Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding, 7491-7492 [2016-02899]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7491
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
7492
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Comment Filing System at https://
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
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:
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
I. Summary of Petition
II. Agency Analysis
III. Agency Decision
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
1 Original petition available at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA–2012–
0010–0003.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
3 Mr. Aberizk’s comment to that NPRM can be
viewed at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
NHTSA–2010–0131–0278.
4 See 49 U.S. Code § 30101, Purpose and Policy,
section (1).
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7491-7492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02899]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 7492]]
Comment Filing System at https://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