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