U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) filed an administrative complaint against Amazon.com, on July 14 2021 to force it to recall certain consumer products

The CPSC does not actually have the ability to "force" a US company to undertake a "voluntary recall". The vast majority of CPSC recalls are basically undertaken voluntarily. The degree of how voluntary or involuntary they are often depends on the nature of the safety problem, how widespread it is and also on the size of the company. Again in the vast majority of cases, such as recently with Peloton, the company relents and agrees to conduct a "voluntary" recall under the control of CPSC. In some cases however the CPSC either has to back down and accept what remediation and notification that has been done, or like in this case with Amazon, it literally has to sue Amazon to "force" it to recall the products under CPSC guidelines with the CPSC calling the shots (as usual) on the specifics of how the notifications will be sent out, what they say, the remedies etc.  The suit itself is quite a good read (and educational) and details the position the CPSC is asserting on Amazon's role in the sales and returns process and why it should be forced to undertake the recall (not the overseas manufacturers which the CPSC has no control over). Its quite an eyeopener. This is nothing short of extraordinary for the CPSC to do and again it only does so in egregious situations where it is quite certain a judge will agree with its findings. 

Obviously we would never counsel any of our clients to take such a step unless there were good reasons not to conduct a recall, but of course if that was the case the CPSC would not likely be suing the company. We always recommend cooperating with the CPSC (but only through counsel) if you plan on conducting a recall for a host of related legal reasons. It will be interesting to watch this suit play out. No doubt the CPSC felt emboldened by a number of recent court decisions like this one in California holding Amazon legally responsible for the distribution of allegedly defective products.

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 Conditions of Use

California Court rules that Amazon does have liability for a defective product (Bolger v Amazon.com LLC)

This article was reprinted with permission from Bicycle Retailer and Industry News  

By Steven W. Hansen, Esq. 

Update 11/19/20: The California Supreme Court on 11/18/20 denied Amazon.com LLC’s bid for judicial review of this case decided earlier this fall. So that mean this case is now a legally cite-able precedent and is "the law" in Calif.

An appeals court in California ruled Thursday that Amazon is not shielded from liability for defective products sold by third-party sellers through its online marketplace.

Nationally this California Appellate case is one of the first decided against Amazon holding them directly liable for a defective product sold on its marketplace. It remains to be seen what happens on somewhat similar cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the country. On a related issue, the California Legislature is considering a bill (AB-3262 Product liability: electronic retail marketplaces) that would treat “electronic retail marketplaces” like retailers for purposes of California strict liability law. The future of this bill is uncertain and most if not all of California law regarding product liability is case law not statutory law.

The plaintiff in the California case, Angela Bolger, bought a replacement laptop computer battery on Amazon.com in 2016.

The listing for the battery on Amazon identified the “seller” (“sold by”) as “E-Life,” a fictitious name used on Amazon by Lenoge Technology (HK) Ltd. (Lenoge). Amazon charged Bolger for the purchase, retrieved the laptop battery from its location in an Amazon warehouse, (as this was an “FBA” sale or “fulfillment by Amazon”) prepared the battery for shipment in Amazon-branded packaging, and sent it to Bolger. Bolger alleged the battery exploded several months later, and she suffered severe burns as a result.

Interestingly a month after the purchase Amazon suspended Lenoge’s selling privileges because it became aware of a “grouping” of safety reports on Lenoge’s laptop batteries and Lenoge did not respond to Amazon’s requests for documentation. Three weeks later, Amazon permanently blocked Lenoge’s account.  Bolger sued Amazon in January 2017 and several other defendants, including Lenoge, alleging causes of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and “negligence/negligent undertaking.” Lenoge was served but did not appear, so the trial court entered its default. Other entities were sued as well but foreign service of process was going to take 2-3 years. Three months after suit was filed, Amazon sent Bolger an email warning her that Amazon had learned that the Lenoge replacement battery “may present a fire hazard or not perform as expected…If you still have this product, we strongly recommend that you stop using the item immediately.”

What is most interesting to us is that there is no record of any CPSC recall regarding this battery or related companies which would be required before any notification were sent to a consumer regarding a safety issue; unless of course Amazon did not consider itself a seller or in the retail chain. Ironically there is still an Amazon seller named “Lenoge” selling laptop batteries on the site as of this writing.

After almost two years of litigation, Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily that the doctrine of strict products liability, as well as any similar tort theory, did not apply to it because Amazon did not design or manufacture the product, sell or distribute the battery, set the price, provide a warranty, or control the terms of the product offer. Similarly, Amazon argued it was not involved in sourcing the subject battery from the manufacturer or upstream distributor.” Amazon also submitted a declaration from an Amazon senior manager responsible for product safety, investigations, and recalls who asserted that “E-life retained title to the battery at all times,” and “E-life was also responsible for ensuring the battery that it sold to [Bolger] was properly packaged and complied with all applicable laws.” The Amazon manager acknowledged Amazon’s A-to-z Guarantee, but she denied it was a warranty. She stated, “The only warranty provided for a product comes from the third-party seller.”

The trial court judge agreed with all of Amazon’s factual and legal arguments (even though there were likely disputed facts that could have prevented the motion from being granted), and granted Amazon’s motion, and entered judgment accordingly. 

The three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal, strongly disagreed in a very well reasoned decision. We strongly urge readers to take a look at the opinion starting at page 18 as it pretty much lays out the entire basis of product liability in California and how Amazon’s attempt to shield itself from liability was really a smokescreen for its true role in the chain of distribution.

Initially the court pointed out that “Essentially the paramount policy to be promoted by the [product liability doctrine] is the protection of otherwise defenseless victims of manufacturing defects and the spreading throughout society of the cost of compensating them.” But “the facts must establish a sufficient causative relationship or connection between the defendant and the product so as to satisfy the policies underlying the strict liability doctrine.” The court looked at older decisions where product “facilitators” had benefited from service charges in providing the product and finding liability as the “overall producing and marketing enterprise is in a better position to insure against the liability and to distribute it to the public by adding the cost thereof to the price of the product.” 

One of the key factors (although perhaps not the deciding factor) in this case was that the Lenoge supplier was participating in the FBA program with Amazon. The court painstakingly went thru the process of how the battery got from Lenoge to Amazon and from Amazon to the consumer and that Amazon was an “integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries resulting from defective products.”. The court painstakingly went thru all of the policies underlying the doctrine of strict products liability to confirm that the doctrine should apply.

First, Amazon, like conventional retailers, may be the only member of the distribution chain reasonably available to an injured plaintiff who purchases a product on its website. 

Second, Amazon, again like conventional retailers, “may play a substantial part in insuring that the product is safe or may be in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to that end; the retailer’s strict liability thus serves as an added incentive to safety.”

Third, Amazon, like conventional retailers, has the capacity to adjust the cost of compensating injured plaintiffs between itself and the third-party sellers in the course of their ongoing relationship.

Amazon focused on dictionary definitions of “seller” and “distributor” and claimed it could not be held strictly liable because those definitions do not apply to it. It characterized its business as a service, i.e., a forum for others to sell their products, and therefore outside the rule of strict liability. The court felt Amazon’s arguments were unpersuasive.

First, regardless of whether Amazon selected this particular battery for sale, it chose to host Lenoge’s product listing, accept Lenoge into the FBA program, take possession of the battery, accept Bolger’s order, take her payment, and ship the battery to her. Amazon was therefore part of the chain of distribution even if it did not consciously select the Lenoge replacement battery for sale. Second, and more fundamentally, Amazon did choose to offer the Lenoge replacement battery for sale. Amazon was no mere bystander to the vast digital and physical apparatus it designed and controlled. The court reasoned Amazon made these choices for its own commercial purposes and so it should share in the consequences.

Many of the arguments Amazon asserted were contradictory. For example, Amazon argued that it did not set the price for third-party products and therefore cannot “spread the cost of defects across units sold.” But as Amazon noted, it does control its fees. If it desires, it can increase fees on high-risk products, or all products, and thereby spread the cost of compensating consumers injured by such products.  Of course, this is the problem in general with low-cost products. Costs must be cut somewhere and one of the ways to do that is by avoiding product liability and insurance costs. This is typically the case with overseas companies beyond the reach of US courts. But of course, the argument here is that Amazon does in fact have control over these overseas companies and can force them to insure Amazon.

Amazon also contended (as all internet companies do) that, regardless of its liability under California law, it is shielded by the federal Communications Decency Act (1996). The court ruled against Amazon on this issue as well as under existing case law, “while the [CDA] protects interactive computer service providers from liability as a publisher of speech, it does not protect them from liability as the seller of a defective product.” Here the liability was based on Amazon’s own conduct, as described above, not the content of Lenoge’s product listing. The court also distinguished eBay cases where eBay was not found responsible for users' false product listings.

It is important to point out that this appellate decision will almost surely be appealed by Amazon to the California Supreme court and that it could take well over a year for a final decision from that court. Once that decision comes down from the CA Supreme court (Its unclear if the US Supreme court would agree to hear this case) the case may still be sent back to the trial court for trial and appealed again from a verdict. Or the case may settle and this opinion and/or any Supreme Court opinion would stand as the law. Amazon may seek to “de-publish” the opinion so it could not be relied on as precedent. That outcome is unlikely in this case. 

The issue of Amazon’s strict liability for third-party sales has been, and continues to be, litigated in state and federal courts across the country. Some hold Amazon strictly liable while others do not.  Many of the other cases are factually distinguishable, including because the product at issue was NOT sold through Amazon’s FBA program (as in the Bolger case). Also other state statutes or case law have limited strict liability in a manner inconsistent with California law.   

So now what are the implications of the Bolger case? Well knowing Amazon and how it likes to assert its leverage over sellers, it will likely immediately start requiring very large insurance policies naming it as additional insured for all third party sellers (but especially those who use FBA) As California is such a huge market for Amazon and Amazon cannot be sure where a third party seller product may be shipped, any decision in any state holding Amazon responsible will make it such that Amazon will have to enforce the insurance requirements system-wide. Also as most plaintiffs do not pursue entities in other countries that require complex foreign service and jurisdictional issues to be overcome, it will be interesting to see how this decision forces Amazon to force the small sellers to pony up when it comes to the defense and indemnification of Amazon. The overall effect will likely be increased prices on the Amazon third party platform (even more so that post-COVIID-19) which may hurt it in its fight with Walmart.

This decision was a long time in coming but I had to say the writing was on the wall. The decision is a great read for those that want to learn about how Amazon deals with sellers. Amazon wants a big piece of the sales pie. It wanted to have total control over sellers and buyers while keeping the two isolated from each other. But when it came to liability its position was “oh we don’t sell anything and have nothing to do with the marketing of the product”. Well that facade has now been severely eroded. The emperor's lack of clothes has now been pointed out in a court decision that will be heard around the world.

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 Conditions of Use

California Bill alert; AB-1286 Shared mobility devices: agreements (2019-2020) (AB 371 2022)

UPDATE 6/21/22. This bill was renumbered to AB 371 and CAL Bike does not like the insurance requirements. Quite a few provisions have been added since 2020 version below. Here is the calbike campaign and the link to the current version of the bill. Act now in contacting your CA legislator as votes can happen very quickly without warning.

UPDATE 9/2/20. So the legislative year is over in CA as of 8/31/20...whew...The final bill language is set forth below as of 9/2/20. They still did not clean up the issue below in my 8/27/20 update. If the bill is signed by Gov. Newsom it looks like it would take effect January 1, 2021.

UPDATE 8/27/20:

It appears that the mobility industry and or others in the industry were able to remove all the provisions in the bill relating to releases. However in my opinion the definition of a  “Shared mobility device” and a  “Shared mobility device provider” is still too vague which then leads to a problem with this remaining provision "(b) Before distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use."  "Distribution" is way too vague and again this could apply to very small rental operations that cannot afford such high insurance limits.

ORIGINAL 8/12/20 POST:

Once again someone in the California legislature got whiff of a bad idea and decided to run with it. Just like the AB 5 bill last year regarding independent contractors and the resulting unwinding of Uber in CA., now we have a "shared mobility bill" that attempts to "fix" a few issues in that sector but does it in a very heavy handed way. 

The first problem is the definition of a "shared mobility device". (ellipses eliminates unneeded verbiage) "Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board.... motorized scooter ... electric bicycle... [human powered] bicycle..., or other similar personal transportation device, .... that is made available to the public..". It gets worse.

“Shared mobility service provider”... means a person or entity that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for financial compensation..."

So if one person wanted to rent a bike to someone, this law applies to that person renting a bike. Rather overbroad and too all inclusive. Poorly drafted in my opinion. There should be some revenue size threshold added to this definition.

Now for the good part, if you rent one of these devices (regardless of the size of your business or the amount of revenue to you earn) you have to purchase a policy from a California admitted insurer (might be tough from what I know of this insurance market) and the limits have to be 1 million per claim and 5 million dollars in the aggregate. In some respects that is more than Walmart suppliers have to procure to sell to Walmart.

But there is more. The "agreement between the provider and a user shall not contain a provision by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreement.". So even though California statutory law and case law allows for such waivers and releases in the recreational sports context, this legislator knows better and is going to go against established law. Such releases are not allowed in a product liability case to begin with. All this does is expose the companies renting (not product manufacturers or distributors) to MORE liability and make it harder for them to extricate themselves from litigation. Also the insurance market has "priced in" those waivers and without them insurance costs will likely rise in this sector. Legislators should think very long and hard before tinkering with existing liability laws and precedent. The law of unintended consequences makes things hard to fix once a new law is unleashed.

It goes on to provide that "A city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use and maintenance of shared mobility devices..."

Quite frankly I trust the mobility companies to come up with better rules for operation than any government entity. Trust me I have seen this play out before. Government entities are not very adept at this especially considering the hundreds of different devices out there.

It is worth noting that this bill is co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) (which is a large association of attorneys that represents plaintiff's) and the League of California Cities (which is a group that generally advocates for cities) It is supported by the Environmental Defense Fund and a number of consumer protection groups. It is opposed by a number of shared mobility service providers, TechNet, and the Civil Justice Association of California.

The senate Judiciary Committee Analysis is as follows (in part)

Required prohibition on waiver of rights and remedies

Pursuant to the bill, the agreement and permit must also prohibit provisions in shared mobility provider agreements between providers and users by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreement. Writing in opposition, were a coalition of groups, including a number of providers such as Bird and Lime.

What is interesting is that the committee responded to their opposition with:

"It is true that such waivers are generally permitted and widely used, but are subject to certain limitations and requirements laid out in statute and case law. Civil Code Section 1668 provides:“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”Relevant judicial precedent further requires that waivers must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties, as well as comprehensible in each of its essential details. (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356; Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc.(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715, 1731."

So even after acknowledging years of case law out there to protect consumer from onerous releases or waivers the Legislature still felt it was appropriate and ban outright the use of waivers and in a very broad fashion (not just for electric devices) or limiting the ban to large providers.

The plaintiff attorneys association responded (some what inaccurately) that:

"The opposition argues that such agreements are common. However, (1) [releases] being common does not make them right and (2) they are different from other rental agreements/operators. The companies manufacture (Editor: that is not true in all circumstances) and place e-scooters into the stream of commerce and are more akin to a product manufacturer and/or retailer and less like an innocent rental agency with no control over the product. Also, the manufacturers have the exclusive control to fix/maintain the scooters. (Editor: this is is also not always accurate) When a driver rents a vehicle, he or she is not required to waive the liability of car defects; neither should a scooter rider."

The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) responded that "The scooter manufacturer has no way of exerting control over the scooter rider and does not deserve full legal responsibility for accidents that may occur as a result of a rider’s behavior." The Legislative analyst responded that "assumption of risk" can still be asserted but I would point out if the defendant is in fact a product manufacturer or in the stream of distribution "assumption of risk" is not available as a defense in a pure product liability case.

If you want to see the full bill analysis click here. It is worth a read.

The entire bill as it exists today is set forth below. This bill was last amended in June of 2019 and it is just now coming up for a hearing with the CA Senate Judiciary Committee on August 18, 2020. Don't ask why. It passed out of committee on 8/19/20 and is now set for a 'third reading". This is part of the problem with the CA legislature. Surprise hearings on dormant bills months down the road. Maybe that's planned. August 31 is the last day to pass the bill.

The committee can be reached at:
State Capitol
Room 2187
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4113
Fax: (916) 403-7394
Email: sjud.fax@sen.ca.gov

The bill author can be reached here.

FINAL LANGUAGE OF BILL AWAITING SIGNATURE BY GOV. NEWSOM LIKELY WITHIN 30 DAYS:

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:

TITLE 10.1. Shared Mobility Devices

2505.

 (a) For purposes of this title:

(1) “Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board as defined in Section 313.5 of the Vehicle Code, motorized scooter as defined in Section 407.5 of the Vehicle Code, electric bicycle as defined in Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code, bicycle as defined in Section 231 of the Vehicle Code, or other similar personal transportation device, except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 415 of the Vehicle Code, that is made available to the public by a shared mobility service provider for shared use and transportation in exchange for financial compensation via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.

(2) “Shared mobility service provider” or “provider” means a person or entity that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for financial compensation or membership via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.

(b) Before distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The agreement or permit shall, at a minimum, require that the shared mobility service provider maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage with a carrier doing business in California, with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for bodily injury or property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, and product liability and completed operations, and not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate for all occurrences during the policy period. The insurance shall not exclude coverage for injuries or damages caused by the shared mobility service provider to the shared mobility device user.

(c) (1) A city or county that authorizes a provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2021, shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, and maintenance of shared mobility devices before a provider may offer any shared mobility device for rent or use in the city or county by any of the following:

(A) Ordinance.

(B) Agreement.

(C) Permit terms.

(2) A city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2021, and continues to provide that authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, and maintenance of shared mobility devices by January 1, 2022, by any of the following:

(A) Ordinance.

(B) Agreement.

(C) Permit terms.

(3) A provider shall comply with all applicable rules, agreements, and permit terms established pursuant to this subdivision.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city or county from adopting any ordinance or regulation that is not inconsistent with this title.

SEC. 2.

 The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

 

OLDER VERSION OF THE BILL BELOW:

Introduced by Assembly Member Muratsuchi

February 21, 2019

---

An act to add Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, relating to mobility devices.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1286, as amended, Muratsuchi. Shared mobility devices: agreements.

Existing law regulates contracts for particular transactions, including those in which one person agrees to give to another person the temporary possession and use of personal property, other than money for reward, and the latter agrees to return the property to the former at a future time.

This bill would require a shared mobility service provider, as defined, to enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The bill would require that the provider maintain a specified amount of commercial general liability insurance and would prohibit the provider from including specified provisions in a user agreement before distributing a shared mobility device within that jurisdiction. The bill would define shared mobility device to mean an electrically motorized board, motorized scooter, electric bicycle, bicycle, or other similar personal transportation device, except as provided.

This bill would require a city or county that authorizes a shared mobility device provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2020, to adopt operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules and maintenance rules, as provided, regarding the use of the shared mobility devices in its jurisdiction before the provider may offer shared mobility devices for rent or use. The bill would require a city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that authorization to adopt those operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules and maintenance rules, as provided, by January 1, 2021.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: NO   Local Program: NO  

---

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:

TITLE 10.1. Shared Mobility Devices

2505.

 (a) For purposes of this title:

(1) “Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board as defined in Section 313.5 of the Vehicle Code, motorized scooter as defined in Section 407.5 of the Vehicle Code, electric bicycle as defined in Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code, bicycle as defined in Section 231 of the Vehicle Code, or other similar personal transportation device, except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 415 of the Vehicle Code, that is made available to the public by a shared mobility service provider for shared use and transportation in exchange for financial compensation via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.

(2) “Shared mobility service provider” or “provider” means a person or entity that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for financial compensation or membership via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.

(b) Before distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The agreement or permit shall, at a minimum, require that the provider comply with both of the following requirements:

(1) Requires Require that the shared mobility service provider to maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage with a carrier doing business in California, with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for bodily injury or property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, and product liability and completed operations, and not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate for all occurrences during the policy period. The insurance shall not exclude coverage for injuries or damages caused by the shared mobility service provider to the shared mobility device user.

(2) The shared mobility provider agreement between the provider and a user shall not contain a provision by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreement.

(c) (1) A city or county that authorizes a provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2020, shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use and maintenance of shared mobility devices before a provider may offer any shared mobility device for rent or use in the city or county. county by any of the following:

(A) Ordinance.

(B) Agreement.

(C) Permit terms.

(2) A city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use and maintenance of shared mobility devices by January 1, 2021. 2021, by any of the following:

(A) Ordinance.

(B) Agreement.

(C) Permit terms.

(3) A provider shall comply with all operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules applicable rules, agreements, and permit terms established pursuant to this subdivision.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city or county from adopting any ordinance or regulation that is not inconsistent with this title.

SEC. 2.

 The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

 

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 Conditions of Use

16 CFR 1512 to 1512.20 (part 1512) Requirements for Bicycles and E Bikes (version date Jan 2019)

Please note that the prior post of 16 CFR 1512 is of an older version. Please use this version. For e bikes please note section 1512.2(a)(2) for the federal definition of an e bike.

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 16 - Commercial Practices
Volume: 2
Date: 2019-01-01
Original Date: 2019-01-01

Title: PART 1512 - REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES

Context: Title 16 - Commercial Practices. CHAPTER II - CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. SUBCHAPTER C - FEDERAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT REGULATIONS.

Pt. 1512
PART 1512—REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES

Subpart A—Regulations
Sec.
1512.1
Scope.
1512.2
Definitions.
1512.3
Requirements in general.
1512.4
Mechanical requirements.
1512.5
Requirements for braking system.
1512.6
Requirements for steering system.
1512.7
Requirements for pedals.
1512.8
Requirements for drive chain.
1512.9
Requirements for protective guards.
1512.10
Requirements for tires.
1512.11
Requirements for wheels.
1512.12
Requirements for wheel hubs.
1512.13
Requirements for front fork.
1512.14
Requirements for fork and frame assembly.
1512.15
Requirements for seat.
1512.16
Requirements for reflectors.
1512.17
Other requirements.
1512.18
Tests and test procedures.
1512.19
Instructions and labeling.
1512.20
Separability.
Subpart B—Policies and Interpretations [Reserved]
 
 .
Figure 1 to Part 1512—Bicycle Front Fork Cantilever Bending Test Rig
Figures 2 and 3 to Part 1512—Handlebar Stem Loading and Entrance 8 Observation Angles
Figure 5 to Part 1512—Typical Handbrake Actuator Showing Grip Dimension
Figures 6 and 7 to Part 1512—Toe Clearance and Chain Guard Requirements
Figure 8 to Part 1512—Reflectorized Bicycle Wheel Rim Abrasion Test Device
Table 1 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1
Table 2 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1
Table 3 to Part 1512—Minimum Acceptable Values for the Quantity A Defined in the Retroreflective Tire and Rim Test Procedure
Table 4 to Part 1512—Relative Energy Distribution of Sources
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.
Source:
43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A—Regulations

§ 1512.1 Scope.
This part sets forth the requirements for a bicycle as defined in § 1512.2(a) (except a bicycle that is a “track bicycle” or a “one-of-a-kind bicycle” as defined in § 1512.2 (d) and (e)) which is not a banned article under § 1500.18(a)(12) of this chapter.

§ 1512.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this part:
(a) Bicycle means:
(1) A two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel that is solely human-powered;
(2) A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.
(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.
(c) Seat height means the dimension from the point on the seat surface intersected by the seat post center line (or the center of the seating area if no seat post exists) and the ground plane, as measured with the wheels aligned and in a plane normal to the ground plane.
(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.
(e) One-of-a-kind bicycle means a bicycle that is uniquely constructed to the order of an individual consumer other than by assembly of stock or production parts.
(f) Normal riding position means that the rider is seated on the bicycle with both feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlegrips (and in a position that allows operation of handbrake levers if so equipped); the seat and handlebars may be adjusted to positions judged by the rider to be comfortable.
(g) Recumbent bicycle means a bicycle in which the rider sits in a reclined position with the feet extended forward to the pedals.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 68 FR 7073, Feb. 12, 2003; 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]

§ 1512.3 Requirements in general.
Any bicycle subject to the regulations in this part shall meet the requirements of this part in the condition to which it is offered for sale to consumers; any bicycle offered for sale to consumers in disassembled or partially assembled condition shall meet these requirements after assembly according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the purpose of compliance with this part, where the metric and English units are not equal due to the conversion process the less stringent requirement will prevail.

§ 1512.4 Mechanical requirements.
(a) Assembly. Bicycles shall be manufactured such that mechanical skills required of the consumer for assembly shall not exceed those possessed by an adult of normal intelligence and ability.
(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.
(c) Integrity. There shall be no visible fracture of the frame or of any steering, wheel, pedal, crank, or brake system component resulting from testing in accordance with: The handbrake loading and performance test, § 1512.18(d); the foot brake force and performance test, § 1512.18(e); and the road test, § 1512.18(p) (or the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q)).
(d) Attachment hardware. All screws, bolts, or nuts used to attach or secure components shall not fracture, loosen, or otherwise fail their intended function during the tests required in this part. All threaded hardware shall be of sufficient quality to allow adjustments and maintenance. Recommended quality thread form is specified in Handbook H28, “Screw Thread Standards for Federal Service,” 1 issued by the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce; recommended mechanical properties are specified in ISO Recommendation R898, “Mechanical Properties of Fasteners,” and in ISO Recommendations 68, 262, and 263, “General Purpose Screw Threads.” 2
Footnote(s):
1 Copies may be obtained from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Footnote(s):
2 Copies may be obtained from: American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.
(e)-(f) [Reserved]
(g) Excluded area. There shall be no protrusions located within the area bounded by (1) a line 89 mm (31/2 in) to the rear of and parallel to the handlebar stem; (2) a line tangent to the front tip of the seat and intersecting the seat mast at the top rear stay; (3) the top surface of the top tube; and (4) a line connecting the front of the seat (when adjusted to its highest position) to the junction where the handlebar is attached to the handlebar stem. The top tube on a female bicycle model shall be the seat mast and the down tube or tubes that are nearest the rider in the normal riding position. Control cables no greater than 6.4 mm (1/4 in) in diameter and cable clamps made from material not thicker than 4.8 mm (3/16 in) may be attached to the top tube.
(h) [Reserved]
(i) Control cable ends. Ends of all accessible control cables shall be provided with protective caps or otherwise treated to prevent unraveling. Protective caps shall be tested in accordance with the protective cap and end-mounted devices test, § 1512.18(c), and shall withstand a pull of 8.9 N (2.0 lbf).
(j) Control cable abrasion. Control cables shall not abrade over fixed parts and shall enter and exit cable sheaths in a direction in line with the sheath entrance and exit so as to prevent abrading.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]

§ 1512.5 Requirements for braking system.
(a) Braking system. Bicycles shall be equipped with front- and rear-wheel brakes or rear-wheel brakes only.
(b) Handbrakes. Handbrakes shall be tested at least ten times by applying a force sufficient to cause the handlever to contact the handlebar, or a maximum of 445 N (100 lbf), in accordance with the loading test, § 1512.18(d)(2), and shall be rocked back and forth with the weight of a 68.1 kg (150 lb) rider on the seat with the same handbrake force applied in accordance with the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(iii); there shall be no visible fractures, failures, movement of clamps, or misalignment of brake components.
(1) Stopping distance. A bicycle equipped with only handbrakes shall be tested for stopping distance by a rider of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight in accordance with the performance test, § 1512.18(d)(2) (v) and (vi), and shall have a stopping distance of no greater than 4.57 m (15 ft) from the actual test speed as determined by the equivalent ground speed specified in § 1512.18(d)(2)(vi).
(2) Hand lever access. Hand lever mechanisms shall be located on the handlebars in a position that is readily accessible to the rider when in a normal riding position.
(3) Grip dimension. The grip dimension (maximum outside dimension between the brake hand lever and the handlebars in the plane containing the centerlines of the handgrip and the hand brake lever) shall not exceed 89 mm (31/2 in) at any point between the pivot point of the lever and lever midpoint; the grip dimension for sidewalk bicycles shall not exceed 76 mm (3 in). The grip dimension may increase toward the open end of the lever but shall not increase by more than 12.7 mm (1/2 in) except for the last 12.7 mm (1/2 in) of the lever. (See figure 5 of this part 1512.)
(4) Attachment. Brake assemblies shall be securely attached to the frame by means of fasteners with locking devices such as a lock washer, locknut, or equivalent and shall not loosen during the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)- (2)(iii). The cable anchor bolt shall not cut any of the cable strands.
(5) Operating force. A force of less than 44.5 N (10 lbf) shall cause the brake pads to contact the braking surface of the wheel when applied to the handlever at a point 25 mm (1.0 in) from the open end of the handlever.
(6) Pad and pad holders. Caliper brake pad shall be replaceable and adjustable to engage the braking surface without contacting the tire or spokes and the pad holders shall be securely attached to the caliper assembly. The brake pad material shall be retained in its holder without movement when the bicycle is loaded with a rider of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight and is rocked forward and backward as specified in the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(iii).
(7) [Reserved]
(8) Hand lever location. The rear brake shall be actuated by a control located on the right handlebar and the front brake shall be actuated by a control located on the left handlebar. The left-hand/right-hand locations may be reversed in accordance with an individual customer order. If a single hand lever is used to actuate both front and rear brakes, it shall meet all applicable requirements for hand levers and shall be located on either the right or left handlebar in accordance with the customer's preference.
(9) Hand lever extensions. Bicycles equipped with hand lever extensions shall be tested with the extension levers in place and the hand lever extensions shall also be considered to be hand levers.
(c) Footbrakes. All footbrakes shall be tested in accordance with the force test, § 1512.18(e)(2), and the measured braking force shall not be less than 178 N (40 lbf) for an applied pedal force of 310 N (70 lbf).
(1) Stopping distance. Bicycles equipped with footbrakes (except sidewalk bicycles) shall be tested in accordance with the performance test, § 1512.18(e)(3), by a rider of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight and shall have a stopping distance of no greater than 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of at least 16 km/h (10 mph). If the bicycle has a footbrake only and the equivalent groundspeed of the bicycle is in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph) (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute), 3 the stopping distance shall be 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater.
Footnote(s):
3 This is proportional to a gear development greater than 6.67 m (21.9 ft) in the bicycle's highest gear ratio. Gear development is the distance the bicycle travels in meters, in one crank revolution.
(2) Operating force. Footbrakes shall be actuated by a force applied to the pedal in a direction opposite to that of the drive force, except where brakes are separate from the drive pedals and the applied force is in the same direction as the drive force.
(3) Crank differential. The differential between the drive and brake positions of the crank shall be not more than 60° with the crank held against each position under a torque of no less than 13.6 N-m (10 ft-lb).
(4) Independent operation. The brake mechanism shall function independently of any drive-gear positions or adjustments.
(d) Footbrakes and handbrakes in combination. Bicycles equipped with footbrakes and handbrakes shall meet all the requirements for footbrakes in § 1512.5(c), including the tests specified. In addition, if the equivalent ground speed of the bicycle is 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute), 3 the actual test speed specified in § 1512.18(e)(3) shall be increased to 24 km/h (15 mph) and both braking systems may be actuated to achieve the required stopping distance of 4.57 m (15 ft).
(e) Sidewalk bicycles. (1) Sidewalk bicycles shall not have handbrakes only.
(2) Sidewalk bicycles with a seat height of 560 mm (22 in) or greater (with seat height adjusted to its lowest position) shall be equipped with a footbrake meeting all the footbrake requirements of § 1512.5(c), including the specified tests except that the braking force transmitted to the rear wheel shall be in accordance with the sidewalk bicycle footbrake force tests, § 1512.18(f).
(3) Sidewalk bicycles with a seat height less than 560 mm (22 in) (with seat height adjusted to its lowest position) and not equipped with a brake shall not have a freewheel feature. Such sidewalk bicycles equipped with a footbrake shall be tested for brake force in accordance with the sidewalk bicycle footbrake force test, § 1512.18(f). Such sidewalk bicycles not equipped with brakes shall be identified with a permanent label clearly visible from a distance of 3.1 m (10 ft) in daylight conditions and promotional display material and shipping cartons shall prominently display the words “No Brakes.”

§ 1512.6 Requirements for steering system.
(a) Handlebar stem insertion mark. Quill-type handlebar stems shall contain a permanent ring or mark which clearly indicates the minimum insertion depth of the handlebar stem into the fork assembly. The insertion mark shall not affect the structural integrity of the stem and shall not be less than 21/2 times the stem diameter from the lowest point of the stem. The stem strength shall be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark.
(b) Handlebar stem strength. The handlebar stem shall be tested for strength in accordance with the handlebar stem test, § 1512.18(g), and shall withstand a force of 2000 N (450 lbf) for bicycles and 1000 N (225 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles.
(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.
(d) Handlebar ends. The ends of the handlebars shall be capped or otherwise covered. Handgrips, end plugs, control shifters, or other end-mounted devices shall be secure against a removal force of no less than 66.8 N (15 lbf) in accordance with the protective cap and end-mounted devices test, § 1512.18(c).
(e) Handlebar and clamps. The handlebar and clamps shall be tested in accordance with the handlebar test, § 1512.18(h). Directions for assembly of the bicycle required in the instruction manual by § 1512.19(a)(2) shall include an explicit warning about the danger of damaging the stem-to-fork assembly and the risk of injury to the rider that can result from overtightening the stem bolt or other clamping device. The directions for assembly shall also contain a simple, clear, and precise statement of the procedure to be followed to avoid damaging the stem-to-fork assembly when tightening the stem bolt or other clamping device.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]

§ 1512.7 Requirements for pedals.
(a) Construction. Pedals shall have right-hand/left-hand symmetry. The tread surface shall be present on both top and bottom surfaces of the pedal except that if the pedal has a definite preferred position, the tread surface need only be on the surface presented to the rider's foot.
(b) Toe clips. Pedals intended to be used only with toe clips shall have toe clips securely attached to them and need not have tread surfaces. Pedals designed for optional use of toe clips shall have tread surfaces.
(c) Pedal reflectors. Pedals for bicycles other than sidewalk bicycles shall have reflectors in accordance with § 1512.16(e). Pedals for sidewalk bicycles are not required to have reflectors.

§ 1512.8 Requirements for drive chain.
The drive chain shall operate over the sprockets without catching or binding. The tensile stength of the drive chain shall be no less than 8010 N (1,800 lbf) or 6230 N (1,400 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles.

§ 1512.9 Requirements for protective guards.
(a) Chain guard. Bicycles having a single front sprocket and a single rear sprocket shall have a chain guard that shall cover the top strand of the chain and at least 90° of the perimeter where the drive chain contacts the drive sprocket as shown in figure 7. The chain guard shall extend rearward to a point at least 8 cm (3.2 in.) forward of the centerline of the rear axle. The minimum width of the top area of the chain guard shall be twice the width of the chain in that portion forward of the rear wheel rim. The rear part of the top area may be tapered. The minimum width at the rear of the guard shall be one-half the chain width. Such chain guard shall prevent a rod of 9.4 mm (3/8 in.) diameter and 76 mm (3.0 in.) length from entrapment between the upper junction of the chain and the sprocket when introduced from the chain side of the bicycle in any direction within 45° from a line normal to the sprocket.
(b) Derailleur guard. Derailleurs shall be guarded to prevent the drive chain from interfering with or stopping the rotation of the wheel through improper adjustments or damage.

§ 1512.10 Requirements for tires.
The manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure shall be molded into or onto the sidewall of the tire in lettering no less than 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) in height. The statement of recommended inflation pressure shall be in the English language utilizing Arabic numerals. (The following language is suggested to indicate recommended inflation pressure: “Inflate to __ PSI.”) After inflation to 110 percent of the recommended inflation pressure, the tire shall remain intact on the rim, including while being tested under a load of 2,000 N (450 lbf) in accordance with the rim test, § 1512.18(j). Tubular sew-up tires, nonpneumatic tires, and nonmolded wired-on tires are exempt from this section.

§ 1512.11 Requirements for wheels.
(a) Spokes. There shall be no missing spokes.
(b) Alignment. The wheel assembly shall be aligned such that no less than 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) clearance exists between the tire and fork or any frame member when the wheel is rotated to any position.
(c) Rims. Rims shall retain the spokes and tire when side-loaded with 2000 N (450 lbf) and tested in accordance with the rim test, § 1512.18(j). Sidewalk bicycles need not meet this requirement.

§ 1512.12 Requirements for wheel hubs.
All bicycles (other than sidewalk bicycles) shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Locking devices. Wheels shall be secured to the bicycle frame with a positive lock device. Locking devices on threaded axles shall be tightened to the manufacturer's specifications.
(1) Rear wheels. There shall be no relative motion between the axle and the frame when a force of 1,780 N (400 lbf) is applied symmetrically to the axle for a period of 30 seconds in the direction of wheel removal.
(2) Front wheels. Locking devices, except quick-release devices, shall withstand application of a torque in the direction of removal of 17 N-m (12.5 ft-lb).
(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.
(c) Front hubs. Front hubs not equipped with lever-operated quick-release devices shall have a positive retention feature that shall be tested in accordance with the front hub retention test, § 1512.18(j)(3), to assure that when the locking devices are released the wheel will not separate from the fork.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]

§ 1512.13 Requirements for front fork.
The front fork shall be tested for strength by application of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) of energy in accordance with the fork test, § 1512.18(k)(1), without visible evidence of fracture. Sidewalk bicycles need not meet this requirement.

§ 1512.14 Requirements for fork and frame assembly.
The fork and frame assembly shall be tested for strength by application of a load of 890 N (200 lbf) or at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) of energy, whichever results in the greater force, in accordance with the frame test, § 1512.18(k)(2), without visible evidence of fracture or frame deformation that significantly limits the steering angle over which the wheel can be turned. Sidewalk bicycles are exempt from this section.

§ 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.
(c) Adjustment clamps. The seat adjustment clamps shall be capable of securing the seat in any position to which it can be adjusted and preventing movement of the seat in any direction under normal conditions of use. Following the road test, § 1512.18(p) (or the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q), as applicable), the seat clamps shall be tested in accordance with the seat adjustment clamps and load test, § 1512.18(l).
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]

§ 1512.16 Requirements for reflectors.
Bicycles shall be equipped with reflective devices to permit recognition and identification under illumination from motor vehicle headlamps. The use of reflector combinations off the center plane of the bicycle (defined in § 1512.18(m)(2)) is acceptable if each reflector meets the requirements of this section and of § 1512.18 (m) and (n) and the combination of reflectors has a clear field of view of ±10° vertically and ±50° horizontally. Sidewalk bicycles are not required to have reflectors.
(a) Front, rear, and pedal reflectors. There shall be an essentially colorless front-facing reflector, essentially colorless or amber pedal reflectors, and a red rear-facing reflector.
(b) Side reflectors. There shall be retroreflective tire sidewalls or, alternatively, reflectors mounted on the spokes of each wheel, or, for non-caliper rim brake bicycles, retroreflective wheel rims. The center of spoke-mounted reflectors shall be within 76 mm (3.0 in.) of the inside of the rim. Side reflective devices shall be visible on each side of the wheel.
(c) Front reflector. The reflector or mount shall not contact the ground plane when the bicycle is resting on that plane in any orientation. The optical axis of the reflector shall be directed forward within 5° of the horizontal-vertical alignment of the bicycle when the wheels are tracking in a straight line, as defined in § 1512.18(m)(2). The reflectors and/or mounts shall incorporate a distinct, preferred assembly method that shall insure that the reflector meets the optical requirements of this paragraph (c) when the reflector is attached to the bicycle. The front reflector shall be tested in accordance with the reflector mount and alignment test, § 1512.18(m).
(d) Rear reflector. The reflector or mount shall not contact the ground plane when the bicycle is resting on that plane in any orientation. The reflector shall be mounted such that it is to the rear of the seat mast with the top of the reflector at least 76 mm (3.0 in) below the point on the seat surface that is intersected by the line of the seat post. The optical axis of the reflector shall be directed rearward within 5° of the horizontal-vertical alignment of the bicycle when the wheels are traveling in a straight line, as defined in § 1512.18(m)(2). The reflectors and/or mounts shall incorporate a distinct, preferred assembly method that shall insure that the reflector meets the optical requirements of this paragraph (d) when the reflector is attached to the bicycle. The rear reflector shall be tested in accordance with the reflector mount and alignment test, § 1512.18(m).
(e) Pedal reflectors. Each pedal shall have reflectors located on the front and rear surfaces of the pedal. The reflector elements may be either integral with the construction of the pedal or mechanically attached, but shall be sufficiently recessed from the edge of the pedal, or of the reflector housing, to prevent contact of the reflector element with a flat surface placed in contact with the edge of the pedal.
(f) Side reflectors. Reflectors affixed to the wheel spokes shall be mounted either flat on the spokes or within the spoke cage such that the angle between the optical axis and the normal to the plane of the wheel shall not exceed the angle of the spokes with the plane of the wheel. The reflectors shall not interfere with any wheel adjustments. The side-mounted reflector devices shall be essentially colorless or amber on the front wheel and essentially colorless or red on the rear wheel.
(g) Reflector tests. The pedal, front-mount, rear-mount, and side-mount reflectors shall be tested in accordance with the reflector test, § 1512.18(n), to assure the reflectance values over the angles given in tables 1 and 2.
(h) Retroreflective tire sidewalls. When retroreflective tire sidewalls are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors, the reflecting material shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous circle on the sidewall.
(2) The retroreflective material shall adhere to the tire such that after the tire has been subjected to a temperature of 50° ±3 °C (122° ±5.4 °F) for 30 minutes, the retroreflective material cannot be peeled or scraped away without removal of tire material.
(3) The retroreflective material shall be as resistant to abrasion as is the adjacent sidewall material so that when retroreflective material is removed from the inflated tire by abrasion with a wet, steel bristle brush, tire material will be removed along with the retroreflective material.
(4) The retroreflective material shall be tested for performance in accordance with the retroreflective tire test, § 1512.18(o), to assure the reflectance properties over the angles given in table 3. When a portion of the retroreflective material is selected (and the remainder is masked as specified in § 1512.18(o)(2)(i)), the selected portion shall not contact the ground plane when the assembled bicycle is resting on that plane in any orientation.
(i) Retroreflective rims. When retroreflective rims are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors or retroreflective tire sidewalls, the reflecting material shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous circle on the rim.
(2) If the retroreflective material is applied to the rim in the form of a self-adhesive tape, the following requirement must be met: Use a sharp knife, razor blade, or similar instrument to carefully release an end of the tape material sufficient to be grasped between the thumb and finger. Grasp the freed tape end and gradually pull in a direction 90° to the plane of the rim. The tape material must break before additional separation (peeling) from the rim is observed.
(3) After the retroreflective material is abraded in accordance with the abrasion test for retroreflective rims at § 1512.18(r), the rim must then be tested for performance in accordance with the retroreflective tire and rim test at § 1512.18(o), to assure the reflectance properties over the angles given in table 3.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 82627, 82628, Dec. 16, 1980]

§ 1512.17 Other requirements.

(a) Road test. Bicycles, other than sidewalk bicycles, shall be ridden at least 6.4 km (4.0 mi.) by a rider weighing at least 68.1kg (150 lb.) and travel five times over a 30.5 m (100 ft.) cleated course in accordance with the road test, § 1512.18(p), and shall exhibit stable handling, turning, and steering characteristics without difficulty of operation. There shall be no system or component failure of the structure, brakes, or tires, and there shall be no loosening or misalignment of the seat, handlebars, controls, or reflectors during or resulting from this test.
(b) Sidewalk bicycle proof test. Sidewalk bicycles shall be dropped a distance of at least 300 mm (1.0 ft.) three times onto a paved surface with weights attached in accordance with the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q). There shall be no fracture of wheels, frame, seat, handlebars, or fork during or resulting from this test.
(c) Ground clearance. With the pedal horizontal and the pedal crank in its lowest position and any training wheels removed, it shall be possible to tilt the bicycle at least 25° from the vertical without the pedal or any other part (other than tires) contacting the ground plane.
(d) Toe clearance. Bicycles not equipped with positive foot-retaining devices (such as toe clips) shall have at least 89 mm (31/2 in) clearance between the pedal and the front tire or fender (when turned to any position). The clearance shall be measured forward and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bicycle from the center of either pedal to the arc swept by the tire or fender, whichever results in the least clearance. (See figure 6 of this part 1512.)

§ 1512.18 Tests and test procedures.
(a) Sharp edge test. [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Protective cap and end-mounted devices test. (Ref. § 1512.4(i), § 1512.6(d).) Any device suitable for exerting a removal force of at least 67 N (15 lbf) for protective caps and 8.9 N (2.0 lbf) for end caps at any point and in any direction may be used. All protective caps and end-mounted handlebar devices shall be tested to determine that they cannot be removed by application of the specified forces.
(d) Handbrake loading and performance test: (Ref. § 1512.5(b)).
(1) Apparatus. A spring scale or other suitable device for measuring the specified forces on the handbrake levers and a dry, clean, level, paved surface of adequate length.
(2) Procedure. The loading test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(i), and the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(iii), shall be performed before the performance test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(v), is performed and no adjustments shall be made between these tests.
(i) Loading test procedure. The hand levers shall be actuated with a force applied at a point no more than 25 mm (1.0 in) from the open end of the lever. If the hand lever contacts the handlebar (bottoms) before a force of 445 N (100 lbf) is reached, the loading may be stopped at that point, otherwise the loading shall be increased to at least 445 N (100 lbf). 4 Application of the loading force shall be repeated for a total of 10 times and all brake components shall be inspected.
Footnote(s):
4 For hand lever extensions, the loading shall be continued until a force of 445 N (100 lbf) is reached or the hand lever extension is in the same plane as the upper surface of the handlebars or the extension lever contacts the handlebars.
(ii) Loading test criteria. There shall be no visible fractures, failures, misalignments, and clearances not in compliance with applicable parts of § 1512.5.
(iii) Rocking test procedure. A weight of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) shall be placed on the seat; the force required for the hand levers to contact the handlebars or 445 N (100 lbf), as determined in § 1512.18(d)(2), shall be applied to the hand levers; 4 and the bicycle shall be rocked forward and backward over a dry, clean, level, paved surface at least six times and for a distance of at least 76 mm (3 in) in each direction.
(iv) Rocking test criteria. There shall be no loosening of the brake pads, pad holders, or cable and hand-lever securing devices or any other functional brake component.
(v) Performance test procedure. The following test conditions, unless otherwise specified in this part 1512, shall be followed:
(A) The bicycle shall be ridden over a dry, clean, smooth paved test course free from protruding aggregate. The test course shall provide a coefficient of friction of less then 1.0 and shall have a slope of less than 1 percent.
(B) The wind velocity shall be less than 11 km/h (7 mph).
(C) Only the brake system under test shall be actuated.
(D) The bicycle shall attain the specified ground speed while the rider is in the normal riding position.
(E) The rider shall remain in the normal riding position throughout the test.
(F) The bicycle must be moving in a straight line at the start of brake application.
(G) Corrections for velocity at the initiation of braking may be made. The corrected braking distance shall be computed as follow:
S c = (V s / Vm)2 S m
WHERE:
S C = CORRECTED BRAKING DISTANCE,
V S = SPECIFIED TEST VELOCITY.
VM = MEASURED TEST VELOCITY,
S M = MEASURED BRAKING DISTANCE.
The test run is invalid if at the commencement of the test, the measured test speed of the bicycle is not less than nor greater than the test speed required by this part 1512 by 1.5 km/h (0.9 mph).
(H) Four test runs are required. The stopping distance shall be determined by averaging the results of the four test runs.
(I) The stopping distances specified are based on a rider weight of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) and a maximum rider and weight combination of 91 kg (200 lb). Greater stopping distances are allowable for heavier riders and test equipment weights at the rate of 0.30 m per 4.5 kg (1.0 ft per 10 lb).
(J) A test run is invalid if front-wheel lockup occurs.
(vi) Performance test criteria. The stopping force applied to the hand lever at a point no closer than 25 mm (1.0 in) from the open end shall not exceed 178 N (40 lbf). Bicycles with an equivalent ground speed in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph) (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute) 3 shall stop from an actual test speed of 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater within a distance of 4.57 m (15 ft); when the equivalent ground speed is less than 24 km/h (15 mph) under the same conditions, the bicycle shall stop from an actual test speed of 16 km/h (10 mph) or greater within a distance of 4.57 m (15 ft).
Footnote(s):
3 See footnote 3 to § 1512.5.
(e) Footbrake force and performance test. (Ref. § 1512.5(c) (1) and (2)):
(1) Apparatus. Suitable devices for exerting and measuring the required forces and a dry, clean, level, paved surface of adequate length.
(2) Force test. The braking force shall be measured as the wheel is rotated in a direction of forward motion, and the braking force is measured in a direction tangential to the tire during a steady pull after the wheel completes one-half revolution but before the wheel completes one revolution. The brake shall be capable of producing a linearly proportional brake force for a gradually applied pedal force from 89 N to 310 N (20 to 70 lbf) and shall not be less than 178 N (40 lbf) for an applied pedal force of 310 N (70 lbf). All data points must fall within plus or minus 20 percent of the brake force, based on the measured brake load using the least square method of obtaining the best straight line curve.
(3) Performance test. The procedure of § 1512.18(d)(2)(v) shall be followed to test the footbrake performance. The stopping distance shall be less than 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of 16 km/h (10 mph). In addition, if the equivalent ground speed of the bicycle is in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph) (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute), 3 the stopping distance shall be 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater.
Note:
No allowance shall be made for rider weight. See § 1512.5(d) for additional requirements for bicycles with both handbrakes and footbrakes.
(f) Sidewalk bicycle footbrake force test. For sidewalk bicycles, the footbrake force test is the same as for bicycles except; the brake force transmitted to the rear wheel shall continually increase as the pedal force is increased from 44.5 N to 225 N (10 to 50 lbf). The ratio of applied pedal force to braking force shall not be greater than two-to-one.
(g) Handlebar stem test. (Ref. § 1512.6(b)):
(1) Procedure. The handlebar stem shall be tested for strength by applying a force of 2000 N (450 lbf), in a forward direction, for bicycles, or 1000 N (225 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles, at a point in line with the handlbar attachment point and at an angle of 45° from the stem centerline (See fig. 2).
(2) Criteria. No visible fractures shall result from this test.
(h) Handlebar test. (Ref. § 1512.6(e)):
(1) Stem-to-fork clamp test—(i) Procedure. The handlebar and handlebar stem shall be assembled to the bicycle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The handlebar-fork assembly shall be subjected to a torque applied about the axis of the stem, and shall then be disassembled and examined for signs of structural damage including cracking, splitting, stripping of threads, bearing damage, and bulging of the stem and fork structures. The handlebar and handlebar stem components shall be inspected for visible signs of galling, gouging, and scoring not due to normal assembly and disassembly operations.
(ii) Criteria. There shall be no visible movement between the stem and fork when a torque of 47 + 3, −0 N-m (35 + 2, −0 ft = lb) for bicycles and 20 + 3, −0 N-m (15 + 2, − 0 ft = lb) for sidewalk bicycles is applied to the handlebar about the stem-to-fork axis. There shall be no visible signs of damage to the stem-to-fork assembly or any component part thereof.
(2) Handlebar strength and clamp test—(i) Procedure. The stem shall be in place on the bicycle or in an equivalent test fixture and secured according to manufacturer's instructions. A load shall be applied equally to each handlebar end in a direction to cause the greatest torque about the handlebar-to-stem clamp; deflection shall be measured along the line of applied force.
(ii) Criteria. The handlebars shall support a force of no less than 445 N (100 lbf) or absorb no less than 22.6 J (200 in-lb) of energy through a maximum deflection of no more than 76 mm (3.0 in.); the handlebar clamp shall prevent rotational movement of the handlebars relative to the clamp, and there shall be no visible fractures.
(i) Pedal slip test. [Reserved]
(j) Rim test. (Ref. §§ 1512.10 and 1512.11(c)):
(1) Procedure. Only one wheel need be tested if the front and rear wheel are of identical construction. The wheel to be tested shall be removed from the bicycle and be supported circumferentially around the tire sidewall. A load of 2000 N (450 lbf) shall be applied to the axle and normal to the plane of the wheel for at least 30 seconds. If the wheel hub is offset, the load shall be applied in the direction of the offset.
(2) Criteria. The wheel and tire assembly shall be inspected for compliance with the requirements of § 1512.11(a) and shall be remounted on the bicycle according to the manufacturer's instructions and shall turn freely without roughness and shall comply with the requirement of § 1512.11(b).
(3) Front hub retention test. (Ref. § 1512.12(c)).
(i) Procedures. Front hub locking devices shall be released. When threaded nuts and axles are used, the nuts shall be open at least 360° from a finger tight condition. A separation force of at least 111 N (25 lb) shall be applied to the hub on a line along the slots in the fork ends.
(ii) Criteria. The front hub shall not separate from the fork; fenders, mudguards, struts, and brakes shall not be allowed to restrain the separation.
(k) Fork and frame test. (Ref. §§ 1512.13 and 1512.14):
(1) Fork test—(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.
(ii) Criteria. Energy of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) shall be absorbed with a deflection in the direction of the force of no more than 64 mm (21/2 in.).
(2) Fork and frame assembly test—(i) Procedure. The fork, or one identical to that tested in accordance with the fork test, § 1512.18(k)(1), shall be replaced on the bicycle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; and a load of 890 N (200 lbf), or an energy of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb), whichever results in the greater force, shall be applied to the fork at the axle attachment point against the direction of the rake in line with the rear wheel axle. The test load shall be counteracted by a force applied at the location of the rear axle during this test.
(ii) Criteria. There shall be no visible evidence of fracture and no deformation of frame that significantly limits the steering angle over which the front wheel can be turned.
(l) Seat adjustment clamps and load test. (Ref. § 1512.15(c)).
(1) Procedure. A force of at least 668 N (150 lbf) shall be applied vertically downward (334 N (75 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles) to a point within 25 mm (1.0 in.) from either the front or rear of the seat, whichever produces the greatest torque on the seat clamp. After removal of this force, a force of 222 N (50 lbf) shall then be applied horizontally (111 N (25 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles) to a point within 25 mm (1.0 in.) from either the front or rear of the seat, whichever produces the greatest torque on the clamp.
(2) Criteria. No movement of the seat with respect to the seat post, or of the seat post with respect to the bicycle frame, shall have resulted from application of the forces specified.
(m) Reflector mount and alignment test. (Ref. § 1512.16 (c) and (d)):
(1) Procedure. A force of 89 N (20 lbf) shall be applied to the reflector mount in at least three directions selected as most likely to affect its alignment. At least one of those directions shall be selected to represent a force that would be expected in lifting the bicycle by grasping the reflector.
(2) Criteria. (i) During test: The optical axis of the reflector shall remain parallel within 15° to the line or intersection of the ground plane and the center plane of the bicycle defined as a plane containing both wheels and the centerlines of the down tube and seat mast.
(ii) Post test: The optical axis of the reflector shall remain parallel within 5° to the line or intersection of the ground plane and the center plane of the bicycle defined as a plane containing both wheels and the centerlines of the down tube and seat mast.
(n) Reflector test. (Ref. § 1512.16(g)):
(1) Conditioning. The following conditioning in the order given shall be performed prior to testing for performance.
(i) Warpage conditioning. The reflector shall be held in a preheated oven for at least one hour at 50° ±5 °C (122±5.4 °F). A pedal reflector may be conditioned integrally with its pedal.
(ii) Mechanical impact conditioning. The reflector shall be mounted faceup in a manner similar to the way in which it is mounted on the bicycle. A 13 mm (1/2 in.) diameter polished steel ball shall be dropped normal to the center of the face of the reflector from a height of 0.76 m (30 in.). The ball may be guided by a tube with holes, but not restricted in free fall. Pedal reflectors are exempt from this impact conditioning.
(iii) Moisture conditioning. The reflector shall be submerged in tap water in a suitable container. The container shall be pressurized in 17.2 kN/m2 (2.5 psi) (equivalent to 1.7 m (53/4 ft.)) of water for 15 minutes and then released.
(2) Reflector performance test. (i) Arrangements for the reflector performance test shall be as shown in figure 3 and the distance D between the light source and the reflector shall be 30.5 m (100 ft.). The source of illumination shall be a lamp with a 51 mm (2.0 in.) effective diameter and a filament operating at 2,856±10 percent color temperature. The observation point shall be colocated (as close as practicable) with the source of illumination. The reflector shall be mounted with the center of the reflector at the center of rotation and at the same horizontal level as the source of illumination. Photometric measurements shall be made at the observation angles and entrance angles given in tables 1 and 2.
(ii) The observation angle is the angle formed by a line from the point of observation to the center of the reflector with a second line from the center of the reflector to the source of illumination. The entrance angle is the angle between the optical axis of the reflector and a line from the center of the reflector to the source of illumination. The entrance angle shall be designated left, right, up, and down in accordance with the position of the source of illumination with respect to the axis of the reflector as viewed from behind the reflector when the plane of the observation angle is vertical and the receiver is above the source.
(iii) Photometric measurements shall be made either visually or photoelectrically. With either method, the light reflected to the observation point shall be determined. Also, the illumination on the reflector from the source shall be measured.
(iv) For visual measurements a comparison lamp, emitting light similar in spectral quality to the reflector, shall be located adjacent to the reflector (at an angle not to exceed 1/2°) and arranged so that the candlepower can be varied from 0.01 to 0.25 to make the intensity duplicate that of the reflector under test. The candlepower of the source of the illumination of the reflector under test shall be known or determined for this test. Means shall be provided to change the intensity of the source of illumination without changing the filament color temperature. The comparison lamp shall be designed to avoid reflection from the source of illumination back in the direction of the observer. It shall be of such size and so diffused that when viewed by the observer (through a 21/2 × reducing monocular), the candlepower can be readily compared and adjusted to that of the reflector. The observer shall have at least 10 minutes of dark adaption before making observations. For photoelectric measurements, the opening to the photocell shall not be more than 1/2 inch vertical by 1 inch horizontal.
(v) Reflectors that mount on the bicycle in a fixed rotational position with respect to the bicycle, or the bicycle component on which they are mounted (such as pedals or spokes), shall be tested with a single orientation. Reflectors that do not mount on the bicycle in a fixed rotational position with respect to the bicycle shall be rotated about their axis through 360° to find the minimum candlepower per footcandle for each test point. If the measurement falls below the minimum requirement at any test point, the reflector shall be rotated ±5° about its axis from the angle where the minimum occurs, and the maximum candlepower per footcandle within this angle shall be the measured value.
(vi) Should uncolored reflections from the front surface interfere with photometric readings at any test point the lowest reading and location within 1° above, below, right, and left of the test point shall meet the minimum requirement for the test point.
(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.
(o) Reflective tire and rim test (Ref. § 1512.16(h) and (i)):
(1) Apparatus. Arrangements for the reflective intensity measurement shall be as shown in figure 3 of this part 1512. A light projector (having a maximum effective lens diameter of D/500, where D is the distance from the source to the retroreflective surface being measured) capable of projecting light of uniform intensity shall be used to illuminate the sample. The light falling on the sample shall have a color temperature of 2856°K + 10% (equivalent to a tungsten filament lamp operated at a color temperature of 2856°K + 10% having approximately the relative energy distribution given in table 4 of this part 1512). The light reflected from the test surface shall be measured with a photoelectric receiver, the response of which has been corrected for the spectral sensitivity of the average photopic human eye. The dimensions of the active area of the receiver shall be such that no point on the perimeter of the receiver is more than D/100 from its center (where d is the distance from the receiver to the retroreflective surface). Wheels used for the measurement of retroreflective tires or rims shall have all exposed metallic surfaces, including spokes, masked in flat black so that when measured these surfaces indicate no appreciable reflectance. The tire shall be mounted and fully inflated. Distances shall be measured from the plane of the wheel and the center of the hub. For the tests, the distance D between the projector and the center of the wheel and distance d between the center of the wheel and the receiver shall each be at least 15 m (50 ft.).
(2) Procedure—(i) Masking. The reflecting strip to be tested shall be within two concentric circles, the larger of which is no more than 0.02 m (0.79 in.) greater in radius than the smaller. While additional reflecting material is permitted outside such boundaries, such additional material shall not be counted in determining the average width of the reflecting strip and shall be masked off with opaque, matte black tape in testing the reflecting material.
(ii) Orientation. Every position of the reflecting strip on the rim or the mounted and fully inflated tire to be tested shall be oriented so that the normal to this portion is within 40° of parallel to the axis of rotation of the wheel.
(iii) Measurement. Measure the distance d from the receiver to the center of the wheel and the minimum distance r from the axis of rotation of the wheel to the unmasked portion of the reflective strip. Measure the illumination incident on the reflective strip at uniform intervals of no more than 45° around the wheel, with the receiver oriented in the direction of the incident radiation. The average of such readings will be the mean illumination of the sample E. If any one of such readings differs by more than 10 percent from the mean illumination, then a more uniform source must be obtained. Measure the illumination of the receiver due to reflection from the retroreflective surface for each entrance angle and each observation angle given in table 3 of this part 1512. The entrance angle and the observation angle shall be in the same plane. A negative entrance angle (figure 3 of this part 1512) is specified when the entrance angle is small because the location of the receiver with respect to the direction of illumination becomes important for distinguishing between ordinary mirror-like reflection and retroreflection. The illumination incident on the test surface and the receiver shall be measured in the same units on a linear scale. Compute the ratio A for each combination of entrance angle and observation angle listed in table 3 as follows:
A = [(Er / Es)(d2 / r)]
WHERE:
A = RATIO IN METERS,
ER = ILLUMINATION INCIDENT UPON THE RECEIVER,
ES = ILLUMINATION INCIDENT UPON A PLANE PERPENDICULAR TO THE INCIDENT RAY AT THE SPECIMEN POSITION (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE IN THIS PARAGRAPH (O)(2)(III) FOR AVERAGING), MEASURED IN THE SAME UNITS AS ER,
D = THE DISTANCE IN METERS FROM THE RECEIVER TO THE CENTER OF THE WHEEL,
R = THE MINIMUM RADIUS IN METERS OF THE BOUNDARY CIRCLES OF THE RETROREFLECTIVE STRIP.
The minimum value of A shall be that listed in table 3 of this part 1512 for each combination of entrance angle and observation angle. The plane containing the entrance angle and the plane containing the observation angle shall coincide. In table 3, a positive entrance angle corresponds to the case in which the line of sight to the receiver lies between the line of incidence and the optic axis of the reflector, and a negative entrance angle corresponds to the case in which the line of incidence lies between the line of sight of the receiver and optic axis of the reflector.
(iv) Criteria. The ratio A as defined in § 1512.18(o)(2)(iii) shall not be less than:
A = 4Cos2θ/[1 + (Φ/0.225)3/2]
where A is ratio in meters, θ is the entrance angle in degrees, and Φ is the observation angle in degrees. The criterion applies only for entrance angles from 0° to 40° and observation angles from 0.2° to 1.5°, and performance is not specified beyond this range. The values of A in table 3 are obtained from the above formula by rounding up to two significant figures. Except in cases in which the performance of the reflector is seriously questionable, a reflector with A at least the value given in table 3 at each of the six combinations of entrance and observation angles will be considered to satisfy this criteria.
(p) Road test. (Ref. §§ 1512.15(c) and 1512.17(a)):
(1) Procedure. The bicycle shall be ridden at least 6.4 km (4.0 mi.) by a rider weighing at least 68.1 kg (150 lb.) with the tires inflated to maximum recommended pressure. Travel shall include riding the bicycle five times over a 30 m (100 ft.) course of wooden cleats fastened to a paved surface. The cleats shall be a full 25 mm (1.0 in.) high by 51 mm (2.0 in.) wide lumber with a 12 mm by 12 mm (1/2 in. by 1/2 in.) chamfer of 45° on the corners contacting the tires. The cleats shall be spaced every 1.8 m (6.0 ft.) over the 30 m (100 ft.) course. The bicycle shall be ridden over the cleated course at a speed of at least 24 km/hr (15 mph) with the rider firmly seated.
(2) Criteria. The bicycle shall exhibit stable handling, turning, and steering characteristics without difficulty of operation. There shall be no system or component failure of the structure, brakes, or tires and there shall be no loosening or misalignment of the seat, handlebars, controls, or reflectors.
(q) Sidewalk bicycle proof test. (Ref. §§ 1512.15(c) and 1512.17(b)):
(1) Procedure. The bicycle shall be loaded with weights of 13.6 kg (30 lb.) on the seat surface and 4.5 kg (10 lb.) attached to the end of each handle grip for a total load of 22.7 kg (50 lb.). The bicycle shall be lifted a distance of 0.3 m (1.0 ft.) and dropped (while maintaining an upright position) three times onto a paved surface. Following this and with weight removed, it shall be allowed to fall in any configuration and attitude from an upright position to the paved surface three times on each side.
(r) Abrasion test for retroreflective rims. (Ref. § 1512.16(i)):
(1) This test consists of a steel wire cup brush rotating at a constant velocity of 60 rpm that is applied at a force of 2 N (0.45 lbf) to the retroreflective material on one side of a bicycle wheel rim. The rim is rotated about the axle at a linear velocity of 0.23 m/sec (9 in./sec). The test is complete when the wheel has completed 1000 revolutions.
(2) Apparatus. Figure 8 of this part 1512 illustrates the following test fixture arrangement that is suitable to perform this abrasion test:
(i) Test fixture. The test fixture contains a clamp to hold the axle of a bicycle wheel so that the wheel can rotate freely about the axle. The axis of rotation is capable of being inclined from the vertical to bring that portion of the side of the wheel rim containing the retroreflective material into a horizontal plane as it passes beneath the abrading brush. A drive mechanism to rotate the bicycle wheel contains a means to adjust the rotational velocity to obtain the specified linear velocity measured at a point on the wheel rim on the axis of the abrading brush.
(ii) Abrader. The abrader is a cup brush meeting the specification in paragraph (r)(3)(v) of this section. It is mounted in a chuck attached to a motor that rotates about a vertical axis at the specified rotational velocity. A means is provided to apply the rotating cup brush at the specified force against the retroreflective material on the bicycle wheel rim. The axis of the abrading brush is positioned on the mid point in the width of the retroreflective material. The force is produced by deadweights applied to a pan on the axis of the counterbalanced motor/brush assembly.
(3) Specifications. (i) The linear velocity of the reflective band on wheel rim shall be 0.23 m/sec (9 in./sec) measured at a point on the axis of the abrading brush.
(ii) The rotational velocity of the abrading brush shall be 60 rpm.
(iii) The force normal to the plane of the retroreflective material at which the abrading brush is to be applied shall be 2 N (0.45 lbf).
(iv) The bicycle wheel shall make 1000 complete revolutions per test.
(v) The abrader shall be a cup brush having bristles that are 0.005 in. (approx. 0.13mm) diameter low carbon steel wire; an outside diameter of 0.5 inch (aprox. .13mm); a wire bristle length of 0.25 inch (approx. 6.4mm); and a cup diameter of 0.405 inch (approx. 10.29mm). 6
Footnote(s):
6 For compliance testing the Commission will use a brush meeting this description distributed by Dremel Manufacturing Company, Racine, Wisconsin as Dremel Part No. 442. This brush is manufactured by Weiler Brush Company as No. 26074, MC-10 Wire.
(vi) The abrasion test shall be conducted at an ambient temperature of between 16 °C (60 °F) and 27 °C (80 °F).
(4) Procedure. (i) The retroreflective bicycle rim to be tested shall be an unused sample free from grit, grime and grease. Prior to beginning the test, remove, according to instructions supplied with the bicycle, any protective coating or material used to prevent damage in shipping.
(ii) Test the wheel in a suitable test fixture, according to the specifications in paragraph (r)(3) of this section.
(iii) Clamp the wheel by its axle in the test fixture and align the axis of rotation so that the portion of the reflective material below the axis of the abrading brush is horizontal.
(iv) Shape the cup brush by hand to the specified 0.5 (approx. 13mm) diameter. Any stray wire bristles projecting more than 1/32 in. (approx. 1 mm) beyond the tip of the bulk of the bristles should be clipped off. Adjust the position of the brush so that its axis is centered over the mid-point in the width of the retroreflective material.
(v) Adjust the rotational velocity of the bicycle wheel to obtain a linear velocity of 0.23 m/sec (9 in./sec) measured at the mid-point in the width of the retroreflective material. Adjust the force to obtain a force normal to the surface under the brush of 2 N (0.45 lbf).
(vi) Apply the abrading brush to the retroreflective material on the wheel rim, and continue the test for 1000 complete revolutions of the bicycle wheel.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 82628, Dec. 16, 1980; 46 FR 3204, Jan. 14, 1981; 68 FR 52691, Sept. 5, 2003; 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]

§ 1512.19 Instructions and labeling.
A bicycle shall have an instruction manual attached to its frame or included with the packaged unit.
(a) The instruction manual shall include at least the following:
(1) Operations and safety instructions describing operation of the brakes and gears, cautions concerning wet weather and night-time operation, and a guide for safe on-and-off road operation.
(2) Assembly instructions for accomplishing complete and proper assembly.
(3) Maintenance instructions for proper maintenance of brakes, control cables, bearing adjustments, wheel adjustments, lubrication, reflectors, tires and handlebar and seat adjustments; should the manufacturer determine that such maintenance is beyond the capability of the consumer, specifics regarding locations where such maintenance service can be obtained shall be included.
(b) A bicycle less than fully assembled and fully adjusted shall have clearly displayed on any promotional display material and on the outside surface of the shipping carton the following: (1) A list of tools necessary to properly accomplish assembly and adjustment, (2) a drawing illustrating the minimum leg-length dimension of a rider and a method of measurement of this dimension.
(c) The minimum leg-length dimension shall be readily understandable and shall be based on allowing no less than one inch of clearance between (1) the top tube of the bicycle and the ground plane and (2) the crotch measurement of the rider. A girl's style frame shall be specified in the same way using a corresponding boys' model as a basis.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Every bicycle subject to the requirements of this part 1512 shall bear a marking or label that is securely affixed on or to the frame of the bicycle in such a manner that the marking or label cannot be removed without being defaced or destroyed. The marking or label shall identify the name of the manufacturer or private labeler and shall also bear some form of marking from which the manufacturer can identify the month and year of manufacture or from which the private labeler can identify the manufacturer and the month and year of manufacture. For purposes of this paragraph, the term manufacture means the completion by the manufacturer of a bicycle of those construction or assembly operations that are performed by the manufacturer before the bicycle is shipped from the manufacturer's place of production for sale to distributors, retailers, or consumers.
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 62990, Dec. 8, 1995]

§ 1512.20 Separability.
If any section or portion thereof of this part 1512 or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the section(s) and its (their) application to other persons or circumstances is not thereby affected.
Subpart B—Policies and Interpretations [Reserved]
Pt. 1512, Fig. 1
Figure 1 to Part 1512—Bicycle Front Fork Cantilever Bending Test Rig
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.070]
Pt. 1512, Figs. 2 and 3
Figures 2 and 3 to Part 1512—Handlebar Stem Loading and Entrance 8 Observation Angles
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.071]
Pt. 1512, Fig. 5
Figure 5 to Part 1512—Typical Handbrake Actuator Showing Grip Dimension
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.072]
Pt. 1512, Figs. 6 and 7
Figures 6 and 7 to Part 1512—Toe Clearance and Chain Guard Requirements
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.073]
Pt. 1512, Fig. 8
Figure 8 to Part 1512—Reflectorized Bicycle Wheel Rim Abrasion Test Device
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.074]
Pt. 1512, Table 1
Table 1 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1
Observation angle Front, rear, and side reflectors; entrance angle in degrees Pedal reflectors; entrance angle in degrees
0 10 up/down 20 left/right 0 10 up/down 20 left/right
0.2 27.0 18.0 9.0 7.5 6.0 3.0
0.3 6.0 4.8 2.4
1.5 .28 .20 .12 .28 .20 .12
1 Amber values shall be 5/8 × clear values. Red values shall be 1/4 clear values.
Pt. 1512, Table 2
Table 2 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1
Observation angle Front, rear, and side reflectors; entrance angle in degrees
30 left/right 40 left/right 50 left/right
0.2 8.0 7.0 6.0
1.5 .12 .12 .12
1 Amber values shall be 5/8 × clear values. Red values shall be 1/4 × clear values.
Pt. 1512, Table 3
Table 3 to Part 1512—Minimum Acceptable Values for the Quantity A Defined in the Retroreflective Tire and Rim Test Procedure
Observation angle (degrees) Entrance angle (degrees) Minimum acceptable value of A
Meters Feet
0.2 −4 2.2 7.25
 .2 20 1.9 6.27
 .2 40 1.3 4.29
1.5 −4 .22 .73
1.5 20 .19 .63
1.5 40 .13 .43[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 82631, Dec. 16, 1980; 46 FR 3204, Jan. 14, 1981]
Pt. 1512, Table 4
Table 4 to Part 1512—Relative Energy Distribution of Sources
Wave length (nanometers) Relative energy
380 9.79
390 12.09
400 14.71
410 17.68
420 21.00
430 24.67
440 28.70
450 33.09
460 37.82
470 42.87
480 48.25
490 53.91
500 59.86
510 66.06
520 72.50
530 79.13
540 85.95
550 92.91
560 100.00
570 107.18
580 114.44
590 121.73
600 129.04
610 136.34
620 143.62
630 150.83
640 157.98
650 165.03
660 171.96
670 178.77
680 185.43
690 191.93
700 198.26
710 204.41
720 210.36
730 216.12
740 221.66
750 227.00
760 232.11

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 Conditions of Use