### 65443 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Notices

• Modifications, which will permit the airfield to accommodate general aviation users.

Landside

• Construction of surface parking areas and access roads to accommodate automobiles in the airport terminal and air cargo areas and provide an adequate level of access to the airport.

• Construction or relocation of access roads to provide efficient and convenient movement of vehicular traffic to, on, and from the airport, including access to passenger, air cargo, fixed base operations, and aircraft maintenance areas.

• Modification or construction of facilities such as passenger terminals, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, air cargo terminal buildings, and access roads to cargo facilities to accommodate civil use.

(6) An evaluation of the ability of surface transportation facilities (e.g., road, rail, high-speed rail, and/or maritime) to provide intermodal connections.

(7) A description of the type and level of aviation and community interest in the civil use of a current or former military airport.

(8) One copy of the FAA-approved ALP for each copy of the application. The ALP or supporting information should clearly show capacity and conversion related projects. Other information such as project costs, schedule, project justification, other maps and drawings showing the project locations, and any other supporting documentation that would make the application easier to understand should also be included. You may also provide photos, which would further describe the airport, projects, and otherwise clarify certain aspects of this application. These maps and ALP’s should be cross-referenced with the project costs and project descriptions. Redesignation of Airports Previously Designated and Applying for up to an Additional Five Years in the Program

Airports applying for redesignation to the Military Airport Program must submit the same information required by new candidate airports applying for a new designation. On the SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance, prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–102, airports must indicate their application is for redesignation to the MAP. In addition to the information required for new candidates, airports requesting redesignation must also explain:

(1) Why a redesignation and additional MAP eligible project funding is needed to accomplish the conversion to meet the civil role of the airport and the preferred time period for redesignation not, to exceed five years;

(2) Why funding of eligible work under other categories of AIP or other sources of funding would not accomplish the development needs of the airport; and

(3) Why, based on the previously funded MAP projects, the projects and/ or funding level were insufficient to accomplish the airport conversion needs and development goals.

In addition to the information requested above, airports applying for redesignation must provide a reanalysis of their original business/marketing plans (for example, a plan previously funded by the Office of Economic Adjustment or the original Master Plan for the airport) and prepare a report. If there is not an existing business/ marketing plan a business/marketing plan or strategy must be developed. The report must contain:

(1) Whether the original business/ marketing plan is still appropriate;

(2) Is the airport continuing to work towards the goals established in the business/marketing plan;

(3) Discuss how the MAP projects contained in the application contribute to the goals of the sponsor and their plans; and

(4) If the business/marketing plan no longer applies to the current goals of the airport, how has the airport altered the business/marketing plan to establish a new direction for the facility and how do the projects contained in the MAP application aid in the completion of the new direction and goals and by what date does the sponsor anticipate graduating from the MAP.

This notice is issued pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 47118.

Issued at Washington, DC, on October 3,
2012. Benito DeLeon, Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2012–26329 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee—Public**  **Teleconference**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee Teleconference. **SUMMARY :**  Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of three teleconferences of the Systems Working Group of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The teleconferences will take place on: Tuesday November 13, 2012, Tuesday December 18, 2012, and Tuesday January 15, 2013. All teleconferences will begin at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and will last approximately one hour. Individuals who plan to participate should contact Paul Eckert, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), (the Contact Person listed below) by phone or email for the teleconference call-in number.

The purpose of these three teleconferences is to assist the FAA early in its development of regulations to protect occupants of commercial suborbital and orbital spacecraft. In a Federal Register notice dated July 30, 2012, the FAA announced its desire to engage with COMSTAC on a periodic basis, approximately once per month, on specific topics. The three teleconferences announced today are a continuation of the three announced in July.

As we noted in the July Federal Register notice, the FAA has not yet targeted a date for proposing regulations to protect the health and safety of crew and space flight participants. However, the FAA believes that the development of sound and appropriate regulations for human space flight can only be achieved with a deliberate, multi-year effort, and that early industry input into this regulatory effort before any formal proposal by the FAA is critical.

The topics for the first three teleconferences were: (1) What Level of Safety Should FAA Target? (2) What Should FAA Oversight Look Like? and (3) What Types of Requirements and Associated Guidance Material Should FAA Develop? The topics for three follow-on teleconferences are as follows:

(1) Key Terms and Definitions for Commercial Human Space Flight Safety Regulations. We would like to discuss key terms and definitions relevant to commercial human spaceflight regulations, and characterize their potential impacts to the various parties who have a vested interest in the industry. Terms that will be discussed include:

a. Abort. b. Contingency. c. Emergency. d. Early Flight Return. e. Landing Site. (2) Aborts and Abort Systems. Abort systems have in the past been an


### 65444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Notices

element of many government human space flight systems for the purpose of enhancing occupant safety. We will discuss the following questions from a regulatory perspective:

a. Is an abort system a part of fault tolerance?

b. Does an abort only apply to the launch/ascent phase, or does it apply to other flight phases as well?

c. Should certain types of orbital or suborbital vehicle designs require a launch abort system?

d. What should the reliability requirements be for an abort system?

e. Is it acceptable to have a different level of care for occupants during an abort?

(3) Fault Tolerance, Margin, and Reliability. To allow for industry innovation, the commercial human space flight industry wishes to be free to the maximum extent possible to choose between fault tolerance, design margin, and reliability. We will explore the extent of this desire from a regulatory perspective with the following questions:

a. What would be an acceptable rationale at a functional level for a choice of fault tolerance, design margin, or high reliability to protect the safety of spacecraft occupants?

b. What is the minimum level of fault tolerance? Is it different for orbital vs. suborbital?

c. When is occupant risk high enough to necessitate additional fault tolerance?

d. What determines whether fault tolerance is handled at the function level or system level?

Interested members of the public may submit relevant written statements for the COMSTAC working group members to consider under the advisory process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items mentioned above or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to submit written statements should contact Paul Eckert, DFO, (the Contact Person listed below) in writing (mail or email) by November 6, 2012, for the November 13 teleconference, December 11, 2012, for the December 18 teleconference, and January 8, 2013, for the January 15 teleconference. This way the information can be made available to COMSTAC members for their review and consideration before each teleconference. Written statements should be supplied in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature or one electronic copy via email. The FAA may schedule up to 6 more teleconferences in the coming months to allow the U.S. commercial space transportation industry to share views with the FAA on a number of specific topics related to commercial human space flight safety.

An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/go/ast and http://www.faa.gov/about/ office

_ org/headquarters

_ offices/ast/ COMSTAC

_ working

_

group/ Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Paul Eckert (AST–5), Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267–8655; Email paul.eckert@faa.gov. Complete information regarding COMSTAC is available on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/ office

_ org/headquarters

_ offices/ast/ advisory

_committee/.
Issued in Washington, DC, October 16,
2012. George C. Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012–26328 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**National Highway Traffic Safety Administration** 

**[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0148, Notice 1]**

**Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1991**  **Mercedes-Benz G-Class (463 Chassis) Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles Are**  **Eligible for Importation**

**AGENCY :**  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

**ACTION :**  Receipt of petition.

**SUMMARY :**  This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 1991 Mercedes-Benz G-class (463 chassis) multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards.

**DATES :**  The closing date for comments on the petition is November 26, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted 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: 202–493–2251. Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. 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).

How To Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of this document notice. 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 search the Docket for new material.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–5308).

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**