CPSC announces lead limit on childrens products will be reduced from 300ppm to 100ppm effective August 14, 2011

Update to this story posted August 2, 2011

Unfortunately the CPSC decided to move forward and reduce the lead content in products intended for "children" from 300ppm to 100ppm (parts per million) effective August 14, 2011. (Originally it was 600ppm when the law first took effect) This unfortunately was required by Congress, provided the CPSC in its rulemeaking function determined that it was "technologically feasible" to get the lead down to 100ppm. As the bicycle industry indicated in testimony before the CPSC this effectively eliminates the use of all recycled steel frames, most of which are used to make low cost children's bikes (low cost is helpful here as the children quickly outgrow the bikes). The bicycle industry also indicated that at this point in time lead testing results were not very reliable when you try to reach below 300ppm. Ahh..but its "technologically" feasible with NASA level equipment. Well sure, but we are not building a space shuttle and the recreational sports industry does not have NASA's "budget" (tax dollars).

The CPSC of course focused on "technologically" feasible, not "economically" or "reasonably" feasible. Thank you congressional staffer that used a poor choice of words. (see definition in bold below which was what the CPSC was using as guideance).

The bigger point here is that this law was flawed from the start. No children in the USA are dying or  getting sick from lead poisoning in toys, bicycles or motorcycles. The biggest "lead" threat to children does not come from consumer products. The law should only have applied only to specific items likely to go in a child's mouth (shown by empirical evidence). Bicycles, motorcycles and most recreational products don't. Unfortunately Congress chased lead (and a few select phthalates) as the only bogeyman (thanks to misled consumers and the media) and did not even focus on the most plentiful sources of lead to kids. We need to focus on what is really harming kids in the US. Lead is not in the top 20. The bigger problem is the whole race to go from 600ppm to 100pm is futile and will not insure any greater safety, but will incur exponentially more costs for small businesses. This is the problem with regulation. "Regulation" always looks and sounds good from 20,000 feet up until people that really have to make the widgets take a close look at it and what will really be required to implement it. Then you see the nightmare train wreck. But people with lifetime jobs in Government could care less about your small business job. And we wonder why unemployment is still so stubbornly high.

We all thought the CPSC would do the right thing in implementing the law via regulations, but the fact is that no one is willing to stick their neck out in government and declare the "emperor has no clothes" (or that this law and the 100ppm standard really does nothing at all to protect children and just harms US small businesses). The same is true in Congress. If a legislator came out and said reducing lead 600ppm to 100ppm means nothing to children's safety the "children's lobby" would accuse then of "wanting to harm children and puppy dogs". Some have come out and been bold but were outnumbered and outvoted.

There have been numerous bills to address some of the problems in the CPSIA since 2008. None really have moved thru Congress which in the last two years has been in a state of panicked deadline gridlock. Now with the debt crisis coming to a head on August 2, 2011 there are very few days to deal with this issue before the August 14, 2011 deadline. The National Association of Manufacturers is taking their best shot in an ad campaign here:

National Association of Manufacturers Ad Campaign regarding HR 1939

The only thing on the table now with any hope of passing (any time this summer) is HR 1939 which has been stalled in "mark up" since Mid May 2011.


So starting on August 14, 2011 manufacturers and distributors of children's products must comply with the new 100 ppm federal limit for total lead content. CPSC will not enforce the CPSIA's independent third party testing requirement for total lead content until December 31, 2011, due to a stay of enforcement that is already in place. There are some legitimate questions and ambiguities regarding how the new 100 ppm requirement interacts with the latest "bicycle-motorcycle stay" thru December 31, 2011.


The first is whether or not your company complied with the stay's initial requirements (which required some onerous reporting) and if you failed to do that whether or not you can take advantage of the stay thru December 31, 2011.


The second is to keep in mind that as to bicycles the stay only deals with components made with metal alloys, including steel containing up to 0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper with up to 4.0 percent lead. (see 74 FR at 31257 for all details)


Finally there is a question as to how the stay thru December 31, 2011 interacts with the current 100 ppm lead requirement. One could argue that you have to make sure lead is below 100 ppm in your children's product but you don't have to "test and certify". Apparently this sort of "catch 22" makes sense to people in government. The reality is that the CPSC likely will not be chasing down manufactures of bicycles and motorcycles on the 100 ppm requirement until after December 31, 2011, but I would not want to bet my company on that or anything the CPSC may or may not do. They are just too unpredictable these days.


Finally, to add to the confusion, lead content levels for children's products (the base material) are different than the so called "lead paint/coatings standard" which has been .009 percent since August 14, 2009.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 15, 2011

Release #11-278

CPSC Announces New, Lower Limit for Lead Content in Children’s Products

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted (3-2) that there was insufficient evidence to make a determination that manufacturers of children’s products sold in the United States could not meet a total lead content limit of 100 parts per million (ppm) for a product or product category. The new total lead content limit, which is called for in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), goes into effect on August 14, 2011 for manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors of children’s products.

Through the CPSIA, Congress set tough new levels for lead content in products designed or primarily intended for children 12 and younger. Lead is a heavy metal that is toxic for children, and associated with lowered levels of learning, impaired hearing, brain damage and, at high levels, can be fatal.

Congress directed CPSC to phase in the reduced levels for lead content over a three year period, starting with 600 ppm on February 10, 2009. The level dropped to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009. Finally, Congress directed the total lead content limit be set at 100 ppm, unless the Commission determined it was not technologically feasible for a product or product category.

The Commission was not able to determine that 100 ppm total lead content is not technologically feasible, as staff found that materials containing less than 100 ppm total lead content are commercially available in the marketplace for manufacturers. CPSC staff also found many products currently on the market, that have been tested by CPSC or other organizations, that are already in compliance with the new 100 ppm total lead content limit.

Starting on August 14, 2011, manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors of children’s products must comply with the new 100 ppm federal limit for total lead content. CPSC will not enforce the CPSIA’s independent third party testing requirement for total lead content until December 31, 2011, due to a stay of enforcement that is already in place.

The stay of enforcement does not apply to children’s metal jewelry, which currently must undergo independent third party testing.

The new 100 ppm lead content limit does not apply to inaccessible (internal) parts of children’s products and certain component parts of children’s electronic devices, like electronic connectors and plugs, including headphone plugs.

Lead content levels for children’s products are different from the levels Congress set for lead in paint or surface coatings. The limit for lead in paint or surface coatings is .009 percent. The .009 percent level has been in place since August 14, 2009 and independent third party testing is required for all paints or surfaces coatings used on children’s products.

Commissioner's Statements: Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Nancy Nord (both PDF).

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 12944-12945] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2011-5231]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[Docket No. CPSC-2010-0080]

Children's Products Containing Lead; Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm for Lead Content; Notice, Reopening of the Hearing Record

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice, reopening of the hearing record.

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

SUMMARY: Section 101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (``CPSIA'') provides that, as of August 14, 2011, children's products may not contain more than 100 parts per million (``ppm'') of lead unless the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC,'' ``Commission,'' or ``we'') determines that such a limit is not technologically feasible. The Commission may make such a determination only after notice and a hearing and after analyzing the public health protections associated with substantially reducing lead in children's products. On February 16, 2011, the Commission conducted a public hearing to receive views from all interested parties about the technological feasibility of meeting the 100 ppm lead content limit for children's products and associated public health considerations. Individual Commissioners requested at the hearing that certain participants respond to additional questions in writing, as well as submit relevant studies and additional data referenced in oral presentations. Accordingly, through this notice, the Commission is reopening the hearing record until March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Supplemental Materials identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010- 0080 may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

Supplemental Materials may be submitted to the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at cpsc-os@cpsc.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 502, 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 notice. All materials received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information electronically. 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: Concerning submission of materials: Rockelle Hammond, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-6833; e-mail: cpscos@cpsc.gov. For all other matters: Dominique Williams, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7597; e-mail: dwilliams@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(a)(2)(C) of the CPSIA (15 U.S.C. 1278a(a)(2)(C)) provides that, as of August 14, 2011, children's products may not contain more than 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead unless the Commission determines that such a limit is not technologically feasible. The Commission may make this determination only after notice and a hearing and after analyzing the public health protections associated with substantially reducing lead in children's products. Section 101(d) of the CPSIA (15 U.S.C. 1278a(d)) provides that a lead limit shall be deemed technologically feasible with regard to a product or product category if:

(1) A product that complies with the limit is commercially available in the product category;

(2) Technology to comply with the limit is commercially available to manufacturers or is otherwise available within the common meaning of the term;

(3) Industrial strategies or devices have been developed that are capable or will be capable of achieving such a limit by the effective date of the limit and that companies, acting in good faith, are generally capable of adopting; or

(4) Alternative practices, best practices, or other operational changes would allow the manufacturer to comply with the limit.

In the Federal Register of January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4641), we published a notice (``hearing notice'') announcing that the Commission would hold a public hearing pursuant to section 101(a) of the CPSIA. The hearing notice stated that the Commission was seeking information on specific issues, such as whether any product or product category already complies with the 100 ppm limit and what factors or considerations we should evaluate in deciding whether a technology is ``commercially available.''

We held the hearing on February 16, 2011. We heard presentations by and received comments from consumer groups, manufacturers, associations, and laboratories regarding the technological feasibility of meeting the 100 ppm lead content limit. At the hearing, individual Commissioners requested that certain participants respond to additional questions in writing and submit relevant studies and additional data. Through this notice, we are announcing that we have placed individual Commissioner's additional questions into the docket and will place any responses into the docket. The questions submitted and responses that are received will be made available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0080, Supporting and Related Material. The Commission will consider any additional material received during the reopening of the hearing record, in addition to information collected at the hearing, in the course of evaluating its response. The Commission is reopening the hearing record to add individual Commissioner's questions to the docket and allow for responses to those questions, and so the hearing record will remain open until March 24, 2011.

Dated: March 3, 2011. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 2011-5231 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

The Consumer Product Safety Database: Why You Should Care

Reprinted with permission from the June/July 2011 edition of Bicycle Dealer Magazine

Download pdf version

By Steven W. Hansen

In August 2008 President Bush signed into the law the Consumer Product Safety “Improvement” Act (the so-called CPSIA). The law was a response to what the general media described as a “flurry” of recalls of children’s toys from China that contained “dangerous levels” of lead. So Congress wrote a law that very few in the recreational products industry were paying much attention to. Only after the bill was passed and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was handed the bill to implement did things start getting testy. By that time it was too late to “fix” the law without new Congressional action. The CPSC argued it could not do much about preventing the effect of the law and did very little to offset its harsh effects.

The bicycle and recreational products industry was especially hard hit as the law really should have only been for specific types of products that were likely to end up in a child’s mouth. But Congress ended up virtually banning all lead in all bicycles and motorcycles. So much so that it’s become virtually impossible to make a metal product that complies. Now we all know that children are not likely to put motorcycles or bicycles in their mouths…but they could.

Meanwhile, there were some rather unnoticed provisions in the 2008 law that had a rather long “implementation period”. It was the so-called consumer product safety database (the CPSC “database”). It was set to go into effect in December 2010 after the CPSC created a new web portal and database to handle the “requirements” of the Congressional mandate in the August 2008 law.

I and a number of others looked into the May 2010 proposed regulations (which became final in December 2010) that the CPSC drafted that it was proposing to implement the new law and we did not like what we saw. For one thing, the database was much broader in scope than the majority of the other parts of the act: it pertained to ALL consumer products (not just those intended for children) and encompassed any problem with the product, not just those involving lead or that were a violation of any CPSC laws or regulations.

The primary problem was that this was going to be an “open” database, meaning that consumers could post complaints or injuries (or “near” injuries) related to a product and they would be posted on the Internet for all to see and search. Now we have all lived with Google for a few years now and know that, quite frankly, you can find just about anything negative you want to find about a product. It seems that more than half of what we read on the web about products is complaints, not praise.

The CPSC database will only magnify this problem, not improve it. As you may well know already, typing a product name followed by “recall” usually brings up the CPSC website in the first 5-10 search results, on average. We know that the CPSC database will enjoy the same Google “preference”. The CPSC database will also be filled only with negative reports -- nothing positive. In addition, it will likely be given great respect and deemed trustworthy by parents and other consumers as it’s a government website. The information will appear to be “vetted” because it only provides information on “unsafe” products, not just those that consumers “don’t like”. But the real question is, should it be deemed trustworthy?

Another problem with the site is that, as the industry and its proponents like me argued, the data should be entered by consumers that actually own or have used the products and were harmed, not merely onlookers, or neighbors and other “interested persons”. Currently, virtually anyone can enter information. This, then, gives rise to another problem. That of “accuracy”. If the person inputting the data was not the user of the product and was not involved in the incident, its going to be very hard to get accurate information about the product, the accident and the specific causation issues that are relevant. Worse, other “interested persons” such as personal injury attorneys, may have a financial interest in reporting information that is not accurate.

One of the problems that is going to plague the bicycle industry is vagueness in the reports with respect to model years and which models and, more important, if the issue is with a component or a complete bike. Typically, if something goes “wrong” with a bike, its related to a component, not the bike brand or model name. This is yet another headache for manufacturers and distributors to be watchful for. This will lead to further consumer confusion with the database information and its accuracy.

In the “old” days, the CPSC would mail incident reports to manufacturers or product distributors who could then comment on the accuracy of the report. If the “reporting party” posts vague information and refuses to allow the CPSC to release his name or other information, there will be no way for the manufacturer to determine if the report is in fact accurate. And this all has to be done in nine calendar days from the time the manufacturer receives the report. Otherwise, it’s published as-is.

Suffice it to say that within a year, this database will likely be filled with very negative reports about many perfectly safe recreational products (when used as directed). But what will consumers and plaintiff’s attorneys do with the database? The argument has essentially been: “Its better to have inaccurate information out there than none at all." Nothing could be further from the truth.

So what should independent bicycle dealers do about the database? Although there is no legal reason to check the database, you should become familiar with it. It’s accessible to anyone at www.saferproducts.gov . More important, if you are the sole retail outlet for a particular product in the US and the manufacturer and / or distributor is outside the USA, then you really do need pay particular attention to the database and might even consider registering so that reports regarding the product come to you. It may also become very important to retailers if the distributor or manufacturer goes out of business.

Even if you are not the sole retailer, you should keep abreast of what consumers are saying about the products you sell and what their complaints are. It could tip you off to a potential recall of the product or a claim being made that involves your store. Again, provided that there are enough “accurate” reports that you can read from which to draw a reliable conclusion.

You also need to be prepared for consumers coming into your store with complaints about the product armed with similar complaints they found on-line in the database. They will argue that these “reports” legitimize their need for a return. Also, if you sense that problems are escalating via the database, make sure you alert the distributor and manufacturer of the issue as they may not be watching the site or even registered at the site.

The site might also be of interest to you in planning next year’s purchases, but you will need to take all of it with a grain of salt and use it primarily for comparison between different products. It’s important to keep in mind that any products listed are likely not recalled. They could be at some later time but, as I am aware, the complain database and the recall database are not tied together.

The database is still very much in its infancy. We have no idea how this site will be used by consumers or attorney or manufacturers or if it really will result in safer products. It’s too early to know. But five years from now there are likely going be millions of complaints in the database (which presumably will remain posted forever). And the headaches are only going to get worse for people like me who represent product manufacturers, distributors and retailers.

Steven W. Hansen served as Secretary to the ASTM Subcommittee on Bicycles and is an attorney who defends recreational product manufacturers, distributors and retailers in product liability lawsuits as well as various persons and entities participating in and promoting recreational sports. The information in this column is subject to change and may not be applicable in your state. It is intended as a thought-provoking discussion of general legal principles and does not constitute legal advice. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author.

 

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA) assigned bill number HR 1939 and set for further markup on May 26, 2011

The full Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a markup on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. On Wednesday, the Committee will convene to conduct opening statements only. It will then reconvene on Thursday, May 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The markup will include H.R. 1939, Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA). Read the Background Memo on H.R. 1939.  H.R. 1939, introduced by Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), would revise the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission greater authority and flexibility to regulate based on risk. Once the bill is out of this Committee it should be available for a complete review here. The May 24, 2011 version is here

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

CPSC Revision and technical amendments to 16 CFR 1512 ["bicycle standard"] effective June 13, 2011

This was a long time in coming given that the 16 CFR 1512 standard was issued in 1978. It was just discussed yesterday (May 18, 2011) at the ASTM F08.10 Bicycle Subcommittee meeting in Anaheim CA. There was a suggestion to try and start an ASTM F08.10 task or work group (similar to what we are doing in F08.96 with the ISO Technical Committee 149 SC) to suggest even more substantive changes to 16 CFR 1512 that would go well beyond the technical changes made below. Even Nancy Nord of the CPSC feels there is a lot more work to be done to "catch up" on bicycles. Again there were a lot more changes suggested to the CPSC to "fix" the 16 CFR 1512 standard than were actually implemented. This is a "red line" draft of all the changes suggested to the CPSC by the Bicycle Products Suppliers Association (BPSA). This is a link to 16 CFR 1512 as of January 2014. Below is the official response from the CPSC to all the suggested changes (from the BPSA and others) as well as the final changes listed at the bottom that become effective June 13, 2011. This is a nice summary of the history of 16 CFR 1512 as well as prior changes to it and how it fits into the current CPSIA debate.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2010-0104
16 CFR Part 1512
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 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 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 ``[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 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.

(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

[omitted]

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

[omited]

V. Environmental Considerations

[omitted]

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1512

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

PART 1512--REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES


1. The authority citation for part 1512 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 3(e)(1), 74 Stat. 372, 374, 375, as amended, 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15 U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.

2. Amend 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.


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 fiber reinforced plastics. * * * * *

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. * * * * *

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

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

Attempts to amend or "fix" CPSIA move forward in Congress under HR __ “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA).”

Things move pretty slowly in congress. This has been about the 15th "bill" (or attempted bill or amendment or other "maneuver") to try an amend/fix the dreaded Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act "CPSIA" which quite frankly looked much more harmless in 2008. That was before the recession and before the Consumer Product Safety Commission "CPSC" started taking a close look at CPSIA and spitting out thousands of pages of regulations and other documents in trying to wrestle with its draconian requirements. This is just the latest attempt to ameliorate some of the more problematic provisions of the 2008 CPSIA. As you can well imagine trying to get the attention of Congress these days is not too easy. And it's a very hostile political environment these days. News of increased regulation usually sounds good in TV sound bites by politicians, but when you get down to the really ugly nitty gritty its not very pretty (especially if you are the company that has to comply). And worse, you end up with hundreds of laws and regulations with huge penalties...all of which can be applied (or interpreted) in an "uneven" fashion to say the least by some regulatory bureaucrat who decides he or she does not like your company's attitude. You see the problem. And its really hard on "small" businesses. Companies like Mattel and Wal Mart hire teams of people to assist with regulatory compliance work and have the clout to force their smaller suppliers to bear the risk of non compliance. Small(er) businesses do not.

Hats off to the Bicycle Products Suppliers Association (BPSA) for really trying to stay on top of this. Without a full time lobbyist in congress its really hard to know when things are going to happen or not happen on a given day. And unfortunately, to be effective, you have to know before Congress acts not after. The motorcycle / ATV industry is also working hard on this as are a number of other industries heavily impacted by CPSIA. The fact is these days if you don't work really hard at getting your voice heard in Congress (and that means yelling really loud with lots of well reasoned voices) you are going to get rolled over. Its unfortunate that more attention was not paid to this law well before it passed in August 2008.

The April 7, 2011 testimony before The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade by the BPSA is good to read first just as background for what we were seeking. And this is the the May 10, 2011 version of the “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA)” along with some opening comments, markups and amendments made May 12, 2011. Obviously you don't get everything you ask for. Section 9 is of interest as it affects the now infamous "consumer products safety information database" which just rolled out in March 2011. Some of these fixes will be helpful but I fear we will need to go a year or so with the database before we begin to see even more problems that need fixing once again via Congress of course. I had to chuckle a bit when I read this article dealing with the new "CPSC like" agency regulating banks. Apparently banks don't like public complaint databases either. I guess misery loves company.

Press Release
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Votes to Improve Consumer Product Safety Law

May 12, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC – The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade took an important step to improve consumer product safety protections today by approving the discussion draft of H.R. ___,(bill number yet to be attached) “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA).”

The draft legislation, which passed the subcommittee by voice vote, would revise the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), seeking to reduce the regulatory burdens of the current law while maintaining consumer protection. The proposal calls for greater flexibility for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate based on risk.

“While CPSIA has many virtues, there are some unintended consequences of the law as well. Our common sense reforms will help to make a good law even better, saving thousands of American jobs in the process and providing our children with the important protections they need,” said Subcommittee Chairman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA). “This was a careful balancing act, but even the Consumer Product Safety Commission has recognized the problems with CPSIA and requested greater flexibility in implementing the new law.”

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

CPSC stay pertaining to lead content in youth ATV's, bicycles and Related Products extended until December 31, 2011.

Below is a rather lengthy and confusing document released by the CPSC on February 8, 2011. It pertains to the stay regarding bicycle lead testing that was set to expire July 1, 2011. Basically by the extension below the July 2011 expiration date has been extended to December 31, 2011. I have to admit is very difficult for anyone to keep up with the flurry of paper that comes out of the CPSC these days. Again with respect to exactly what requirements are being stayed you will need to refer back to the stays themselves. The bicycle stay effective until July 1, 2011 (extended below) is avaialble for viewing here

[Federal Register: February 8, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 26)]

[Notices]

[Page 6765-6766]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access

[DOCID:fr08fe11-31]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Consumer Product Safety Act: Notice of Commission Action on the

Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirements

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Revision of terms of stay of enforcement.

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC'' or

``Commission'' or ``we'') is announcing its decision to revise the

terms of its stay of enforcement of certain testing and certification

provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'')

as amended by section 102 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement

Act of 2008 (``CPSIA''). Through this notice, the Commission announces

an extension of the stay of enforcement pertaining to total lead

content in children's products (except for metal components of

children's metal jewelry), and certain related products, until December

31, 2011.

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

DATES: The stay of enforcement pertaining to total lead content in

children's products (except for metal components of children's metal

jewelry), and certain related products, is extended until December 31,

2011, upon which date the stay will expire.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert ``Jay'' Howell, Acting

Assistant Executive Director for the Office of Compliance and Field

Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; e-mail rhowell@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 14 of the CPSA requires that every manufacturer of a

product (and the private labeler, if the product bears a private label)

that is subject to a consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or

regulation enforced by the Commission certify, based on testing, that

its product complies with the applicable safety rule, ban, standard, or

regulation. For nonchildren's products, the certification must be based

on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program. For

children's products, the certification must be based on testing

conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body

(laboratory).

On February 9, 2009, the Commission published a notice in the

Federal Register, staying enforcement of many of the testing and

certification requirements, including the requirements related to total

lead in children's products (other than the lead content of metal

components of children's metal jewelry). 74 FR 6396, 6397. The

Commission committed to the stay for one year, explaining that the stay

was necessary to ``give us the time needed to develop sound rules and

requirements as well as implement outreach efforts to explain these

[new] requirements of the CPSIA and their applicability.'' 74 FR at

6398. With regard to lead content in metal components of children's

metal jewelry, the Commission stated that certifications based on third

party testing would be required for such products manufactured after

March 23, 2009. 74 FR at 6397.

On December 28, 2009, the Commission published a notice in the

Federal Register, revising the terms of the stay. 74 FR 68588. In that

notice, the Commission lifted the stay for some CPSC regulations and

extended the stay for other CPSC regulations. Relevant for present

purposes, the Commission stated that it ``plans to keep the stay in

effect for total lead content in metal children's products and in non-

metal children's products * * * (section 101 of the CPSIA) until

February 10, 2011.'' 74 FR at 68591. The December 28, 2009, notice did

not affect certifications and testing of lead content in metal

components of children's metal jewelry; the stay pertaining to those

products had expired on March 23, 2009. 74 FR at 68589.

The Commission also published two notices concerning discrete stays

of enforcement related to lead content. On May 12, 2009, the Commission

published a notice staying enforcement with regard to the lead content

in certain parts and youth motorized vehicles that contain those parts.

74 FR 22154. The notice announced that the stay would remain in effect

until May 1, 2011. Id. Specifically, the Commission stayed enforcement

of the specified lead level as it pertains to certain parts of youth

all-terrain vehicles, youth off-road motorcycles, and youth snowmobiles

(``Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles'' or ``Vehicles''),

specifically battery terminals containing up to 100 percent lead, and

components made with metal alloys, including steel containing up to

0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper

with up to 4.0 percent lead, and the vehicles that contain them. Id.

On June 30, 2009, the Commission published a notice staying

enforcement with regard to the lead content in certain parts of

bicycles, jogger strollers, and bicycle trailers (``Bicycles and

Related Products'') designed or intended primarily for children 12

years of age or younger. 74 FR 31254. In brief, the stay applied to

components made with metal alloys, including steel containing up to

0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper

with up to 4.0 percent lead. 74 FR at 31257. The Commission stated the

stay would remain in effect until July 1, 2011. 74 FR at 31254.

II. Extension of Stay of Enforcement

We have received several requests for an extension of the stay of

enforcement related to lead testing and certifications. After

considering these requests and other matters, the Commission has

decided to extend the existing stay of enforcement on testing and

certifications of the total lead content in children's products (except

for metal components of children's metal jewelry) until December 31,

2011, at which time the stay will expire. This action by the Commission

encompasses the stays described above, pertaining to lead content in
Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles and Bicycles and Related
Products; those stays are hereby extended until December 31, 2011.

The Commission notes that there remains in effect a stay of

enforcement on testing and certification for children's products

subject to those children's product safety rules for which a notice of

requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment

bodies (laboratories) has not published yet, including testing of

children's toys and child care articles for banned phthalates, and

testing of children's toys for compliance with the mandatory toy safety standard ASTM F-963 (which includes caps and toy guns). The Commission's current action does not affect that stay of enforcement; accordingly, and as described in the December 28, 2009, notice (74 FR 68591-68592), such

stay will continue until the respective notices of requirements for

laboratory accreditation are published.

\1\ The Commission voted 4-1 to approve publication of this

notice. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum, Commissioner Thomas H. Moore,

Commissioner Nancy Nord, and Commissioner Anne M. Northup voted for

the publication of the notice with changes. Commissioner Robert S.

Adler voted against publication of the notice. Chairman Tenenbaum,

Commissioner Northup, and Commissioner Adler filed statements

concerning this vote. The statements may be viewed on the

Commission's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html.

Dated: February 1, 2011.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[FR Doc. 2011-2704 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use