until 

such a rulemaking concludes, or for an 

additional year. 

On May 3, 2010, CPSC staff met with 

representatives of the BPSA to discuss 

the petition. (A summary of the meeting 

can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

library/foia/meetings/mtg10/ 

bpsa102.pdf.) On June 17, 2010, the 

Commission published a notice in the 

Federal Register extending the stay on 

testing and certification requirements 

for bicycles until August 14, 2010, with 

two exceptions (75 FR 34360). First, 

because laboratory capacity, at that 

time, was still insufficient to assess 

compliance with the reflector 

requirements at 16 CFR 1512.16, the 

Commission extended the stay as it 

related to bicycle reflectors, until 

November 14, 2010 (Id.). The 

Commission allowed the additional 

three-month period for the development 

of CPSC-accepted laboratory capacity 

for bicycle reflector testing. Second, the 

Commission excluded bicycles with 

nonquill-type stems from the 

requirement to certify compliance with 

the handlebar stem insertion mark 

requirement at 16 CFR 1512.6(a); 

bicycles with nonquill-type stems may 

not be able to comply with the insertion 

mark requirement. 

(A stem is the part of a bicycle that 

connects the handlebars to the ‘‘steerer′′ 

or upper part of the bicycle fork [the 

part of the bicycle that holds the front 

wheel and can turn to steer the bicycle]. 

A quill-type stem is a stem that is 

inserted into the steerer. Most older 

bicycles use a quill-type stem, but 

newer bicycles may use other means to 

connect the stem to the fork. For 

example, a ‘‘threadless′′ stem clamps 

onto the outside of the steerer [rather 

than having the stem go inside the 

steerer], and so we will refer to such 

other types of stems as ‘‘nonquill-type 

stems.′′) 

In its letter responding to the BPSA’s 

petition, the Commission 

communicated its decision to extend the 

stay until August 14, 2010, with the two 

exceptions for reflector testing and 

stems. We stated that we are aware that 

16 CFR part 1512 does not adequately 

address some new technologies, 

designs, or materials, and we asked that 

manufacturers who believe that they are 

unable to certify current designs to 16 

CFR part 1512 provide the Commission 

with specific information regarding 

which provisions of the current 

regulations are problematic, which 

models or classes of bicycles are 

affected, and an explanation of the 

issue. 

In response, on June 4, 2010, the 

BPSA sent a chart to the CPSC 

identifying areas in the bicycle 

regulations that the BPSA considered 

problematic for certification. This chart 

differed slightly from a chart that the 

BPSA had provided informally to CPSC 

staff earlier in 2010. We considered both 

charts in the process of developing the 

proposed rule. (Both charts can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for the docket number for this 

rulemaking.) 

Consequently, in the Federal Register 

of November 1, 2010 (75 FR 67043), we 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking recommending several 

changes to the bicycle regulations meant 

to address some of the issues raised by 

the BPSA, and ease the burden on 

bicycle manufacturers by exempting 

specific bicycles or bicycle parts from 

certain requirements, clarifying 

ambiguous and confusing provisions, 

correcting several typographical errors 

and deleting an outdated provision. The 

preamble to the proposed rule also 

acknowledged that bicycle technologies, 

designs, and features have changed 

dramatically since 16 CFR part 1512 

was originally promulgated, but stated 

that we cannot conduct a 

comprehensive review of the bicycle 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

27884 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations in the timeframe that is 

necessary for implementing the testing 

and certification requirements of section 

14 of the CPSA (75 FR at 67044). 

Accordingly, the proposed rule would 

make only limited amendments to 16 

CFR part 1512 to facilitate testing and 

certification of bicycles in accordance 

with section 14 of the CPSA. The 

Commission is staying testing and 

certification requirements for bicycle 

reflectors until November 14, 2011 

because there currently are no CPSCrecognized laboratories that can test for 

compliance with the reflector 

requirements at 16 CFR 1512.16. 

II. Comments on the Proposed Rule, the 

CPSC’s Responses, and Description of 

the Final Rule 

A. Introduction 

We received 13 comments to the 

proposed rule. We received comments 

from individuals, a bicycle 

manufacturer and retailer, a consumer 

advocacy organization, and the BPSA. 

In brief, several commenters supported 

the rule whereas other commenters 

either sought a more comprehensive 

review of the bicycle regulations or 

opposed the rule because we had not 

conducted a more comprehensive 

review of the bicycle regulations. Other 

commenters sought changes that were 

specific to certain bicycle parts, such as 

brakes and clipless pedals. Several 

commenters addressed topics that were 

outside the scope of the rulemaking, 

such as suggesting changes to 

information on the CPSC’s Web site. 

We describe and respond to the 

comments in section II of this document 

and also describe the final rule. To make 

it easier to identify the comments and 

our responses, the word ‘‘Comment,′′ in 

parentheses, will appear before the 

comment’s description, and the word 

‘‘Response,′′ in parentheses, will appear 

before our response. We also have 

numbered each comment to help 

distinguish between different 

comments. The number assigned to each 

comment is purely for organizational 

purposes and does not signify the 

comment’s value, or importance, or the 

order in which it was received. 

B. Definitions (§ 1512.2) 

1. Sidewalk Bicycles (§ 1512.2(b)) 

The existing regulation, at § 1512.2(b), 

defines a ‘‘sidewalk bicycle′′ as ‘‘a 

bicycle with a seat height of no more 

than 635 mm (25.0 in); the seat height 

is measured with the seat adjusted to its 

highest position.′′ The proposed rule 

would amend the definition of sidewalk 

bicycle by adding a sentence stating that 

recumbent bicycles are not considered 

sidewalk bicycles. Although some 

recumbent bicycles may have seats 

below the 635 millimeter height, 

recumbent bicycles do not share other 

features, or the intended riders, of 

sidewalk bicycles. This will have the 

effect of clarifying which requirements 

are applicable to recumbent bicycles, 

which were not available when the 

standard was first promulgated. 

We received no comments on this 

provision and have finalized it without 

change. 

2. Track Bicycles (§ 1512.2(d)) 

The existing regulation, at § 1512.2(d), 

defines a ‘‘track bicycle′′ as ‘‘a bicycle 

designed and intended for sale as a 

competitive machine having tubular 

tires, single crank-to-wheel ratio, and no 

free-wheeling feature between the rear 

wheel and the crank.′′ Track bicycles are 

not subject to the requirements of 16 

CFR part 1512. The proposed rule 

would amend the definition of track 

bicycle to further clarify which bicycles 

are not subject to the regulations. The 

proposed rule recommended adding the 

word ‘‘velodrome′′ between 

‘‘competitive′′ and ‘‘machine,′′ to clarify 

that a track bicycle is one intended for 

competitive velodrome racing. (A 

‘‘velodrome′′ is an arena that has a 

banked track for bicycle racing.) 

The proposed rule also recommended 

deleting the term ‘‘tubular tires.′′ 

Improvements in clincher tires in recent 

years permit their use on track bicycles; 

therefore, a definition restricted to 

bicycles with tubular tires is no longer 

accurate and would have the effect of 

subjecting track bicycles with clincher 

tires to the regulations. (In very general 

terms, clincher tires are the type of tires 

associated with most bicycles and 

feature an inner tube and an outer tire 

that makes contact with the rims of a 

bicycle wheel at each edge [called a 

‘‘bead′′]. Tubular tires, in contrast, do 

not have edges that contact the rim; 

instead, tubular tires are attached to the 

rims using glue or tape.) 

(Comment 1)—One commenter 

suggested that we consider whether 

track bicycles need or should have a 

braking system. 

(Response 1)—Track bicycles, which 

are used by professionals in competitive 

racing, do not have brakes. Thus, in the 

final rule, we have revised the 

definition to state that a track bicycle is 

‘‘a bicycle designed and intended for 

sale as a competitive velodrome 

machine having no brake levers or 

calipers, single crank-to-wheel ratio, 

and no free-wheeling feature between 

the rear wheel and the crank.′′ 

3. Recumbent Bicycle (Proposed 

§ 1512.2(g)) 

Proposed § 1512.2(g) would define a 

recumbent bicycle as ‘‘a bicycle in 

which the rider sits in a reclined 

position with the feet extended forward 

to the pedals.′′ 

We received no comments on this 

provision and have finalized it without 

change. 

C. Mechanical Requirements (§ 1512.4) 

Section 1512.4 establishes various 

mechanical requirements for bicycles. 

Section 1512.4(b) prohibits ‘‘unfinished 

sheared metal edges or other sharp parts 

on bicycles that are, or may be, exposed 

to hands or legs.′′ The proposed rule 

would add the word, ‘‘assembled′′ before 

‘‘bicycles,′′ to clarify that the prohibition 

on sharp edges does not apply to a 

bicycle still needing assembly when it is 

delivered to the consumer or retail store. 

Unassembled bicycles may contain 

sharp edges that are not present when 

the product is fully assembled. 

The proposed rule also would correct 

a typographical error in § 1512.4(b). The 

wording should be, ‘‘burrs or spurs,′′ 

rather than, ‘‘burrs of spurs,′′ so that the 

sentence reads, ‘‘so as to remove any 

feathering of edges, or any burrs or 

spurs caused during the shearing 

process.′′ 

Section 1512.4(i) requires that the 

ends of all control cables have 

protective caps or otherwise be treated 

to prevent unraveling. The proposed 

rule would add the word ‘‘accessible′′ 

between the words ‘‘all′′ and ‘‘control 

cables,′′ to clarify that only accessible 

control cable ends are subject to the 

requirement regarding protective caps or 

prevention of unraveling. In other 

words, control cable ends housed 

within the bicycle frame or component 

would not need to be covered with 

protective caps or otherwise treated to 

prevent unraveling. 

We received no comments on this 

provision and have finalized it without 

change. 

D. Requirements for Steering System 

(§ 1512.6) 

Section 1512.6(a) requires that the 

bicycle handlebar stem have a 

permanent ring or mark to indicate the 

minimum insertion depth of the 

handlebar stem into the fork. It also 

requires that the insertion mark not 

affect the structural integrity of the 

stem, not be less than 2 1⁄2 times the 

stem diameter from the lowest point of 

the stem, and that the stem strength be 

maintained for at least a length of one 

shaft diameter below the mark. 

The proposed rule would revise the 

opening words of paragraph (a) from 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 27885 

‘‘[t]he handlebar stem shall′′ to ‘‘[q]uilltype handlebar stems shall,′′ to clarify 

that this requirement only applies to 

bicycles having quill-type stems. 

Because nonquill-type stems do not get 

inserted into the stem, there is no need 

for them to have an insertion depth 

mark. This aspect of the proposal would 

codify the CPSC policy, announced in 

the June 17, 2010, stay notice, that 

nonquill-type stems would be excluded 

from the requirement to certify 

compliance with § 1512.6(a). 

Section 1512.6(c) specifies that 

handlebars must allow comfortable and 

safe control of the bicycle and that 

handlebar ends be symmetrically 

located with respect to the longitudinal 

axis of the bicycle and ‘‘no more than 

406 mm (16 in) above the seat surface 

when the seat is in its lowest position 

and the handlebar ends are in their 

highest position.′′ The proposed rule 

would create an exception for 

recumbent bicycles because the 

handlebars of recumbent bicycles may 

exceed this regulatory maximum, 

depending upon their design 

configuration. 

We received no comments on this 

provision and have finalized it without 

change. 

E. Requirements for Wheel Hubs 

(§ 1512.12(b)) 

Section 1512.12(b) currently states 

that, with respect to quick-release 

devices, the quick-release clamp action 

‘‘shall emboss the frame or fork when 

locked.′′ The proposed rule would create 

an exception for carbon fiber material. 

The requirement for a quick-release 

clamp action to emboss a frame or fork 

when locked is appropriate when 

bicycle frames are made using steel or 

aluminum. Modern technology, 

however, makes it possible to create 

bicycle frames using carbon fiber 

material. Carbon fiber is stronger than 

aluminum and steel, but embossing (or 

indenting) a carbon fiber frame or fork 

can weaken the material. To avoid such 

an illogical result (i.e., of intentionally 

weakening a carbon fiber frame or fork), 

the proposal would create an exception 

for carbon fiber material. 

(Comment 2)—One commenter agreed 

with the proposal, but asserted that the 

more accurate way to describe this 

material (carbon fiber material) is to use 

the term ‘‘fiber reinforced plastics.′′ 

(Response 2)—We agree with the 

commenter and have revised the final 

rule accordingly. 

F. Requirements for Seat (§ 1512.15) 

Section 1512.15 establishes various 

requirements for bicycle seats. Section 

1512.15(a) imposes a limitation on seat 

height, stating that ‘‘[n]o part of the seat, 

seat supports, or accessories attached to 

the seat shall be more than 125 mm (5.0 

in) above the top of the seat surface at 

the point where the seat surface is 

intersected by the seat post axis.′′ 

Section 1512.15(b) requires seat posts 

to contain a ‘‘permanent mark or ring 

that clearly indicates the minimum 

insertion depth (maximum seat-height 

adjustment)′′ and that the mark not 

affect the structural integrity of the seat 

post. (A seat post is a post on which the 

bicycle seat or saddle rests; a traditional 

seat post is inserted into the bicycle 

frame and can be moved up or down to 

accommodate the rider’s size.) Section 

1512.15(b) also requires the mark to be 

‘‘located no less than two seat-post 

diameters from the lowest point on the 

post shaft, and the post strength shall be 

maintained for at least a length of one 

shaft diameter below the mark.′′ 

The proposed rule would create an 

exception for recumbent bicycles from 

the seat height limitation in 

§ 1512.15(a). Recumbent bicycles are 

designed for reclined riding, so the seats 

on recumbent bicycles tend to have 

substantial seat backs. This exception 

would enable recumbent bicycles to 

retain their high seat-back design 

without being in violation of 

§ 1512.15(a). 

The proposed rule also would create 

an exception for bicycles with 

integrated seat masts from the 

requirement that seat posts contain a 

permanent mark or ring to indicate the 

minimum insertion depth. Integrated 

seat masts are part of the bicycle frame 

itself; thus, they do not get inserted in 

a seat post, and so no insertion depth 

mark is possible. 

(Comment 3)—One commenter said 

that bicycles with integrated seat masts 

should continue to have a marking that 

allows retailers and consumers to easily 

determine that the seat and seat post are 

safely installed. 

(Response 3)—We agree that 

integrated seat masts with a marking 

would allow retailers and consumers to 

easily determine that a seat is safely 

assembled. A mark on the product will 

reassure the public that the seat is safe. 

Thus, we have revised the final rule to 

state that, ‘‘(t)he seat post shall contain 

a permanent mark or ring that clearly 

indicates the minimum insertion depth 

(maximum seat-height adjustment); the 

mark shall not affect the structural 

integrity of the seat post. This mark 

shall be located no less than two seatpost diameters from the lowest point on 

the post shaft, and the post strength 

shall be maintained for at least a length 

of one shaft diameter below the mark. 

This requirement does not apply to 

bicycles with integrated seat masts, 

however, a permanent mark or other 

means to clearly indicate that the seat or 

seat post is safely installed shall be 

provided.′′ 

(Comment 4)—One commenter 

requested that seat posts that are cut to 

fit be excluded from the marking 

requirement because there is no way to 

determine where the mark should be. 

(Response 4)—We decline to grant the 

commenter’s request to exclude seat 

posts that are cut to fit from the 

requirement. We believe that such an 

exclusion could result in a decrease in 

safety and that further work, such as 

testing and an examination of any 

existing standards that may be relevant, 

would be needed to consider the 

potential impact of such an exclusion. 

We will, however, consider the issue 

when we conduct a more thorough 

evaluation of the bicycle standards. 

(Comment 5)—One commenter 

remarked on the number of accidents 

that the commenter has witnessed 

resulting from bicycles seats being 

raised too high. The commenter would 

require manufacturers to insert a 

marking that will indicate a safe seat 

height level. 

(Response 5)—The pre-existing 

regulations already require such 

marking. Consequently, no revision to 

the final rule is necessary with respect 

to this comment. 

G. Tests and Test Procedures (§ 1512.18) 

The proposed rule would amend 

§ 1512.18(k)(1)(i), which describes the 

procedure for conducting the fork test. 

The test procedure requires, in relevant 

part, that the load on the fork ‘‘be 

increased until a deflection of 64 mm (2 

1⁄2 in) is reached.′′ The test criteria, 

which are specified at 

§ 1512.18(k)(1)(ii), explain that ‘‘[e]nergy 

of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) shall be 

absorbed with a deflection in the 

direction of the force of no more than 

64 mm (21⁄2 in.).′′ Thus, the fork test 

involves applying a load to the fork, and 

the fork must absorb the required energy 

while not deflecting more than 64 

millimeters, or 2.5 inches. 

The proposed rule would delete the 

last sentence of § 1512.18(k)(1)(i), 

regarding a deflection of 64 millimeters 

(2.5 inches), because § 1512.18(k)(1)(i) 

may be interpreted (incorrectly) as 

conflicting with § 1512.18(k)(1)(ii). In 

other words, a reader might construe the 

regulations as requiring force to be 

applied until the fork is deflected to 64 

millimeters or 2.5 inches. 

The proposed rule also would amend 

the reflector performance test 

description at § 1512.18(n)(2)(vii). The 

reflector performance test description 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

27886 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

discusses a coordinate system used for 

the reflector performance test and states 

that ‘‘[i]n the coordinate system and 

when illuminated by the source defined 

in table 4 of this part 1512, a reflector 

will be considered to be red if its color 

falls within the region bounded by the 

red spectrum locus and the lines 

y0.980—x and y0.335; a reflector will be 

considered to be amber if its color falls 

within the region bounded by the 

yellow spectrum locus and the lines 

y0.382, y0.790¥0.667x, and y x— 

0.120.′′ The y and x coordinates, as 

described in the rule, omitted important 

mathematical symbols or duplicated 

other mathematical symbols. The 

proposal would revise 

§ 1512.18(n)(2)(vii) to read ‘‘[i]n the 

coordinate system and when 

illuminated by the source defined in 

table 4 of this part 1512, a reflector will 

be considered to be red if its color falls 

within the region bounded by the red 

spectrum locus and the lines y = 

0.980¥x and y = 0.335; a reflector will 

be considered to be amber if its color 

falls within the region bounded by the 

yellow spectrum locus and the lines y 

= 0.382, y = 0.790¥0.667x, and y = 

x¥0.120.′′ 

Section 1512.18(n)(2)(vii) also refers 

to the ‘‘IES Lighting Handbook, fifth 

edition, 1972,′′ and a footnote to the rule 

explains that the IES Lighting Handbook 

may be obtained from the Illuminating 

Engineering Society (IES) and gives an 

address for IES. The reference to the IES 

Lighting Handbook is outdated, as is the 

address for the IES. More importantly, 

the recommended coordinate system for 

definition of color discussed in 

§ 1512.18(n)(2)(vii), the ‘‘Internationale 

de l-Eclairage (CIE) 1931′′ system, is 

readily accessible for little or no cost 

from various sources in addition to the 

IES, including the Internet. Because the 

CIE 1931 color coordinate system is 

publicly available, the reference to the 

IES Lighting Handbook is not necessary, 

and therefore, the proposed rule would 

delete the reference to the IES Lighting 

Handbook and its accompanying 

footnote. 

We received no comments on these 

provisions and have finalized them 

without change. 

H. Additional Changes Requested by the 

Comments 

1. Introduction 

Several commenters suggested 

additional revisions to the bicycle 

regulations. We discuss those 

comments, and our responses, in this 

section. 

2. Requirements for Braking Systems: 

Handbrakes and Grip Dimension 

(§ 1512.5(b)(3)) 

(Comment 6)—One commenter asked 

that we change the requirement for the 

brake lever grip dimension. Currently, 

the grip dimension, which is defined as 

the maximum outside dimension 

between the brake hand lever and the 

handlebars, shall not exceed 89 mm (3.5 

inches). The commenter would change 

the maximum to 100 mm (4.0 inches) to 

accommodate new bicycle designs that 

include gear shift mechanisms on the 

lever. The commenter stated that, 

because of the need to accommodate the 

added shifting mechanism and allow 

space for the rider’s hands, the brake 

lever portion of the combination brake/ 

shift lever may be slightly farther away 

from the handlebar. 

(Response 6)—We decline to revise 

§ 1512.5(b)(3) because such an exclusion 

could result in a decrease in safety and 

that further work, such as testing and an 

examination of any existing standards 

that may be relevant, would be needed 

to consider the potential impact of the 

commenter’s suggested change. Thus, 

we will consider the commenter’s 

suggestion when we undertake a more 

thorough evaluation of the bicycle 

standards. 

3. Requirements for Braking Systems 

(§ 1512.5) and Tests and Tests 

Procedures (§ 1512.18) 

(Comment 7)—Two commenters 

would revise the requirements for 

braking system testing. One commenter 

stated that he had prepared a written 

explanation as to why we should revise 

the braking standard, but the 

explanation was deleted. Another 

commenter would revise the braking 

system test requirements to require: 

(1) Bicycles to be tested under wet 

conditions that might result in longer 

stopping time; (2) a ‘‘front brake 

modulation test′′ that would determine 

if the front brakes of a bicycle have a 

propensity to grab abruptly which could 

result in riders being thrown over the 

handlebars; and (3) a brake fade test to 

predict the loss of braking power when 

a rider is descending a hill, and brakes 

overheat. 

(Response 7)—We agree, generally, 

that braking system testing requirements 

should be evaluated and revised. 

However, we decline to address this 

issue in the final rule. This rulemaking 

was intended, in part, to facilitate the 

testing and certification requirements of 

section 14 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA). Changing these 

standards would involve, among other 

things, an examination of any relevant 

existing standards and possibly the 

development of new testing regimes or 

an analysis of existing testing regimes 

already in use. It would be more 

efficient and more appropriate to 

consider such issues when we 

undertake a more thorough evaluation 

of the bicycle standards. 

4. Requirements for Pedals (§ 1512.7) 

(Comment 8)—Two commenters 

addressed clipless pedals, which are 

products that attach directly to the cleat 

of a cyclist’s shoe. One commenter 

would have us define the term ‘‘clipless 

pedal,′′ and both commenters would 

have us exempt clipless pedals from the 

requirement that pedals have reflectors. 

(Clipless pedals do not have the 

traditional platform or cage to support 

the foot and are not easily fitted with 

reflectors.) 

(Response 8)—We acknowledge that 

reflectors cannot be installed on a 

clipless pedal. However, removing a 

reflector from a bicycle may result in a 

decrease in safety. Changing the 

standard would involve, among other 

things, an examination of any relevant 

existing standards and possibly the 

development of new testing regimes or 

an analysis of existing testing regimes 

already in use. It would be more 

efficient and more appropriate to 

consider such issues when we 

undertake a more thorough evaluation 

of the bicycle standards. 

(Comment 9)—One commenter sought 

an exemption for clipless pedals from 

the tread requirement, stating that ‘‘it is 

not feasible to place treads on the 

pedals, as there is very little space.′′ 

(Response 9)—We are aware of these 

concerns, but decline to address them in 

the final rule. Changing the standard 

would involve, among other things, an 

examination of any relevant existing 

standards and possibly the development 

of new testing regimes or an analysis of 

existing testing regimes already in use. 

It would be more efficient and more 

appropriate to consider such issues 

when we undertake a more thorough 

evaluation of the bicycle standards. 

5. Requirements for Protective Guards 

(§ 1512.9 (b)) 

(Comment 10)—One commenter 

would revise the requirement for 

derailleur guards at § 1512.9(b). The 

derailleur guard requirement is 

designed to prevent the drive chain 

from interfering with or stopping the 

rotation of the wheel through improper 

adjustments or damage. The commenter 

said that some bicycle models 

(specifically those that experienced 

cyclists are likely to use) lack room for 

a derailleur guard. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 27887 

(Response 10)—We are aware of this 

concern, but decline to address it in the 

final rule. The derailleur guard is 

intended to protect the rider from an 

accident should the drive chain 

interfere with the wheel because of 

improper adjustments or damage. 

Changing the standard would involve, 

among other things, an examination of 

any relevant existing standards and 

possibly the development of new testing 

regimes or an analysis of existing testing 

regimes already in use. It would be more 

efficient and more appropriate to 

consider such issues when we 

undertake a more thorough evaluation 

of the bicycle standards. 

6. Component Failures due to Material 

Fatigue (§ 1512.17(a)) 

(Comment 11)—One commenter 

asked us to evaluate component failures 

that are caused by material fatigue, 

which the commenter defined as the 

weakening and subsequent fracture of 

the material due to repeated stress. 

(Response 11) We agree that testing 

component parts that fail because of 

material fatigue is an important issue 

that should be evaluated and revised. 

However, we decline to address this in 

the final rule. Changing the standard 

would involve, among other things, an 

examination of any relevant existing 

standards and possibly the development 

of new testing regimes or an analysis of 

existing testing regimes already in use. 

Thus, we will consider the matter when 

we undertake a more thorough 

evaluation of the bicycle standards. 

I. Miscellaneous Comments 

Several commenters addressed the 

proposed rule in general terms or 

addressed matters that were outside the 

scope of the proposed rule. 

(Comment 12)—Three commenters 

agreed with the proposed rule in its 

existing form. One of the commenters, 

while pleased with the proposed rule at 

this point, urged us to review and assess 

the bicycle requirements in greater 

depth. In contrast, one commentator 

was opposed to the proposed rule 

because we did not conduct a more 

comprehensive review of the bicycle 

regulations. The commenter said that 

manufacturers are ‘‘forced into a testing 

regime.′′ 

(Response 12)—Section 14 of the 

CPSA requires manufacturers and 

private labelers of a product subject to 

a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

to certify compliance of the product 

with such rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation. As we stated in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (75 FR at 67043), 

we issued the proposed rule, in part, to 

facilitate the testing and certification 

required by section 14 of the CPSA. We 

also acknowledged that a more 

extensive review of the bicycle 

regulations is necessary (75 FR at 

67044), but that we cannot accomplish 

such a review in the timeframe that is 

necessary for implementing the testing 

and certification requirements of section 

14 of the CPSA. We will conduct a more 

extensive review of the bicycle 

regulations as time and resources 

permit. 

(Comment 13)—One commenter 

noted that there is a typographical error 

in a CPSC Regulatory Summary for 16 

CFR part 1512. In a description of the 

requirement for chains and chain 

guards, the document incorrectly 

substitutes ‘‘90%′′ for ‘‘90 degrees.′′ 

(Response 13)—CPSC Regulatory 

Summaries are found on our Web site 

and are not part of the rule. 

Nevertheless, we are examining our 

regulatory summaries and intend to 

revise or, in some cases, delete them to 

reflect current requirements and new 

information. 

(Comment 14)—One commenter 

expressed concern that the proposed 

rule might create an obligation for 

bicycle manufacturers to produce new 

parts. 

(Response 14)—Nothing in the 

proposed rule or the final rule requires 

a bicycle manufacturer to produce new 

parts to the meet the requirement. 

(Comment 15)—One commenter 

expressed concern over lead content in 

children’s bicycles. 

(Response 15)—If a bicycle is a 

‘‘children’s product′′ as defined by 

section 3(a)(2) of the CPSA, then it is 

subject to the lead content limit in 

section 101(a)(2) of the CPSIA. We note, 

however, that there is a stay of 

enforcement in place regarding lead 

content in certain parts of children’s 

bicycles. In the Federal Register of June 

30, 2009 (74 FR 31254), the Commission 

issued a stay of enforcement until June 

1, 2011 with regard to the lead content 

in certain parts of bicycles designed or 

intended primarily for children 12 years 

of age or younger. The Commission 

approved the stay in order to allow time 

to develop rules and requirements 

which will address the very specific 

questions regarding lead content in 

children’s bicycles. In the Federal 

Register of February 8, 2011 (76 FR 

6765), the Commission extended the 

stay of enforcement until December 31, 

2011. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. chapter 6, requires the 

Commission to evaluate the economic 

impact of rules on small entities. The 

RFA defines small entities to include 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

The small entities relevant to this rule 

are small businesses. It should be noted 

that we did not receive any comments 

related to the economic impact of the 

proposed rule. 

We conclude that the final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact. 

The amendments make minor changes 

to the existing regulations to reflect new 

technologies, designs and features in 

bicycles by clarifying that certain 

provisions or testing requirements do 

not apply to specific bicycles or bicycle 

parts. The amendments clarify several 

ambiguous and confusing provisions. 

The final rule also corrects 

typographical errors, and deletes an 

outdated reference. 

These changes are not expected to 

result in product modifications in order 

to comply and do not require any 

additional testing or recordkeeping 

burdens. The clarifications and 

exceptions resulting from the 

amendments could result in modest cost 

savings to small businesses in the form 

of more focused testing or the 

elimination of unnecessary testing. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

determines that the final rule will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., include minimizing the 

paperwork burden on affected entities. 

The PRA requires certain actions before 

an agency can adopt or revise the 

collection of information, including 

publishing a summary of the collection 

of information and a brief description of 

the need for, and proposed use of, the 

information. 

This final rule does not implicate the 

PRA, because there are no collection of 

information obligations associated with 

the proposed amendments to part 1512. 

V. Environmental Considerations 

The final rule falls within the scope 

of the Commission’s environmental 

review regulations at 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1), which provide a 

categorical exclusion from any 

requirement for the agency to prepare an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement for 

amendments of rules or safety standards 

that provide design or performance 

requirements for products. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1512 

Bicycles, Consumer protection, 

Labeling. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

27888 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission amends 16 CFR part 1512 

as follows: 

PART 1512—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

BICYCLES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1512 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 

3(e)(1), 74 Stat. 372, 374, 375, as amended, 

80 Stat. 1304–05, 83 Stat. 187–89 (15 U.S.C. 

1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107–319, 116 Stat. 2776. 

■ 2. Amend § 1512.2 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (d) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sidewalk bicycle means a bicycle 

with a seat height of no more than 635 

mm (25.0 in); the seat height is 

measured with the seat adjusted to its 

highest position. Recumbent bicycles 

are not included in this definition. 

* * * * * 

(d) Track bicycle means a bicycle 

designed and intended for sale as a 

competitive velodrome machine having 

no brake levers or calipers, single crankto-wheel ratio, and no free-wheeling 

feature between the rear wheel and the 

crank. 

* * * * * 

(g) Recumbent bicycle means a bicycle 

in which the rider sits in a reclined 

position with the feet extended forward 

to the pedals. 

■ 3. Amend § 1512.4 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (i) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.4 Mechanical requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sharp edges. There shall be no 

unfinished sheared metal edges or other 

sharp parts on assembled bicycles that 

are, or may be, exposed to hands or legs; 

sheared metal edges that are not rolled 

shall be finished so as to remove any 

feathering of edges, or any burrs or 

spurs caused during the shearing 

process. 

* * * * * 

(i) Control cable ends. Ends of all 

accessible control cables shall be 

provided with protective caps or 

otherwise treated to prevent unraveling. 

Protective caps shall be tested in 

accordance with the protective cap and 

end-mounted devices test, § 1512.18(c), 

and shall withstand a pull of 8.9 N (2.0 

lbf). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 1512.6 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.6 Requirements for steering 

system. 

(a) Handlebar stem insertion mark. 

Quill-type handlebar stems shall 

contain a permanent ring or mark which 

clearly indicates the minimum insertion 

depth of the handlebar stem into the 

fork assembly. The insertion mark shall 

not affect the structural integrity of the 

stem and shall not be less than 21⁄2

times the stem diameter from the lowest 

point of the stem. The stem strength 

shall be maintained for at least a length 

of one shaft diameter below the mark. 

* * * * * 

(c) Handlebar. Handlebars shall allow 

comfortable and safe control of the 

bicycle. Handlebar ends shall be 

symmetrically located with respect to 

the longitudinal axis of the bicycle and 

no more than 406 mm (16 in) above the 

seat surface when the seat is in its 

lowest position and the handlebar ends 

are in their highest position. This 

requirement does not apply to 

recumbent bicycles. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 1512.12 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.12 Requirements for wheel hubs. 

* * * * * 

(b) Quick-release devices. Leveroperated, quick-release devices shall be 

adjustable to allow setting the lever 

position for tightness. Quick-release 

levers shall be clearly visible to the rider 

and shall indicate whether the levers are 

in a locked or unlocked position. Quickrelease clamp action shall emboss the 

frame or fork when locked, except on 

fiber reinforced plastics. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 1512.15 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1512.15 Requirements for seat. 

(a) Seat limitations. No part of the 

seat, seat supports, or accessories 

attached to the seat shall be more than 

125 mm (5.0 in) above the top of the seat 

surface at the point where the seat 

surface is intersected by the seat post 

axis. This requirement does not apply to 

recumbent bicycles. 

(b) Seat post. The seat post shall 

contain a permanent mark or ring that 

clearly indicates the minimum insertion 

depth (maximum seat-height 

adjustment); the mark shall not affect 

the structural integrity of the seat post. 

This mark shall be located no less than 

two seat-post diameters from the lowest 

point on the post shaft, and the post 

strength shall be maintained for at least 

a length of one shaft diameter below the 

mark. This requirement does not apply 

to bicycles with integrated seat masts, 

however, a permanent mark or other 

means to clearly indicate that the seat or 

seat posts is safely installed shall be 

provided. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 1512.18 by revising 

paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (n)(2)(vii) as 

follows: 

§ 1512.18 Tests and test procedures. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Procedure. With the fork stem 

supported in a 76 mm (3.0 in) vee block 

and secured by the method illustrated in 

figure 1 of this part 1512, a load shall 

be applied at the axle attachment in a 

direction perpendicular to the 

centerline of the stem and against the 

direction of the rake. Load and 

deflection readings shall be recorded 

and plotted at the point of loading. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) A recommended coordinate 

system for definition of color is the 

‘‘Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE 

1931)′′ system. In the coordinate system 

and when illuminated by the source 

defined in table 4 of this part 1512, a 

reflector will be considered to be red if 

its color falls within the region bounded 

by the red spectrum locus and the lines 

y = 0.980¥x and y = 0.335; a reflector 

will be considered to be amber if its 

color falls within the region bounded by 

the yellow spectrum locus and the lines 

y = 0.382, y = 0.790¥0.667x, and y = 

x¥0.120. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 10, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11742 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 522 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0003] 

Implantation or Injectable Dosage 

Form New Animal Drugs; 

Gonadotropin Releasing FactorDiphtheria Toxoid Conjugate 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES