```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27882-27888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11742]

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

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typographical errors and removes an outdated reference.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

[[Page 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 
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 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

[[Page 27884]]

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 CPSC-
recognized 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 (Sec.  1512.2)

1. Sidewalk Bicycles (Sec.  1512.2(b))
    The existing regulation, at Sec.  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 (Sec.  1512.2(d))
    The existing regulation, at Sec.  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 Sec.  1512.2(g))
    Proposed Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 (Sec.  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

[[Page 27885]]

``[t]he handlebar stem shall'' to ``[q]uill-type 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 Sec.  
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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 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 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 (Sec.  1512.18)

    The proposed rule would amend Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (2\1/2\ 
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 Sec.  
1512.18(k)(1)(i), regarding a deflection of 64 millimeters (2.5 
inches), because Sec.  1512.18(k)(1)(i) may be interpreted 
(incorrectly) as conflicting with Sec.  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 Sec.  1512.18(n)(2)(vii). The reflector performance test 
description

[[Page 27886]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 
(Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (Sec.  1512.5) and Tests and Tests 
Procedures (Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  1512.9 (b))
    (Comment 10)--One commenter would revise the requirement for 
derailleur guards at Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 (Sec.  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.

[[Page 27888]]

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission amends 16 CFR part 1512 as follows:

PART 1512--REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1512.2 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 crank-to-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.

0
3. Amend Sec.  1512.4 by revising paragraphs (b) and (i) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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, Sec.  1512.18(c), and 
shall withstand a pull of 8.9 N (2.0 lbf).
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1512.6 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 2\1/2\ 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.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  1512.12 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  1512.12  Requirements for wheel hubs.

* * * * *
    (b) Quick-release devices. Lever-operated, 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. 
Quick-release clamp action shall emboss the frame or fork when locked, 
except on fiber reinforced plastics.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  1512.15 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  1512.18 by revising paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (n)(2)(vii) 
as follows:

Sec.  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
```