[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27882-27888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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typographical errors and removes an outdated reference.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
[email protected]; 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