Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7491 

The EPA also reviewed regulatory 

provisions to control future new sources 

of nitrogen oxide emissions in Idaho. 

We note that on April 17, 2014, we 

approved Idaho’s NO2 infrastructure SIP 

(79 FR 21669). In that action, we stated 

that Idaho generally regulates emissions 

of nitrogen oxides through its SIPapproved new source review permitting 

programs and operating permit 

regulations. Idaho’s new source review 

permitting rules are found at IDAPA 

58.01.01.200 through 228. These rules 

help ensure that no new or modified 

source of nitrogen oxides will cause or 

contribute to violation of the NO2

NAAQS. In addition, Idaho’s Tier II 

operating permit regulations at IDAPA 

58.01.01.400 through 410 require that to 

obtain an operating permit, the 

applicant must demonstrate the source 

will not cause or significantly contribute 

to a violation of any ambient air quality 

standard. These rules state that Idaho 

DEQ will require a Tier II source 

operating permit if Idaho DEQ 

determines emission rate reductions are 

necessary to attain or maintain any 

ambient air quality standard or 

applicable prevention of significant 

deterioration increment. 

Based on our review of the Idaho 

submittal, air quality monitoring data, 

and provisions in the current Federallyapproved Idaho SIP regulating new 

sources, we believe it is reasonable to 

conclude that emissions from Idaho do 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

We also do not expect the monitors in 

states bordering Idaho, identified in 

Table 1 above, to have difficulty 

maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

emissions from Idaho do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 2010 NO2

NAAQS in any other state. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA has reviewed the December 

24, 2015 submittal from the Idaho DEQ 

demonstrating that sources in Idaho do 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any 

other state. We have also reviewed 

recent monitoring data and regulatory 

provisions in the Federally-approved 

Idaho SIP. Based on our review, we are 

proposing to find that the Idaho SIP 

meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 27, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02846 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 15 and 74 

[OET Docket Nos. 14–165, 14–166 and 12– 

268; Report No. 3037] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in a Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding 

by Howard S. Shapiro, on behalf of 

Audio-Technica U.S., Inc., Laura 

Stefani, on behalf of Sennheiser 

Electronic Corp., Paul Margie, on behalf 

of Google Inc., Paula Boyd, on behalf of 

Microsoft Corporation, Stephen E. 

Coran, on behalf of Wireless Internet 

Service Providers Association, Rick 

Kaplan, on behalf of National 

Association of Broadcasters, Lawrence J. 

Movshin, on behalf of WMTS Coalition, 

Catherine Wang, on behalf of Shure 

Incorporated, Ari Q. Fitzgerald, on 

behalf GE Healthcare, Gordon Moore, on 

behalf of Lectrosonics, Inc. and 

Telecommunications Law Professionals 

PLLC, on behalf of Carlson Wireless 

Technologies, Inc. and Cal.net, Inc. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before February 29, 

2016. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before March 25, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hugh Van Tuyl, Policy and Rules 

Division, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–7506, email: 

Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov. Paul Murray, 

Policy and Rules Division, Offiice of 

Engineering and Technology, (202) 418– 

0688, email: Paul.Murray@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 3037, released January 12, 

2016. The full text of the Petitions is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be accessed 

online via the Commission’s Electronic 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
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