[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67043-67047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27503]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 67043]]



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 The proposal also would delete an outdated reference and correct 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 
[email protected]; 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

[[Page 67044]]

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 (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. 
Thus, the proposal would have the effect of clarifying which 
requirements are applicable to recumbent bicycles.
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, 
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 Sec.  1512.2(g))
    The proposed rule would create a new definition for recumbent 
bicycle at Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the staff briefing memoranda refer to recumbent 
bicycles as ``adult bicycles'' the proposed definition is not 
intended to distinguish between adult recumbent bicycles and 
children's recumbent bicycles.

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

[[Page 67045]]

B. 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.
    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 (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 change the opening words of paragraph (a) 
from ``[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.

D. 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, instead, create an exception for carbon fiber material.

E. 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.

F. Tests and Test Procedures (Sec.  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 
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. 
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 67046]]

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 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.

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,

[[Page 67047]]

80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15 U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 
107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.

    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 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.
    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).
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    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 carbon fiber material.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    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: 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