81 FR 7492 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 29 (February 12, 2016)

Page Range		7492-7493
FR Document		2016-02763

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.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7492-7493]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02763]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Original petition available at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0010-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Mr. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 high-mounted 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Mr. Aberizk's comment to that NPRM can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See 49 U.S. Code Sec. 30101, Purpose and Policy, section
(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowing Device

Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA define the location and geometric
parameters for an operator activated slowing control device with a
human-machine 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 driver-activated
slowing concept. Additionally, NHTSA is not aware of any data that
establish a correlation between

[[Page 7493]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-hev.shtml (2% to 4%
highway driving and 8% to 14% city driving).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See 48 FR 48235, October 18, 1983.
\7\ See Statement of Policy published in 63 FR 59482, on
November 4, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, Mr Aberizk claims that development of safety standards
will keep product liability of an operator-initiated 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

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

Comment Filing System at http:// I. Summary of Petition of brake regenerators to increase vehicle
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission On April 14, 2012, David K. Aberizk, efficiency. With an operator-initiated
will not send a copy of this Notice P.E., petitioned NHTSA requesting slowing feature added to existing RBSs,
pursuant to the Congressional Review development of safety standards for a Mr. Aberizk claims that overall
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(l)(A) because this driver-activated vehicle regenerative efficiency increases by 6 percent in
notice does not have an impact on any braking interface with a distinct rear hybrid and electric vehicles, and by at
rules of particular applicability. indicator lamp.1 On July 14, 2013, Mr. least 2.5 percent for mild-hybrid
Number of Petitions Filed: 12. Aberizk submitted additional vehicles. As presented, the slowing
Federal Communications Commission. information in the format of a petition concept relies on the driver to manually
Gloria J. Miles, for rulemaking. The agency considers engage the regenerator to slow the
these two submissions as one petition vehicle, independent of the brake pedal
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary. for rulemaking because both pertain to application. Finally, Mr. Aberizk
the same concept of driver-activated included a summary of the comment
[FR Doc. 2016–02899 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am]
vehicle regenerative braking. and the attachment he submitted to
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Specifically, Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking
NHTSA define the location and (NPRM) to establish Corporate Average
geometric parameters for a brake control Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for
device and the actions required for safe model years 2017 and beyond.3
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
operation. Additionally, Mr. Aberizk II. Analysis of Petition
National Highway Traffic Safety requests that NHTSA define the
Administration Although the submission met the
parameters for a rear lamp to signal
requirements to be accepted as a
vehicle slowing.
49 CFR Part 571 rulemaking petition, NHTSA does not
Mr. Aberizk states that regenerator
endorse specific products, designs, or
technology is currently integrated as a
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety equipment, as Mr. Aberizk requests.
component of the conventional friction
Standards; Denial of Petition for NHTSA develops and issues Federal
braking system in electric or hybrid
Rulemaking motor vehicle safety standards in order
electric motor vehicles, which limits the
to reduce crashes, deaths and injuries
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic potential of the device to recover
resulting from motor vehicle crashes.4
Safety Administration (NHTSA), energy. He claims that hybrid and
Motor vehicle safety standards are
Department of Transportation (DOT). electric vehicles with driver-activated
primarily performance standards,
regenerative braking systems (RBS)
ACTION: Denial of petition for intended to allow manufacturers to
increases overall efficiency by 6 percent
rulemaking. choose which products, designs, and
over existing RBS.2
equipment best satisfy the requirements.
SUMMARY: Based on the agency’s Mr. Aberizk recommends that the
That said, in the interest of
evaluation, NHTSA denies a petition for agency establish a new safety standard
completeness, the agency conducted a
rulemaking from Mr. David K. Aberizk, for regenerator engagement to adopt
technical review of Mr. Aberizk’s
P.E., of Integrated Consultants performance requirements, which he
petition. Because the petition involves
Incorporated, who requests the believes will interest automakers in
topics related to multiple FMVSSs, the
development of safety standards for a embracing increased efficiency
agency’s technical review of the slowing
driver-activated vehicle regenerative concepts, such as his operator-initiated
device was separate from its review of
braking interface with distinct rear slowing design. Mr. Aberizk provided
the illumination indicator.
lighting indication. The petitioner graphic illustrations showing potential
claims that the recommended changes locations for an activation control Slowing Device
to the relevant safety standards would device on the steering wheel or gear Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA
allow vehicle manufacturers to better selector, and an expanded center high- define the location and geometric
utilize the regenerator technology to mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) assembly. parameters for an operator activated
increase vehicle efficiency. NHTSA In his first information submission, Mr. slowing control device with a human-
finds that some features of the suggested Aberizk refers the reader to the machine interface required for safe
concept are not prohibited by existing Integrated Consultants Incorporated operation. Mr. Aberizk offers anecdotal
Federal motor vehicle safety standards Web site for additional details on the observations and evaluations, but did
(FMVSS) and notes that Mr. Aberizk did driver-activated RBS empirical test not submit quantitative data. For
not demonstrate how the other features findings and his U.S. patent, Vehicle vehicles configured with the slowing
address a motor vehicle safety need. Regenerative Deceleration Actuator and device, he claims a ‘noticeable’ increase
FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 currently Indicator System and Method. in range for test distances of 15 miles or
specify performance requirements In his supplemental submission, Mr. greater, as well as a 50 to 75 percent
relevant to certain permitted Aberizk states that current RBS reduction in brake pedal usage. The
technologies identified in the petition. technologies underutilize the potential petition does not, however, assess how
DATES: February 12, 2016. 1 Original petition available at http://
these factors, if accurate, would lead to
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA–2012– safety benefits attributable to the driver-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
0010–0003. activated slowing concept. Additionally,
Lisa Gavin, Office of Crash Avoidance 2 Mr. Aberizk does not specify whether Graph 1 NHTSA is not aware of any data that
Standards, National Highway Traffic in Appendix A–1 of the additional data collected establish a correlation between
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey and reported July 14, 2013 refers to the overall
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. efficiency of the vehicle at turning power into
3 Mr. Aberizk’s comment to that NPRM can be
movement, or to the efficiency of the regenerative
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: braking system in particular. As discussed further viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
I. Summary of Petition below, however, it is irrelevant to the agency’s NHTSA–2010–0131–0278.
II. Agency Analysis determination of whether to begin rulemaking to 4 See 49 U.S. Code § 30101, Purpose and Policy,

III. Agency Decision establish a new FMVSS. section (1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Feb 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM 12FEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7493

enhanced RBS performance and Illumination Indicator DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
reduced crash rates.
In the petition, Mr. Aberizk also National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Perhaps more relevant, however, we requests that NHTSA define the
note that a manually-enhanced feature Administration
parameters for an additional rear lamp
to increase recovered braking energy is
to signal vehicle slowing. Because we 50 CFR Parts 216 and 300
not prohibited by FMVSS No. 135, the
are denying the petition with respect to
light vehicle braking standard that
braking, we need not address the part of RIN 0648–AX63
includes requirements for the service
the petition related to lighting because
brake system, associated parking brake
without a new brake requirement, there Trade Monitoring Procedures for
system, and optional regenerative
is no need for a new lighting Fishery Products; International Trade
braking systems. FMVSS No. 135
defines RBS as an electrical energy requirement. in Seafood; Permit Requirements for
system that is installed in an electric In order for NHTSA to consider Importers and Exporters; Public
vehicle for recovering or dissipating establishing a new safety standard, the Meeting; Correction
kinetic energy and which uses the agency must determine that a safety
propulsion motor(s) as a retarder for need exists and that the suggested AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
partial braking of the electric vehicle concept will reduce the crash risk. For Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
while returning electrical energy to the example, NHTSA completed rulemaking Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
propulsion battery(s) or dissipating action to require center high mounted Commerce.
electrical energy. FMVSS No. 135 stop lamps as standard lighting ACTION: Notice of public meeting;
expressly states that for an electric equipment after extensive research that correction.
vehicle equipped with RBS, the RBS is quantified the crash problem and
considered to be part of the service estimated the safety impact and the SUMMARY: The National Marine
brake system, if it is automatically effectiveness of the new equipment.6 Fisheries Service published a document
activated by an application of the Hence, a petitioner bears the burden of in the Federal Register of February 8,
service brake control, if there is no providing data to justify the safety need
2016, concerning a public webinar to
means provided for the driver to for the recommended amendments to
present details of a previously issued
disconnect or otherwise deactivate it, the relevant safety standard.7
proposed rule (which published
and if it is activated in all transmission Finally, Mr Aberizk claims that December 29, 2015) for electronic filing
positions, including neutral. For an development of safety standards will of seafood trade documents. The
electric vehicle that is equipped with keep product liability of an operator-
antilock brake system (ABS) and RBS document contained an incorrect date
initiated slowing system neutral to the for the webinar.
that is part of the service brake system, industry. Because NHTSA regulates
the ABS must control the RBS. A motor vehicle safety and not tort FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
vehicle equipped with or without RBS liability, the agency refrains from Mark Wildman, Office of International
must meet the stopping performance Affairs and Seafood Inspection;
drawing legal conclusions about Mr.
requirements of FMVSS No. 135. telephone: (301) 427–8350.
Aberizk’s operator-initiated slowing
Information compiled by the Federal device. Correction
government estimates the combined
city/highway driving energy recovered III. Agency Decision In the Federal Register of February 8,
by regenerative braking to be 5 to 9 2016, in FR Doc. 2016–02418, on page
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,
percent.5 Mr. Aberizk claims that 6489, in the first column, correct the
this completes the agency’s review of
vehicles with driver-activated RBS DATES caption to read:
the petition for rulemaking. NHTSA
would incrementally increase the
believes that the current requirements DATES: The meeting will be held
energy recovered by an additional 2.5 to
specified in FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 Wednesday, February 17, 2016, from 3
6 percent. Although the amount of
do not prohibit certain features p.m. until 4 p.m. eastern standard time.
energy recovered may be considered
economically beneficial, it is not a suggested in the petition. The petitioner Written comments on the proposed rule
safety concern that warrants the did not demonstrate a safety need or (December 29, 2015; 80 FR 81251) must
adoption of a safety standard. Mr. substantiate claims of reduced crash risk be received by February 29, 2016.
Aberizk extolled the fuel economy associated with the petitioned concept.
Therefore, NHTSA denies David K. Dated: February 8, 2016.
benefits of the technology in support of Jeffrey Weir,
his petition, but fuel economy benefits Aberizk’s petition.
Acting Director, Office for International
are not relevant to whether a technology Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National
will improve safety. Moreover, even in 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
Marine Fisheries Service.
the CAFE program, NHTSA does not 49 CFR 1.95.
[FR Doc. 2016–03053 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am]
mandate the use of particular Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
technologies. Like the FMVSSs, CAFE BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS

delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
standards are performance standards.
Raymond R. Posten,
Manufacturers are free to choose
whatever technologies they wish, and Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
NHTSA does not specify particular [FR Doc. 2016–02763 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am]
technologies in that context either. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

5 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-hev.shtml 6 See48 FR 48235, October 18, 1983.
(2% to 4% highway driving and 8% to 14% city 7 SeeStatement of Policy published in 63 FR
driving). 59482, on November 4, 1998.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Feb 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM 12FEP1

Document Created: 2016-02-12 01:24:11
Document Modified: 2016-02-12 01:24:11

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Denial of petition for rulemaking.
Dates		February 12, 2016.
Contact		Ms. Lisa Gavin, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FR Citation		81 FR 7492

81 FR 7492 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 29 (February 12, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration