[Federal Register: October 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 202)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53987-53999]
[DOCID:fr21oc09-18]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-09-0166]
RIN 2127-AK34

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Today's NPRM proposes two changes to the agency's
specifications for the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy. In Part 1
of this NPRM, to improve the durability of the dummy's femurs, we
propose changes to the design of and material used for the femur
assembly. In Part 2, the drawing for the abdomen insert would be
corrected so that the abdominal insert dimensions on the drawing
reflect the actual part. Part 2 of this rulemaking commenced in
response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Denton ATD (Denton)
and First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS). This document declines the
petitioners' suggestion to investigate tolerances for vinyl and rubber
components of the dummy and to specify the expected time frame each
part would meet the tolerances.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that they
are received not later than December 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the Docket ID Number
above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted

without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms.
Lori Summers, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-
366-1740) (fax<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(fax<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to these officials at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Part 1--Femur Improvements
    a. Introduction
    b. Description of the Femur; Failures
    c. Proposed Femur Design Changes
    d. Analysis of the New Femur Design
    1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
    2. Dynamic Evaluation
    i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified HIII-6C Test in the
Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon CRSs
    ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax Marathon Test of the
Modified HIII-6C (Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the Original
HIII-6C Where Femur Failure Occurred (H06120)
    A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
    B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
    C. Dummy Response Biofidelity
    D. Hip Lock
III. Part 2--Abdominal Insert
IV. Proposed Effective Date
V. Other Issues: Rubber and Foam Parts
VI. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices
VII. Public Participation

I. Overview

    This NPRM proposes two changes to the agency's specifications for
the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy (HIII-6C). In Part 1 of this
NPRM, to improve the durability of the dummy's femurs, we propose
changes to the design of and material used for the femur assembly. The
primary modifications include the addition of a \1/4\-inch (6.35
millimeter (mm)) fillet between the femur clamp and the connecting
segment (as defined in section II.b of this preamble) of the machined
femur, removal of material from the connecting segment, and a material
change from aluminum bronze to 4340 steel. These changes would be made
by changing the drawings for the femur in the drawing package specified
in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N (``Six-year-old child test dummy''), the
parts list, and the ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and
Inspection'' (``PADI'') document of the Hybrid III 6-year-old child
crash test dummy (June 2002) incorporated by reference into that
regulation. In Part 2, the drawing for the HIII-6C abdomen insert would
be corrected so that the abdominal insert dimensions on the drawing
reflect the actual part. We also propose to make conforming changes to
the specifications and drawings of the HIII-6CW weighted child test
dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S).

II. Part 1--Femur Improvements

a. Introduction

    The HIII-6C is used to represent a six-year-old child in vehicle
crash tests and equipment compliance tests. It is an enhanced, more
biofidelic upgrade to its predecessor, the Hybrid II six-year-old
dummy. The HIII-6C is used in multiple testing environments, including,
but not limited to, out-of-position testing in FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant
Crash Protection, 49 CFR 571.208), child restraint system (CRS)
evaluation in FMVSS No. 213 (Child Restraint Systems, 49 CFR
571.213),\1\ and for research purposes in the New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory use of the HIII-6C by NHTSA in compliance tests
will begin in 2010. Currently, manufacturers have the option of
certifying their child restraints to FMVSS No. 213 using the HIII-6C
or the Hybrid II six-year-old dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HIII-6C can be used in its normal configuration or it can be
weighted to simulate heavier children (see 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S).
The standard HIII-6C weighs 52 pounds (lb) (23.6 kilograms (kg)). The
weighted version of the dummy (HIII-6CW) weighs ten pounds more at 62
lb (28.1 kg). The HIII-6CW was developed to represent larger children
for purposes of testing booster seats to the requirements of FMVSS No.
213.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As noted earlier, we propose changing the specifications and
drawings of the HIII-6CW set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S,
consistent with the changes proposed for the HIII-6C dummy discussed
in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has become aware that femur failures, involving complete
separation of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis, have occurred in the
test dummy in FMVSS No. 213 testing and in NCAP research testing.
    To improve the durability of the femur, NHTSA's Vehicle Research
and Test Center (VRTC), through an existing contract with dummy
manufacturers First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD
(Denton),\3\ requested the manufacturers to consider new femur designs
for the HIII-6C. NHTSA asked the dummy manufacturers to look into
improving the femur design after learning of a femur failure. The
agency began investigating the femur even though only a single failure
had occurred because the same failure had been observed in a prototype
version of the Hybrid III 10-year-old child dummy (HIII-10C) that had a
femur design that was similar to the present HIII-6C femur.\4\ NHTSA
was concerned that the HIII-6C's femur was a vulnerable design and that
more femur failures would occur as the dummy became more widely used in
agency testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These are the manufacturers that produce the HIII-6C dummy.
    \4\ In particular, the machined femur of the HIII-10C had the
same sharp corner, discussed in the next section of this preamble,
between the ``femur clamp'' and the ``connecting segment'' regions.
The machined femur of the HIII-10C that had been involved in the
failures was redesigned before the initiation of the HIII-10C's
incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572 and the redesigned HIII-10C
femurs have not been failing. The redesign of the HIII-10C dummy
femur added a \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) fillet to reduce stress at the
intersection of the femur clamp and connecting segment.
Additionally, the material of the HIII-10C machined femur and shaft
was modified to be 4140 Steel, which has a significantly higher
yield strength (92,000 psi) than the aluminum bronze used in the
HIII-6C femur (48,000 psi). The shaft angle of the HIII-10C
(77[deg]) is also larger than that of the HIII-6C (55[deg]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTSS and Denton separately developed different redesigns of the
HIII-6C's femur. NHTSA has assessed both approaches and has decided to
propose design changes that are based on the approach developed by
FTSS. NHTSA has prepared a technical report that discusses in detail
the femur designs, the agency's analysis of data relating to the
proposed redesign of the femur, and other technical information
supporting this NPRM. A copy of the report has been placed in the
docket.

b. Description of the Femur; Failures

    The present design of the HIII-6C femur is specified in 49 CFR Part
572, Subpart N.\5\ The machined femur, which is part of the femur
assembly illustrated in Figure 1 below, consists of a large section
that clamps onto the upper leg and a smaller section that contains the
femur shaft. For ease of

discussion, these portions of the machined femur will be referred to as
the ``femur clamp'' and the ``connecting segment,'' respectively, for
the remainder of this preamble. The femur shaft, retaining flange, and
femur ball connect the machined femur to the dummy's pelvis. Similar to
a human hip joint, the ball in the HIII-6C femur assembly allows for
rotation of the dummy hip joint. The flange is used to attach the femur
assembly to the pelvis. The entire femur assembly is found within the
lower torso, and the material specification for this assembly,
including the machined femur, shaft, flange and ball is Aluminum Bronze
C-624 AMC0-18. The line drawn in the illustration shows the approximate
location of the femur failure. (The femur load cell, the response of
which is discussed in the ``dynamic evaluation'' section below, is
located in the distal portion of the upper leg (i.e., farther from the
pelvis) and not in the area of the machined femur.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Complete drawings for the HIII-6C femur can be found in
Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12541.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.029

    Failures of the HIII-6C femur appear to have initiated at a sharp
corner between the femur clamp and connecting segment sections of the
machined femur. The fracture was observed from this corner to the bolt
hole within the femur clamp, at an angle of approximately 45[deg]. The
failure continued through the thin section of material directly beneath
the bolt hole, causing complete separation of the machined femur.
Additionally, in one failed component, small indents on the inner
diameter of the retaining flange were observed, indicating potential
contact between the flange and shaft. The location of the fracture is
depicted in the Figure 1 illustration. Pictures of a fractured part can
be found in the technical report accompanying this NPRM.

c. Proposed Femur Design Changes

    The proposed modification to improve the femur's durability is
based on the approach developed by FTSS. The agency decided on that
approach over Denton's because the FTSS design was more straightforward
and simpler than that of Denton,\6\ and a similar design change had
demonstrated improvement in the HIII-10C. Rather than re-designing,
FTSS increased the strength and durability of the femur assembly by
fabricating the machined femur and shaft from 4340 steel, which has a
higher yield strength than the original material, aluminum bronze C-624
AMC0-18, while keeping the ball and retaining flange as the original
aluminum bronze material. A \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) circular fillet was
added between the femur clamp and the connecting segment to eliminate
stress-risers that were present on the original femur, and a portion of
the connecting segment material near the femur clamp was removed. The
weight of the new FTSS femur is only 0.002 lb (0.001 kilograms (kg))
heavier than the original femur. Table 1 below compares the weights and
material properties of the original femur, the FTSS-developed femur,
and the Denton-developed femur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Both manufacturers recommended a material change to increase
the strength of the femur. In terms of design, FTSS reduced the
effects of a stress-riser in the area of the failure, while Denton
completed more extensive design changes to also address the alleged
issue of ``hip lock.'' Hip lock is a condition where flexion of the
dummy's hip joint is mechanically limited due to contact between the
femur and the retaining ring or other pelvis structure. Hip lock in
the HIII-50th percentile male femur led to design modifications that
prevented ``hard'' (i.e., metal-to-metal contact) hip lock from
occurring (61 FR 67953, Dec. 26, 1996). In that adult dummy, hard
hip lock was characterized by spikes in the unfiltered pelvis and
chest accelerometer readings, high and sharply-pointed chest z
acceleration traces, non-unimodal chest x and resultant
accelerations, and a high tension component in the lumbar z force
(Klinich et al., ``Evaluation of a Proposed Hybrid III Hip
Modification,'' Stapp Paper No. 952730, 1995).

                              Table 1--Weight and Material Properties for the Original and Developed HIII-6C Femur Designs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Femur design                           Measured weight                                       Material and yield strength
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original.......................  0.532 lb (0.241 kg)...........................  Aluminum Bronze C-624 AMC0-18.................  48,000 psi.
FTSS...........................  0.534 lb (0.242 kg)...........................  4340 Steel....................................  114,000 psi.
Denton.........................  0.606 lb (0.275 kg)...........................  4140 Steel....................................  92,000 psi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement this change in femur design and material, the
following changes would be made to the materials describing the HIII-6C
in 49 CFR Part 572. Drawings 127-3017-1&-2, ``6 YR H3--FEMUR MACHINED''
would be replaced with drawings 127-3017-1S&-2S, which show the
proposed machined femur.\7\ The femur assembly drawings (127-3016-1&-2)
would also be changed due to the new femur design, with new part
numbers 127-3016-1S&-2S. Higher assembly drawings including 127-3000,
``LOWER TORSO ASSEMBLY,'' and the complete assembly drawings (127-0000)
would be amended to show the proposed part. These revisions would be
noted on drawing SA572-127DRL-2. The PADI would also be updated so that
it shows the proposed machined femur in figures and reports the proper
lower torso assembly and total weight for the dummy. Finally, the part
numbers for the machined femur and the femur assembly would be changed
in the Parts/Drawings list, along with the revision letters for higher
assembly drawings, as appropriate. Copies of the HIII-6C drawing
package, PADI, and Parts/Drawings list that include the proposed change
in femur design can be obtained online at http://www.regulations.gov,
in the same docket as this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The material specification on drawing 127-3021, ``6 YR H3--
FEMUR SHAFT,'' would be changed from ``Aluminum Bronze \3/8\ Rnd C-
624 AMC0-18'' to ``4340 Steel \3/8\ Rnd.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Analysis of the New Femur Design

    NHTSA has tentatively determined that the proposed changes to the
femur would successfully prevent the femur from failing and would not
compromise the utility of the test dummy. This determination is based
on an analysis showing the stress is reduced by the addition of the
fillet as proposed, and on an analysis of dynamic test results, as
discussed below.
1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
    In the current HIII-6C machined femur, the change in dimension
between the femur clamp and the connecting segment is nearly instant.
This abrupt change can lead to high stresses in that area when the
femur is loaded. The addition of a fillet in that area reduces these
stresses. We have estimated that the proposed addition of the fillet
between the femur clamp and the connecting segment of the HIII-6C
machined femur will result in stresses approximately 1.6 to two times
less than those in the femur without a fillet. However, it is noted
that this is only an estimate, as the loading conditions present in the
femur during a FMVSS No. 213 type sled test were highly simplified in
order to provide a rough estimate of the fillet benefit. Details about
the stress reduction approximation can be found in the technical
report. Because the fillet design results in substantially reducing
stress in the femur of the dummy, we tentatively conclude that adding
the fillet and using the 4340 steel material will make the dummy
sufficiently durable to avoid femur failure.
2. Dynamic Evaluation
    NHTSA evaluated the FTSS-developed femur in April 2006 at the MGA
testing facility. To assess the effect of the component modification, a
HIII-6C with new femurs (which we refer to as a ``modified HIII-6C'' or
``modified dummy'') was tested in the Britax Marathon, Britax Boulevard
and Britax Decathlon to the FMVSS No. 213 test conditions, and the
results were compared.\8\ To obtain a greater understanding of the
loading experienced by the femur assembly, instrumentation was added to
the dummy to allow measurement of triaxial accelerations in the pelvis
and forces and moments in the femurs. Additionally, to determine the
effect of the new femur, we compared test results from a test in which
the femur had failed to those of a test with a modified dummy, under
conditions that had previously caused failure, i.e., the modified HIII-
6C dummy was tested in the Britax Marathon to the FMVSS No. 213 sled
pulse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Boulevard and Decathlon models were each tested with a
modified HIII-6C and with a HIII-6CW with the modified femur design.
No femur failure occurred in any of the tests. For simplicity and
because the test results of the HIII-6CW are not comparable to those
of the HIII-6C, tests of the HIII-6CW dummy are not generally
discussed in this preamble. However, results for all tests of the
HIII-6CW are discussed in the technical report, including test
numbers, maximum head, chest and pelvis accelerations and left and
right femur maximum moments and forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all tests of the FTSS-developed femurs, there were no femur
failures. In addition, test data relating to left and right femur
maximum moments, measurement of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 213 injury
mechanisms, dummy kinematics, and other factors concerning the
performance of the dummy raised no concerns about the new femur design.
We tentatively conclude that the testing indicated that use of the new
femur would not affect the utility of the modified HIII-6C and HIII-6CW
dummies in FMVSS No. 208, FMVSS No. 213, and NCAP research tests,
except to make the dummies more durable and, therefore, more acceptable
as anthropomorphic test instruments used in agency testing.
i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified HIII-6C Test in the Marathon,
Boulevard, and Decathlon CRSs
    NHTSA measured and compared maximum forces and moments measured in
the femur load cells (over both legs) of the modified HIII-6C dummy in
the Britax Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon. The Marathon and
Boulevard showed similar maximum forces, while the Decathlon had a
higher maximum femur force. All maximum forces occurred along the Z-
axis, and all maximum moments were about the Y-axis.

Table 2--Maximum Forces and Moments Measured in the Femur Load Cells of Modified HIII-6C Dummies in an FMVSS No.
                                       213 Compliance Testing Environment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Britax          Britax          Britax
                                                                     Marathon*      Decathlon*       Boulevard
                          Femur measure                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        6C              6C              6C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Force (N)...................................................          1492.9          2264.7          1578.4
Max Moment (N-m)................................................             -78           -63.9             -70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Marathon: Restraint changed from upright to reclined during test. Decathlon: Top tether webbing separated at
  the attachment clip and the restraint changed position from upright to reclined.

    At the time of maximum moment there are visible differences in the
degree of knee extension (test video pictures are provided in the
technical report). These visual differences in response are consistent
with the differences in force and moment magnitude seen in the tests.
    Maximum left and right femur forces from the tests of the HIII-6C
dummy are displayed in Figure 2, while Figure 3 shows the maximum
moments measured in the left and right legs during each test. In
general, force and moment measurements made in the left and right
femurs were similar, though not identical. This may give some insight
into why failures were observed in the left leg, right leg, or both
legs in any given test. We believe that the failures were caused by
stresses exceeding the material strength of the femur, so the
occurrence of one femur failure, rather than both, may be due to the
fact that the forces present during the test were unevenly distributed.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.031

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax Marathon Test of the Modified
HIII-6C (Test H06337) to Those of a Test of the Original HIII-6C Where
Femur Failure Occurred (H06120)
    Both tests were performed using the same dummy (S/N 158).\9\ In
test H06120 (with the original femurs), the left femur failed and
detached completely. The right knee of this dummy was in a fully
extended position, which could have resulted from the change in
kinematics due to loss of one leg. In test H06337 (modified dummy),
there were no femur failures and both legs remained attached to the
dummy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Both tests were performed using the same dummy (S/N 158).
However, because FMVSS No. 213 does not require measurement of
femoral loads, no femoral force data was available for test H06120
with the original femurs. Therefore, comparisons were made between
pre- and post-test positioning, head and chest measurements, and
dummy position throughout the test, as indicated by the test videos.
This is discussed in detail in the technical report.
    \10\ We note that in test H06337 (modified dummy), the child
seat had multiple cracks in its base following the test, and during
the test the restraint position shifted from upright to reclined.
However, these issues are not likely linked to the performance of
the new femur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
    In these two tests, we compared the maximum head and chest
accelerations. As seen in Figure 4, these measures were similar for
both tests, suggesting that the new femur does not affect the dummy
head or chest response significantly. Specifically, peak chest
resultant acceleration, an FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion, increased
only 2.42 percent from 41.4 g with the current Part 572 femur to 42.4 g
with the proposed femur. However, we note that the maximum head Z and
resultant accelerations occurred after the time of femur failure in
test H06120. Therefore, it is possible that the acceleration magnitude
or response in time was affected by the loss of one limb.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.032

    We also compared the 36 millisecond (ms) head injury criterion
(HIC) values. These values are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 5, along
with the previously-discussed peak chest accelerations (Figure 6). The
response measured in the modified HIII-6C resulted in a 5.65 percent
decrease in HIC over the response of the original HIII-6C. These
relatively low changes in response suggest that HIC and chest g's are
not significantly altered by the femur replacement.

Table 3--HIC 36 and Peak Chest Acceleration Values for Matched FMVSS No.
                                213 Tests
         [These results are presented in Figures 5 and 6, below]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        H06120: Femur
                                         failure w/          H06337:
               Measure                current part 572   Proposed femur
                                           design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC 36..............................             723.3             682.4
Peak Chest Acceleration (g).........              41.4              42.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.033

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
B. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
    Because the FTSS-developed femur design only involves a material
change, removal of material, and the addition of a fillet at a high-
stress location, we do not expect that use of the new femur would
change the dummy's kinematic response. This expectation is borne out by
an analysis of test video comparing the kinematics of the dummy in
tests H06337 (modified dummy) and H06120 (femur failure). (Photographs
from the video are presented in the technical report.) Until the time
of maximum femur force, in the test with new femurs, the position of
the dummy in each test is fairly similar. At maximum force, the dummy's
knees in H06337 (modified dummy) are slightly more extended and lower
than the knees in H06120 (femur failure). At the approximate time of
femur failure in test H06120, the positions of the two dummies are
noticeably different. The fully extended left knee of the dummy in test
H06120 (femur failure) and the additional excursion of the leg (as
noted by the position of the knee marker) may be indicative of the
failing femur component. After femur failure at 100 ms, slight
differences in dummy position could be attributable to the loss of one
leg in the test H06120. Since the dummies' positions before femur
failure were very similar, and because the new femur design is so
similar to the current design, we believe that the new femur would not
significantly alter dummy response.
C. Dummy Response Biofidelity
    Since the FTSS-developed femur has the same geometry as the
original femurs where it interfaces with the pelvis, the new femur is
not expected to behave any differently than the original femur. As
discussed in the previous sections, little difference in head and chest
measurements and dummy kinematics was observed in the dummy with the
new versus the current Part 572 femur. Therefore, the slight
modification in femur design and material is not expected to have an
effect on dummy biofidelity.
D. Hip Lock
    Because the Denton-developed femur was designed specifically to
address the potential issue of hip lock, after being tested, the FTSS-
developed femur was inspected for indications of susceptibility to this
condition. There was no evidence of excessive wear near the retaining
ring/ball joint of the new FTSS-developed femurs. Some wear was noticed
on the upper leg of dummy S/N 155 where the femur clamp is fastened to
the upper leg weldment. However, because this wear is located at a
fastening site, metal-to-metal contact is inevitable and is not
indicative of hip lock.

III. Part 2--Abdominal Insert

    FTSS and Denton petitioned NHTSA to change Drawing No. 127-8210 of
the HIII-6C drawing package, which specifies the abdominal insert for
the dummy. The petitioners stated that FTSS owns the original mold for
the abdominal insert that was part of the dummies used by NHTSA to
develop the 49 CFR Part 572 specifications for the dummy, and that the
mold is still being used to manufacture the HIII-6C dummies. The
petitioners stated that they have measured the mold to compare its
dimensions to those of the drawing and have ``a number of discrepancies
between the mold and the drawing.'' The petitioners stated that Denton
has also measured its abdominal insert mold, and has found it to match
the FTSS mold dimensions. Both manufacturers stated their belief that
Drawing No. 127-8210 is in error because of these discrepancies, and
have asked NHTSA to revise the abdomen insert drawing to match the part
mold dimensions. The petitioners submitted a revised drawing as part of
their petition for rulemaking which provided new dimensions for the
ledge height, depth, and taper angle of cone.
    Agency Response:
    NHTSA is granting this request, with slight modification.
    During 2006 and in early 2007, the agency investigated the subject
dimensional discrepancies of the abdominal insert at NHTSA's VRTC. Five
abdominal inserts were measured to obtain the dimensions listed in
Table 4; four of these were manufactured by FTSS and ranged in age from
5-12 years old. The fifth abdominal insert was new and purchased from
Denton, ATD. The results of this investigation showed (see Table 4 and
Figure 7) that the abdominal insert as manufactured did not always meet
the ledge height (items 2&3 in Figure 7), depth (items 4&5), notch half
width (item 8), notch depth (item 9) and taper of cone specifications
(items 6&7).
    We note that we measured the actual manufactured part, and not the
mold. Because the drawing package specifies dimensions for the part,
not the mold, it is logical to correct drawing dimensions based on the
measured dimensions of parts. Thus, while we considered the
petitioners' recommendations from measurements of the mold, we have
developed a revised set of specifications for the abdomen using the set
of measured dimensions from available parts as the base. We believe
that the dimensions derived from this set of measurements will
represent a wide range of parts.

                                                         Table 4--HIII-6C Key Abdomen Dimensions
[Fig. Ref numbers in the table refer to Figure 7. For full table, including individual dummy responses and matching pelvis opening measurements, see the
                                                                    Technical Report]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Dim spec.       Min/Max                                    M+/-2SD       Petition    Proposed spec.
            Description               Fig. ref         (in.)          (in.)      Mean  (in.)     SD  (in.)       (in.)         (in.)           (in.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall height....................             1       3.81+/.20     3.73/3.79           3.77          0.03     3.82/3.71           3.81       3.81+/.20
Ledge height......................           2lt       2.10+/.20     1.46/1.63           1.55          0.07     1.69/1.41           1.53       1.53+/.20
                                             3rt       2.10+/.20     1.48/1.66           1.61          0.08     1.77/1.46           1.53       1.53+/.20
Depth excl. plug..................             4       2.50+/.20     2.60/2.82           2.72          0.08     2.88/2.56           2.80       2.80+/.20
Depth incl. plug..................             5       2.50+/.20     2.86/3.03           2.94           .07     3.08/2.80           2.80       2.80+/.20
Taper angle of cone...............           6lt    123.4 +/-0.5       123/128         125.4           2.41       130/121         122.4          121/129
                                             7rt    123.4 +/-0.5       123/128         124.6           1.95       128/121         122.4          121/129
Notch Half Width..................             8       1.45+/.20     1.56/1.69           1.62          0.05     1.72/1.52           1.45      1.50+/-.20
Notch Depth.......................             9      1.40+/-.20     1.16/1.34           1.24          0.07     1.38/1.11           1.40      1.40+/-.20
Width Bottom of Cone..............            10      5.40+/-.40  ............  .............  ............  ............  .............      5.40+/-.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC09.034

    We tentatively agree with the petitioners that several dimensions
of the abdomen should be revised. Although the recommended dimensional
changes are mostly based on agency measurements of physical parts,
nearly all changes are in agreement with the petitioners' mold-based
dimensions. The recommended action would incorporate the petitioner-
recommended changes in dimension to the ledge height and overall depth.
The taper angle of the cone dimension would also be changed to include
the range of angle requested by the petitioner, but have a nominal
value of 125[deg] rather than 122.4[deg], and an increased tolerance of
4[deg] to account for the range of angles measured in the
available parts.
    However, there are two small dimensional discrepancies between the
part and drawing that were not addressed in the petition: The notch
half width and notch depth dimensions. We are adjusting the notch half
width dimension based on measurements of abdominal inserts at VRTC. The
notch half width measurements were all larger than the specified
nominal dimension of 1.45 inches, and one measurement fell outside the
allowed tolerance. Therefore, a slight increase in this dimension to
1.50 inches is proposed. The suggested changes to the abdominal insert
drawing are reflected in Table 4 under ``Proposed Spec.'' We have
decided not to adjust the notch depth dimension based on part
measurements, because only one out of five measurements did not meet
the specification, and the age of this part may have affected this
dimension. This decision is discussed more fully in the technical
report.

IV. Proposed Effective Date

    We propose that the changes to the femur design of the HIII-6C and
HIII-6CW be effective 180 days after publication of a final rule. With
regard to the changes proposed in Part 2, because the changes are more
corrective in nature, we propose that the changes to the drawing for
the abdomen be effective 45 days after publication of a final rule.

V. Other Issues--Rubber and Foam Parts

    FTSS and Denton also suggested that NHTSA undertake a project to
investigate tolerances for vinyl and rubber components, develop a
detailed procedure on how to measure the dimensions used to define
vinyl flesh parts, and work with the manufacturers to ``determine
proper values and the expected time frame each part would normally
comply with the tolerances, given that these parts can change
dimensionally over time.''
    Agency Response: We decline this request. The lifetime of foam
parts will be highly dependent on the part's age, the test situations
the dummy is exposed to (i.e., FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests, vehicle
compliance tests, research and development tests, etc.), as well as the
conditions in which it is stored, the frequency of use, etc. We
encourage the dummy manufacturers to investigate part lifetimes to
provide replacement time frames for their customers; the agency lacks
the resources to investigate this type of part specification. Moreover,
the agency does not have reason to conclude the lifetime of foam parts
raises problems that NHTSA needs to address, and the petitioners did
not provide data to sufficiently quantify the extent to which this may
be a problem.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This proposed rulemaking action was not considered a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rulemaking action was also determined not to be
significant under the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    We stated in the final rule \11\ that adopted the HIII-6C into 49
CFR Part 572 that the cost of an uninstrumented HIII-6C dummy is
approximately $30,000 and that instrumentation will add approximately
$25,000 to $40,000 to the cost, depending on the number of data
channels the user chooses to collect. This proposed rule would only
affect the test dummy by adding a \1/4\-inch fillet between the femur
clamp and the connecting segment of the machined femur, removing
material from the connecting segment, and changing the material from
aluminum bronze C-624 AMC0-18 to 4340 steel. We do not expect these
changes to significantly affect the cost of the dummy. Further, if this
proposed Part 572 rule becomes final, it would not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses would be affected only if they
choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. This proposed rule would
indirectly impose requirements on only those businesses which choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy, in that the agency will only use
dummies for compliance testing that meet all of the criteria specified
in this proposed rule. Because the economic impacts of this proposal
are so minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 65 FR 2059; January 13, 2000; Docket NHTSA-99-6714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the proposed
rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because changing the femur design would not impose any requirements on
anyone. NHTSA would not require anyone to manufacture or redesign the
dummy or to test vehicles or CRSs with it.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have federalism
implications because the proposed rule does not have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. Businesses
would be affected only if they choose to manufacture or test with the
dummy.
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposed rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. This proposed rule would amend 49 CFR Part
572 and is not a safety standard.\12\ If this proposed Part 572 rule
becomes final, it would not impose any requirements on anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ With respect to the safety standards, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive
provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under
this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied preemption: State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed
by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is
discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their
State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor
Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the state's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule would not have any
requirements that are considered to be information collection
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There
are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this proposed rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This proposed
rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the UMRA. This
proposed rule would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate
because it would not impose requirements on anyone. It would amend 49
CFR Part 572 by changing an aspect of a test dummy that the agency
uses. If this proposed rule becomes final, it would affect only those
businesses that choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. It would
not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to
understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

VII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments by any of the methods provided above
under ADDRESSES.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments.
    Further, note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the Docket using any of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that the Docket receives before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the
Docket receives after that date. If the Docket receives a comment too
late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one
is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the Docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR Part 572 as follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

    1. The authority citation for Part 572 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart N--Six-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, Beta Version

    2. Section 572.120 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
introductory text, (a)(1)(vii), (a)(2), (b), and (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  572.120  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ``Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart N, Hybrid III Six-Year Old Child Crash Test
Dummy (HIII6C, Beta Version), June 2009,'' consisting of:
* * * * *

    (vii) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Child Parts/Drawing List, dated
June 1, 2009.
    (2) A procedures manual entitled, ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child
Crash Test Dummy (H-III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009'';
* * * * *
    (b) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and in electronic
format through Regulations.gov. For information on the availability and
inspection of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html. For information on the availability
and inspection of this material at Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-
5457, or go to: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The drawings and specifications package, the parts list, and
the PADI document referred to in paragraphs (a)(1), and (a)(2) of this
section, are available in electronic format through www.Regulations.gov
and in paper format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New RT, 18810
Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
* * * * *
    3. Section 572.121 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)
introductory text (the table is not amended) to read as follows:

Sec.  572.121  General description.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, Alpha version, dated June 1,
2009.

    Issued: October 15, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-25241 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29149-29151]
[DOCID:fr24my07-62]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 17, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC07-66-000; ES07-26-000; EL07-45-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States, Inc.; Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, L.L.C.; Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc submits additional information
as a supplement to their original application filed on March 13, 2007.
    Filed Date: 5/4/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070511-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-89-000; ER07-887-000.
    Applicants: ITC Holdings Corp.; ITC Midwest LLC; Interstate Power
and Light Company; Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
    Description: ITC Holdings Corp (ITC) et al requests authorizations
and approvals necessary for the sale by Interstate Power & Light
Company and the purchase by ITC Midwest of all of IPL's jurisdictional
transmission facilities.l.
    Filed Date: 5/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 1, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER04-1003-007.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp submits an
amendment to its filing in compliance with FERC's 4/18/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 5/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070515-0332.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-445-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Corp reports that on 4/26/07 Duke Energy
Indiana, Inc and Indiana Municipal Power Agency executed a new power
agreement to replace the Power Coordination Agreement, effective 6/1/
07.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-614-001.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Inc.
    Description: American Transmission Systems, Inc's response to
FERC's deficiency letter dated 4/12/07.
    Filed Date: 5/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070515-0337.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-626-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp submits a revised
tariff sheet to the Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric
Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 in compliance with FERC's 4/13/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-671-001.
    Applicants: Trigen-St. Louis Energy Corporation.
    Description: Trigen-St Louis Energy Corp submits its revised FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-892-000.
    Applicants: Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P.
    Description: Louis Dreyfus Energy Services, LP submits its Petition
for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket
Authorization.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-894-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Continent Energy Marketers Assoc.
    Description: Mid-Continent Energy Marketers Association's filing to
modify its Capacity and Energy Tariff to comply with Order 890.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-895-000.
    Applicants: Louis Dreyfus Energy LLC.
    Description: Louis Dreyfus Energy LLC submits a Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule FERC 1.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-896-000.
    Applicants: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.
    Description: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp submits an
application to reduce its wholesale electric rates--the accrual for
post-retirement benefits other than pensions.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-897-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc on behalf of Alabama
Power Company et al submits an initial transmission service agreement
for network integrated transmission service.
    Filed Date: 5/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-0186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 4, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES07-38-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Application of El Paso Electric Company for
Authorization under Section 204 of Federal Power Act Regarding a
Revolving Credit Facility.
    Filed Date: 5/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ES07-39-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Application of El Paso Electric Company for
Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act to Issue Stock
under its 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
    Filed Date: 5/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070516-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the

Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9987 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P