7492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Original petition available at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA–2012– 

0010–0003. 

2Mr. Aberizk does not specify whether Graph 1 

in Appendix A–1 of the additional data collected 

and reported July 14, 2013 refers to the overall 

efficiency of the vehicle at turning power into 

movement, or to the efficiency of the regenerative 

braking system in particular. As discussed further 

below, however, it is irrelevant to the agency’s 

determination of whether to begin rulemaking to 

establish a new FMVSS. 

3Mr. Aberizk’s comment to that NPRM can be 

viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 

NHTSA–2010–0131–0278. 

4See 49 U.S. Code § 30101, Purpose and Policy, 

section (1). 

Comment Filing System at http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission 

will not send a copy of this Notice 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(l)(A) because this 

notice does not have an impact on any 

rules of particular applicability. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 12. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Gloria J. Miles, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02899 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Based on the agency’s 

evaluation, NHTSA denies a petition for 

rulemaking from Mr. David K. Aberizk, 

P.E., of Integrated Consultants 

Incorporated, who requests the 

development of safety standards for a 

driver-activated vehicle regenerative 

braking interface with distinct rear 

lighting indication. The petitioner 

claims that the recommended changes 

to the relevant safety standards would 

allow vehicle manufacturers to better 

utilize the regenerator technology to 

increase vehicle efficiency. NHTSA 

finds that some features of the suggested 

concept are not prohibited by existing 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

(FMVSS) and notes that Mr. Aberizk did 

not demonstrate how the other features 

address a motor vehicle safety need. 

FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 currently 

specify performance requirements 

relevant to certain permitted 

technologies identified in the petition. 

DATES: February 12, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lisa Gavin, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of Petition 

II. Agency Analysis 

III. Agency Decision 

I. Summary of Petition 

On April 14, 2012, David K. Aberizk, 

P.E., petitioned NHTSA requesting 

development of safety standards for a 

driver-activated vehicle regenerative 

braking interface with a distinct rear 

indicator lamp.1 On July 14, 2013, Mr. 

Aberizk submitted additional 

information in the format of a petition 

for rulemaking. The agency considers 

these two submissions as one petition 

for rulemaking because both pertain to 

the same concept of driver-activated 

vehicle regenerative braking. 

Specifically, Mr. Aberizk requests that 

NHTSA define the location and 

geometric parameters for a brake control 

device and the actions required for safe 

operation. Additionally, Mr. Aberizk 

requests that NHTSA define the 

parameters for a rear lamp to signal 

vehicle slowing. 

Mr. Aberizk states that regenerator 

technology is currently integrated as a 

component of the conventional friction 

braking system in electric or hybrid 

electric motor vehicles, which limits the 

potential of the device to recover 

energy. He claims that hybrid and 

electric vehicles with driver-activated 

regenerative braking systems (RBS) 

increases overall efficiency by 6 percent 

over existing RBS.2

Mr. Aberizk recommends that the 

agency establish a new safety standard 

for regenerator engagement to adopt 

performance requirements, which he 

believes will interest automakers in 

embracing increased efficiency 

concepts, such as his operator-initiated 

slowing design. Mr. Aberizk provided 

graphic illustrations showing potential 

locations for an activation control 

device on the steering wheel or gear 

selector, and an expanded center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) assembly. 

In his first information submission, Mr. 

Aberizk refers the reader to the 

Integrated Consultants Incorporated 

Web site for additional details on the 

driver-activated RBS empirical test 

findings and his U.S. patent, Vehicle 

Regenerative Deceleration Actuator and 

Indicator System and Method. 

In his supplemental submission, Mr. 

Aberizk states that current RBS 

technologies underutilize the potential 

of brake regenerators to increase vehicle 

efficiency. With an operator-initiated 

slowing feature added to existing RBSs, 

Mr. Aberizk claims that overall 

efficiency increases by 6 percent in 

hybrid and electric vehicles, and by at 

least 2.5 percent for mild-hybrid 

vehicles. As presented, the slowing 

concept relies on the driver to manually 

engage the regenerator to slow the 

vehicle, independent of the brake pedal 

application. Finally, Mr. Aberizk 

included a summary of the comment 

and the attachment he submitted to 

NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to establish Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for 

model years 2017 and beyond.3

II. Analysis of Petition 

Although the submission met the 

requirements to be accepted as a 

rulemaking petition, NHTSA does not 

endorse specific products, designs, or 

equipment, as Mr. Aberizk requests. 

NHTSA develops and issues Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards in order 

to reduce crashes, deaths and injuries 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes.4

Motor vehicle safety standards are 

primarily performance standards, 

intended to allow manufacturers to 

choose which products, designs, and 

equipment best satisfy the requirements. 

That said, in the interest of 

completeness, the agency conducted a 

technical review of Mr. Aberizk’s 

petition. Because the petition involves 

topics related to multiple FMVSSs, the 

agency’s technical review of the slowing 

device was separate from its review of 

the illumination indicator. 

Slowing Device 

Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA 

define the location and geometric 

parameters for an operator activated 

slowing control device with a humanmachine interface required for safe 

operation. Mr. Aberizk offers anecdotal 

observations and evaluations, but did 

not submit quantitative data. For 

vehicles configured with the slowing 

device, he claims a ‘noticeable’ increase 

in range for test distances of 15 miles or 

greater, as well as a 50 to 75 percent 

reduction in brake pedal usage. The 

petition does not, however, assess how 

these factors, if accurate, would lead to 

safety benefits attributable to the driveractivated slowing concept. Additionally, 

NHTSA is not aware of any data that 

establish a correlation between 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7493 

5http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-hev.shtml 

(2% to 4% highway driving and 8% to 14% city 

driving). 

6See 48 FR 48235, October 18, 1983. 

7See Statement of Policy published in 63 FR 

59482, on November 4, 1998. 

enhanced RBS performance and 

reduced crash rates. 

Perhaps more relevant, however, we 

note that a manually-enhanced feature 

to increase recovered braking energy is 

not prohibited by FMVSS No. 135, the 

light vehicle braking standard that 

includes requirements for the service 

brake system, associated parking brake 

system, and optional regenerative 

braking systems. FMVSS No. 135 

defines RBS as an electrical energy 

system that is installed in an electric 

vehicle for recovering or dissipating 

kinetic energy and which uses the 

propulsion motor(s) as a retarder for 

partial braking of the electric vehicle 

while returning electrical energy to the 

propulsion battery(s) or dissipating 

electrical energy. FMVSS No. 135 

expressly states that for an electric 

vehicle equipped with RBS, the RBS is 

considered to be part of the service 

brake system, if it is automatically 

activated by an application of the 

service brake control, if there is no 

means provided for the driver to 

disconnect or otherwise deactivate it, 

and if it is activated in all transmission 

positions, including neutral. For an 

electric vehicle that is equipped with 

antilock brake system (ABS) and RBS 

that is part of the service brake system, 

the ABS must control the RBS. A 

vehicle equipped with or without RBS 

must meet the stopping performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 135. 

Information compiled by the Federal 

government estimates the combined 

city/highway driving energy recovered 

by regenerative braking to be 5 to 9 

percent.5 Mr. Aberizk claims that 

vehicles with driver-activated RBS 

would incrementally increase the 

energy recovered by an additional 2.5 to 

6 percent. Although the amount of 

energy recovered may be considered 

economically beneficial, it is not a 

safety concern that warrants the 

adoption of a safety standard. Mr. 

Aberizk extolled the fuel economy 

benefits of the technology in support of 

his petition, but fuel economy benefits 

are not relevant to whether a technology 

will improve safety. Moreover, even in 

the CAFE program, NHTSA does not 

mandate the use of particular 

technologies. Like the FMVSSs, CAFE 

standards are performance standards. 

Manufacturers are free to choose 

whatever technologies they wish, and 

NHTSA does not specify particular 

technologies in that context either. 

Illumination Indicator 

In the petition, Mr. Aberizk also 

requests that NHTSA define the 

parameters for an additional rear lamp 

to signal vehicle slowing. Because we 

are denying the petition with respect to 

braking, we need not address the part of 

the petition related to lighting because 

without a new brake requirement, there 

is no need for a new lighting 

requirement. 

In order for NHTSA to consider 

establishing a new safety standard, the 

agency must determine that a safety 

need exists and that the suggested 

concept will reduce the crash risk. For 

example, NHTSA completed rulemaking 

action to require center high mounted 

stop lamps as standard lighting 

equipment after extensive research that 

quantified the crash problem and 

estimated the safety impact and the 

effectiveness of the new equipment.6

Hence, a petitioner bears the burden of 

providing data to justify the safety need 

for the recommended amendments to 

the relevant safety standard.7

Finally, Mr Aberizk claims that 

development of safety standards will 

keep product liability of an operatorinitiated slowing system neutral to the 

industry. Because NHTSA regulates 

motor vehicle safety and not tort 

liability, the agency refrains from 

drawing legal conclusions about Mr. 

Aberizk’s operator-initiated slowing 

device. 

III. Agency Decision 

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, 

this completes the agency’s review of 

the petition for rulemaking. NHTSA 

believes that the current requirements 

specified in FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 

do not prohibit certain features 

suggested in the petition. The petitioner 

did not demonstrate a safety need or 

substantiate claims of reduced crash risk 

associated with the petitioned concept. 

Therefore, NHTSA denies David K. 

Aberizk’s petition. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02763 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 216 and 300 

RIN 0648–AX63 

Trade Monitoring Procedures for 

Fishery Products; International Trade 

in Seafood; Permit Requirements for 

Importers and Exporters; Public 

Meeting; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service published a document 

in the Federal Register of February 8, 

2016, concerning a public webinar to 

present details of a previously issued 

proposed rule (which published 

December 29, 2015) for electronic filing 

of seafood trade documents. The 

document contained an incorrect date 

for the webinar. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Wildman, Office of International 

Affairs and Seafood Inspection; 

telephone: (301) 427–8350. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of February 8, 

2016, in FR Doc. 2016–02418, on page 

6489, in the first column, correct the 

DATES caption to read: 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Wednesday, February 17, 2016, from 3 

p.m. until 4 p.m. eastern standard time. 

Written comments on the proposed rule 

(December 29, 2015; 80 FR 81251) must 

be received by February 29, 2016. 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Jeffrey Weir, 

Acting Director, Office for International 

Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03053 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS