This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

67043 

Vol. 75, No. 210 

Monday, November 1, 2010 

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is proposing to amend its bicycle 

regulations. The proposed amendments 

would make minor changes to certain 

requirements to reflect the development 

of new technologies, designs, and 

features in bicycles and clarify that 

certain provisions or testing 

requirements do not apply to specific 

bicycles or bicycle parts. The proposal 

also would delete an outdated reference 

and correct typographical errors in the 

bicycle reflector performance test. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

should be submitted by January 18, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0104, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments in the following 

way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions) 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed rule. 

All comments received may be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

(such as a Social Security Number) 

electronically; if furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

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; phone 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 

and new limits on lead in children’s 

products and on phthalates in children’s 

toys. 

The proposed rule would amend 16 

CFR part 1512, which will clarify 

certain safety requirements for bicycles. 

The proposal would clarify that certain 

provisions or testing requirements do 

not apply to specific bicycles or bicycle 

parts, delete an outdated reference, and 

correct typographical errors in the 

bicycle reflector performance test. 

The proposal also would facilitate the 

testing and certification required by 

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 CPSC-accepted 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
67044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1While the staff briefing memoranda refer to 

recumbent bicycles as ‘‘adult bicycles’’ the proposed 

definition is not intended to distinguish between 

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 the 

specialty bicycle retailer, petitioned the 

Commission for an additional extension 

of the stay. (The April 1, 2010, BPSA 

petition, along with all other 

correspondence discussed in this 

preamble, may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in the docket 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 

may 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 

regulation 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 have 

considered both charts in the process of 

developing this proposed rule. (Both 

charts may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, in the docket for 

this rulemaking.) 

We acknowledge that bicycle 

technologies, designs, and features have 

changed dramatically since 16 CFR part 

1512 was originally promulgated. A 

comprehensive review of the bicycle 

regulations, however, cannot be 

accomplished in the timeframe that is 

necessary for implementing the testing 

and certification requirements of section 

14 of the CPSA. Accordingly, this 

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. We will consider the 

remainder of the issues identified by the 

BPSA when we undertake a more 

extensive review of the bicycle 

regulations. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would amend six 

sections in 16 CFR part 1512. 

A. 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. Thus, the proposal 

would have the effect of clarifying 

which requirements are applicable to 

recumbent bicycles. 

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, yet the proposed rule 

would amend the definition of track 

bicycle to clarify further which bicycles 

are not subject to the regulations. The 

proposed rule would add 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 would delete 

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. (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.) 

3. Recumbent Bicycle (Proposed 

§ 1512.2(g)) 

The proposed rule would create a new 

definition for recumbent bicycle at 

§ 1512.2(g). The proposal 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 believe that a 

definition for recumbent bicycles is 

necessary because other provisions in 

this proposed rule would mention 

recumbent bicycles.1


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67045 

adult recumbent bicycles and children’s recumbent 

bicycles. 

B. 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. 

We also propose to correct a 

typographical error in paragraph (b) of 

section 1512.4. The wording should be, 

‘‘burrs or spurs,’’ rather than, ‘‘burrs of 

spurs,’’ so that the final phrase 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. 

C. 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 21⁄2 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 change the 

opening words of paragraph (a) from 

‘‘[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. 

D. 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, instead, create an 

exception for carbon fiber material. 

E. 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. 

F. Tests and Test Procedures (§ 1512.18) 

The CPSC, on its own initiative, is 

proposing two amendments to the test 

and test procedures section. First, 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 

(21⁄2 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. Accordingly, 

to avoid any confusion, and because the 

fork test criteria accurately and 

adequately provides the substantive test 

requirements, the proposed rule would 

delete the last sentence of the 

description of the fork test procedure. 

The proposed rule also would amend 

the reflector performance test 

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

reflector performance test description 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
67046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 amend 

§ 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. 

III. FHSA Regulatory Requirement: 

Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

Section 3(h) of the FHSA describes 

the procedural requirements for a 

proposed rule promulgated under 

section 2(q)(1) and section 3(e) of the 

FHSA, which are among the legal 

authorities for the CPSC’s Requirements 

for Bicycles, 16 CFR part 1512. Section 

3(h) requires a proposed FHSA rule to 

include a preliminary regulatory 

analysis. The preliminary regulatory 

analysis must include a preliminary 

description of the potential benefits and 

potential costs of the proposed 

regulation, including any benefits or 

costs that cannot be quantified in 

monetary terms, and an identification of 

those likely to receive the benefits and 

bear the costs. The preliminary 

regulatory analysis must include a 

discussion of the reasons why 

alternative or voluntary standards are 

not part of the proposed regulation. The 

preliminary regulatory analysis must 

also include a discussion of any 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

regulation. 

This proposed rule does not propose 

new safety criteria or redefine the 

standard’s acceptance criteria. 

Accordingly, an analysis of alternative 

or voluntary standards is not applicable. 

Due to the limited scope of these 

proposed amendments, the agency does 

not consider that there are any 

reasonable alternatives other than the 

technical amendments and exceptions 

being proposed. 

The CPSC has analyzed the potential 

costs and benefits of the proposed rule; 

we expect there to be essentially no 

costs and modest benefits in the form of 

needed clarifications that will facilitate 

the testing and certification of bicycles. 

The proposed amendments would 

create exceptions to certain testing 

requirements, modify existing 

definitions to reflect current technology 

or changes in technology, clarify certain 

requirements, introduce a definition for 

recumbent bicycles, correct 

typographical errors, and delete an 

unnecessary and 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 proposed 

amendments could, in fact, result in 

modest cost savings to manufacturers in 

the form of more focused testing or the 

elimination of unnecessary testing. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

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

to evaluate the economic impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities. The 

RFA defines small entities to include 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

The small entities relevant to this 

proposed rule are small businesses. The 

agency must determine whether the 

proposed rule would impose a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

The proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact. The 

proposed amendments would create 

exceptions to certain testing 

requirements, modify existing 

definitions to reflect current technology 

or changes in technology, clarify certain 

requirements, introduce a definition for 

recumbent bicycles, correct 

typographical errors, and delete an 

unnecessary and 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 proposed 

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 proposed rule will 

not have a significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

V. 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 proposed rule does not implicate 

the PRA, because there are no collection 

of information obligations associated 

with the proposed amendments to part 

1512. 

VI. Environmental Considerations 

The proposed 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. 

VII. Effective Date 

The Commission proposes that any 

final rule based on this proposal become 

effective 30 days after its date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1512 

Bicycles, Consumer protection, 

Labeling. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission proposes to amend 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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67047 

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 

single crank-to-wheel ratio, and no freewheeling 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 

carbon fiber material. 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

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: October 26, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27503 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1632 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0105] 

Standard for the Flammability of 

Mattresses and Mattress Pads 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is proposing to amend its standard for 

the flammability of mattresses and 

mattress pads. The ignition source 

cigarette specified in the standard for 

use in the mattress standard’s 

performance tests is no longer being 

produced. The Commission is proposing 

to amend the mattress standard to 

require a standard reference material 

cigarette, which was developed by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, as the ignition source for 

testing to the mattress standard. 

DATES: Comments on the proposal 

should be submitted no later than 

January 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0105, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1