Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20555 

year, as required by the Commission’s 

rules. See 47 CFR 64.610(f)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules. In each case, costs 

submitted must be for those costs 

actually incurred during each preceding 

one-, three-, or six-month period. 

8. The Commission further notes that 

the waiver granted in document DA 12– 

430 will be for the duration of the 

NDBEDP pilot program. The purpose of 

establishing the NDBEDP initially as a 

pilot program is to provide the 

flexibility needed to enable certified 

programs to structure their distribution 

and service delivery systems to 

effectively meet the needs of their 

participants. This flexibility is expected 

to result in a variety of equipment 

distribution and service delivery models 

that could serve as the foundation for 

establishment of the permanent 

NDBEDP. The Commission concludes 

that allowing certified entities to receive 

the needed funding in a timely manner 

will better enable such entities to make 

their programs effective and sustainable, 

which, in turn, will help inform future 

Commission decisions regarding a 

permanent NDBEDP that furthers the 

public interest. 

Ordering Clauses 

9. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 719 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 620, and 

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.3, and § 64.610(f)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules is conditionally 

waived to permit NDBEDP certified 

programs to submit claims for 

reimbursement more frequently than 

once every six months as required by 

§ 64.610(f)(2) of its rules and to submit 

reimbursement claims up to one time 

each month. 

10. This action is taken under 

delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.141 

and 0.361 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 0.141, 0.361. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Karen Peltz Strauss, 

Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8133 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 99–25; FCC 12–28] 

Implementation of the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010; 

Revision of Service and Eligibility 

Rules for Low Power FM Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; denial of petitions for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission modifies its rules in order 

to implement provisions of the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010 

(‘‘LCRA’’) that unambiguously require 

the Commission to eliminate its thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements 

and to maintain the spacing 

requirements currently in place to 

protect radio reading services. The 

Commission also dismisses and/or 

denies various petitions for 

reconsideration of the Third Report and 

Order in MM Docket No. 99–25 and 

terminates a Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in that docket. 

DATES: Effective June 4, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Doyle (202) 418–2789. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s document 

in MM Docket No. 99–25, FCC No. 12– 

28, adopted March 19, 2012. A synopsis 

of the proposed rulemaking segment of 

this decision will be published in a later 

issue of the Federal Register. The full 

text of the Fifth Report and Order, 

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Fourth Order on 

Reconsideration is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. 

This Report and Order does not adopt 

any new or revised information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520). In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Report to Congress. The Commission 

will send a copy of this Fifth Report & 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Summary of Fifth Report and Order 

and Fourth Order on Reconsideration 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Fifth Report and Order, we 

modify our rules to implement certain 

provisions of the Local Community 

Radio Act of 2010 (‘‘LCRA’’), which 

unambiguously require the Commission 

to eliminate its third-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements and to maintain 

the spacing requirements currently in 

place to protect radio reading services. 

In the Fourth Order on Reconsideration, 

we dismiss in part and deny in part a 

petition for reconsideration of the Third 

Report and Order in this docket, which 

the Commission released in 2007, and 

terminate the Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) 

that accompanied that order. 

II. Background 

2. In January 2000, the Commission 

adopted a Report and Order establishing 

the LPFM service. In doing so, the 

Commission sought ‘‘to create a class of 

radio stations designed to serve very 

localized communities or 

underrepresented groups within 

communities.’’ The Commission created 

two classes of LPFM facilities. The 

LP100 class consists of stations with a 

maximum power of 100 watts effective 

radiated power (‘‘ERP’’) at 30 meters 

antenna height above average terrain 

(‘‘HAAT’’), providing an FM service 

radius (1 mV/m or 60 dBu) of 

approximately 3.5 miles. The LP10 class 

consists of stations with a maximum of 

10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT, 

providing an FM service radius of 

approximately one to two miles. ‘‘[T]o 

preserve the integrity and technical 

excellence of existing FM radio 

service,’’ the Commission adopted 

separation requirements for LPFM 

stations operating on co-, first- and 

second-adjacent channels to full-service 

FM, FM translator and FM booster 

stations. The Commission, however, 

declined to impose third adjacent 

channel distance separation 

requirements, and declined to adopt 

special protections for radio reading 

services. The Commission specified that 

LPFM stations operate on a ‘‘secondary’’ 

basis. In other words, LPFM stations 

generally cannot cause interference to 

existing and future full-service FM and 

other ‘‘primary’’ stations and are not 

protected against interference from 

these stations. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3. To ensure that any new LPFM 

service included the voices of 

community-based schools, churches and 

civic organizations, the Commission 

established ownership and eligibility 

rules for the LPFM service. Specifically, 

the Commission restricted LPFM service 

to noncommercial educational (‘‘NCE’’) 

operations, and restricted licensee 

eligibility to applicants with no 

attributable interests in any other 

broadcast station or other media subject 

to the Commission’s ownership rules. 

The Commission also limited eligibility 

to local entities during the first two 

years LPFM licenses were available. To 

choose among entities filing mutually 

exclusive applications for LPFM 

licenses, the Commission adopted a 

point system that favors local ownership 

and locally-originated programming, 

with ties between competing applicants 

resolved by either voluntary timesharing agreements between such 

applicants or, in the event that the 

applicants cannot agree, the imposition 

of ‘‘involuntary time-sharing,’’ with 

each tied and grantable applicant 

awarded an equal, successive and nonrenewable license term of no less than 

one year, for a combined total eight-year 

term. 

4. In September 2000, the 

Commission adopted a Memorandum 

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration. 

In the Reconsideration Order, the 

Commission revised and clarified some 

of its LPFM rules, including the local 

program origination criterion adopted 

for the point system. The Commission 

again declined to impose third-adjacent 

channel separation requirements. 

Instead, it adopted complaint and 

license modification procedures to 

address any unexpected, significant 

third-adjacent channel interference 

problems caused by LPFM stations. It 

also modified the spacing standards to 

protect radio reading services and 

adopted procedures for addressing any 

interference caused by an LPFM station 

to the input signal of an FM translator 

or FM booster station. 

5. Shortly thereafter, in December 

2000, Congress enacted the Making 

Appropriations for the Government of 

the District of Columbia for FY 2001 Act 

(‘‘2001 DC Appropriations Act’’). 

Therein, Congress directed the 

Commission to prescribe third-adjacent 

channel spacing requirements for LPFM 

stations, which the Commission did in 

April 2001. Congress also directed the 

Commission to conduct an experimental 

program to evaluate the likelihood of 

interference to existing full-service FM 

stations and FM translator stations if 

LPFM stations were not subject to thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements, 

and to submit a report that included the 

Commission’s recommendations 

regarding reduction or elimination of 

the spacing requirements for thirdadjacent channels. The Commission 

selected an independent third party, the 

Mitre Corporation (‘‘Mitre’’), to conduct 

field tests. Mitre submitted a report to 

the Commission, which, in turn, sought 

comment on the report. In February 

2004, the Commission submitted a 

report to Congress on this issue. Based 

on the Mitre study, the Commission 

recommended that Congress ‘‘modify 

the statute to eliminate the thirdadjacent channel distan[ce] separation 

requirements for LPFM stations.’’ 

6. In March 2005, the Commission 

adopted a Second Order on 

Reconsideration and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. In the Second 

Order, the Commission modified some 

of the rules governing the LPFM service, 

noting that the rules needed adjustment 

in light of the experiences of LPFM 

applicants and licensees. In the 

accompanying FNPRM, the Commission 

sought comment on a number of issues 

with respect to LPFM ownership 

restrictions and eligibility. The 

Commission also proposed certain 

changes to the rules governing the 

formation and duration of voluntary and 

involuntary time-sharing arrangements 

among mutually exclusive LPFM 

applicants. Finally, the Commission 

sought comment on a number of 

changes to the LPFM technical rules. 

7. In December 2007, the Commission 

released the Third Report and Order 

and Second FNPRM. In the Third Report 

and Order, the Commission resolved the 

issues raised in the FNPRM. Among 

other things, the Commission set forth 

an interim processing policy that it 

would use to consider requests for 

waiver of the second-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements from certain 

LPFM stations, reinstated the local 

ownership requirement, and clarified its 

definition of local origination. The 

Commission also modified the rules 

governing the formation and duration of 

voluntary and involuntary time-sharing 

arrangements among mutually exclusive 

LPFM applicants. In the Second 

FNPRM, the Commission proposed 

certain rule changes designed to avoid 

the potential loss of LPFM stations. The 

Commission made these proposals ‘‘[i]n 

light of changed circumstances since [it] 

last considered the issue of protection 

rights for LPFM stations from 

subsequently authorized full-service 

stations.’’ The Commission sought 

comment on whether to codify the 

procedures for LPFM stations seeking a 

waiver of the second-adjacent channel 

spacing requirements, whether rule 

changes were warranted to provide 

additional flexibility to propose LPFM 

station modifications, whether to 

require full-service new station and 

modification applicants to provide 

technical and/or financial assistance to 

potentially impacted LPFM stations, 

whether to adopt contour protectionbased licensing standards for LPFM 

stations, and whether to modify the 

LPFM–FM translator protection 

priorities. 

8. On January 4, 2011, President 

Obama signed the LCRA into law. 

Through the LCRA, Congress expanded 

LPFM licensing opportunities. 

Specifically, Congress repealed the 

requirement that LPFM stations operate 

a minimum distance from nearby 

stations operating on third-adjacent 

channels, and required the Commission 

to eliminate its third-adjacent channel 

minimum distance separation 

requirements. Congress also authorized 

the Commission to waive the secondadjacent channel spacing requirements 

if an LPFM station demonstrates that its 

proposed operations will not result in 

interference to any authorized radio 

service. Further, it set forth criteria that 

the Commission must take into account 

when licensing FM translator, FM 

booster and LPFM stations. 

9. As Congress expanded LPFM 

licensing opportunities, it also took 

steps to provide enhanced interference 

protection to existing full-service FM, 

FM translator and FM booster stations. 

Specifically, while Congress eliminated 

the third-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements, it required the 

Commission to retain the spacing 

requirements that apply to LPFM 

stations operating on a third-adjacent 

channel to FM stations that broadcast 

radio reading services. Congress also 

required the Commission to modify its 

rules to ‘‘address the potential for 

predicted interference to FM translator 

input signals on third-adjacent 

channels,’’ and to modify the 

interference protection and remediation 

requirements applicable to LPFM 

stations operating on third-adjacent 

channels. 

III. Fifth Report and Order 

10. The LCRA unambiguously 

requires the Commission to eliminate its 

third-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements and to maintain the 

spacing requirements currently in place 

to protect radio reading services. We do 

so in this Fifth Report and Order. We 

take these steps without providing prior 

public notice and comment because 

they involve no discretion. We merely 

are revising our rules in the manner 

specified in the legislation. Notice and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20557 

comment would serve no purpose and 

thus are unnecessary. Our actions fall 

within the ‘‘good cause’’ exception of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’). 

A. Third-Adjacent Channel Minimum 

Distance Separation Requirements 

11. Section 2 of the LCRA amends 

section 632 of the 2001 DC 

Appropriations Act to delete the 

requirements that the Commission 

establish and maintain minimum 

distance separations for third-adjacent 

channels. It essentially lays the 

groundwork for section 3(a) of the 

LCRA, which requires the Commission 

to ‘‘modify its rules to eliminate thirdadjacent minimum distance separation 

requirements between—(1) low-power 

FM stations; and (2) full service FM 

stations, FM translator stations, and FM 

booster stations.’’ Section 73.807 of the 

Commission’s rules currently sets forth 

these spacing requirements. We hereby 

delete the provisions requiring 

protection of third-adjacent channel 

stations set forth in that section, with 

the exception of § 73.807(a)(2), (b)(2) 

and (g) of our rules. 

B. Protection of Radio Reading Services 

12. Radio reading services provide 

access to printed news and other 

information sources for blind or printdisabled persons. They are transmitted 

on one of several standardized 

subcarrier frequencies within a 200 kHz 

FM channel. These transmissions 

cannot be received on a standard radio. 

Listeners must use special radios that 

tune subcarrier signals to receive these 

services. When the Commission 

established the LPFM service in 2000, it 

initially did not adopt any additional 

interference protections for radio 

reading services. The Commission 

reasoned that subcarrier programming is 

transmitted within a broadcast station’s 

assigned frequency and thus receives 

the same protection from interference as 

the main broadcast programming of the 

station. 

13. The Commission reconsidered this 

decision shortly thereafter due to 

concerns about the greater vulnerability 

of radio reading service receivers to 

third-adjacent channel interference. It 

noted that, because of their designs, the 

subcarrier receivers used for radio 

reading services are more susceptible to 

interference than mass marketed 

receivers. The Commission therefore 

modified the spacing standards set forth 

in § 73.807 of the rules to require LPFM 

stations to satisfy the second-adjacent 

channel spacing requirements with 

respect to any third-adjacent channel 

FM station that broadcasts a radio 

reading service via a subcarrier 

frequency. 

14. The Commission took this step 

because, at the time, it had declined to 

adopt generally applicable thirdadjacent channel spacing requirements. 

It later adopted such requirements at the 

direction of Congress. These spacing 

requirements were identical to the 

second-adjacent channel spacing 

requirements. Accordingly, while the 

Commission did not delete the 

protections specific to FM stations 

providing radio reading services from 

the rules, the protections became 

redundant. Now, however, with the 

elimination of the third-adjacent 

spacing requirements, these provisions 

again have relevance. In this regard, 

section 4 of the LCRA directs the 

Commission to ‘‘comply with existing 

minimum distance separation 

requirements’’ for stations that 

broadcast radio reading services. 

Accordingly, we conclude that we must 

retain without modification 

§§ 73.807(a)(2) and (b)(2) of our rules to 

implement section 4. 

IV. Fourth Order on Reconsideration 

15. As noted above, in the Third 

Report and Order, the Commission 

adopted an interim waiver processing 

policy. The Commission also revised 

§ 73.809 and other provisions of the 

rules in order to protect and preserve 

the LPFM service. Ace Radio 

Corporation (‘‘Ace Radio’’) filed a 

petition for reconsideration (‘‘Ace Radio 

Petition’’) of the Third Report and 

Order, which opposed both the interim 

waiver processing policy and the 

revisions made to § 73.809. For the 

reasons discussed below, we deny in 

part the Petition and defer consideration 

of the remainder of the Ace Radio’s 

arguments. 

16. Ace Radio challenges the interim 

waiver processing policy. However, in 

the Fourth FNPRM, we tentatively 

conclude that section 3(b)(2) of the 

LCRA supersedes this policy. We 

believe it is appropriate to defer 

consideration of Ace Radio’s arguments 

regarding the interim waiver processing 

policy until we have resolved this issue. 

To the extent Ace Radio’s arguments 

remain relevant, we will consider them 

at that time. 

17. We reject Ace Radio’s arguments 

regarding our revisions to § 73.809 of 

the rules to remove second-adjacent 

channels from the interference 

complaint procedures set forth therein. 

Ace Radio first argues that it did not 

have an opportunity to comment on the 

Commission’s proposal to modify 

§ 73.809 of the rules to remove secondadjacent channels from the rule. It also 

asserts that the revisions to § 73.809 are 

not justified by the record and, when 

coupled with the Commission’s interim 

waiver processing policy, will allow 

LPFM stations to operate within a fullservice station’s 70 dBu contour, 

resulting in interference holes, 

otherwise known as the ‘‘swiss cheese’’ 

effect. 

18. The Commission provided ample 

public notice that it was considering 

modification of § 73.809 of the rules to 

remove second-adjacent channels. In the 

FNPRM, the Commission explicitly 

raised the issue of ‘‘encroachment’’ and 

whether a relaxation of the secondadjacent channel interference 

restrictions found in § 73.809 of the 

rules was necessary to prevent LPFM 

stations from being displaced. While 

Ace Radio argues that ‘‘the number of 

city of license applications filed does 

not justify [the Commission’s] action,’’ it 

fails to raise any facts or questions of 

law showing that the Commission’s 

decision was incorrect. Contrary to Ace 

Radio’s suggestion that the number of 

LPFM stations at risk of displacement is 

insignificant, the Bureau identified 44 

LPFM stations that could be forced to 

cease operations as a result of the filing 

activity resulting from the January 2007 

lifting of the freeze on the filing of FM 

community of license modification 

proposals combined with the 

implementation of new streamlined 

licensing procedures. 

19. We also note that Ace Radio has 

mischaracterized the effects this rule 

modification will have on signal 

reception within a full-service station’s 

70 dBu contour. The diagram provided 

by Ace Radio portrays the full 60 dBu 

contour of 118 hypothetical LPFM 

stations within the 70 dBu contour of a 

full-service station. The fact that an 

LPFM station has a 60 dBu contour on 

a second- or third-adjacent channel 

inside the 70 dBu contour of a fullservice station does not establish that 

the LPFM station would cause 

interference. Any potential interference 

received by the full-service station 

would be only in the immediate vicinity 

of the low-power transmitter site, and 

can be substantially reduced or 

eliminated through various technical 

measures. Finally, contrary to Ace 

Radio’s assertion, the Commission did 

not, in its modification of Section 

73.809, remove the second-adjacent 

restriction for the general allocation 

processes for LPFMs. Rather, this rule 

change is limited to situations involving 

a full-service station that is authorized 

subsequent to an LPFM station. As such, 

Ace Radio’s concerns are without merit. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Termination of Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

20. As noted above, the Commission 

issued a Second FNPRM in 2007. We 

find that all of the proposals made in 

the Second FNPRM are either 

inconsistent with or otherwise mooted 

by the LCRA. Specifically, the 

Commission proposed to codify the 

interim processing policy for secondadjacent channel waiver requests that it 

adopted in the Third Report and Order. 

However, in the Fourth FNPRM, we 

conclude that the second-adjacent 

channel waiver provisions of the LCRA 

supersede this interim policy. 

Accordingly, we find the Commission’s 

proposal to codify the interim policy to 

be moot and will not pursue it further. 

Similarly, we find the Commission’s 

proposal to adopt a contour overlap 

interference protection approach to be 

statutorily barred by section 3(b)(1) of 

the LCRA, which prohibits the 

Commission from modifying the current 

co-channel and first- and secondadjacent channel distance separation 

requirements. We will not pursue this 

proposal either. Finally, the 

Commission proposed certain rule 

changes related to LPFM station 

displacement, the obligations of fullservice new station and modification 

applicants to potentially impacted 

LPFM stations, and LPFM–FM 

translator protection priorities. We 

believe that Congress’s adoption of the 

LCRA renders pursuit of those earlier 

proposals unnecessary at this time. 

Thus, we will not move forward with 

any of them. Given our findings 

regarding each of the proposals set forth 

by the Commission in the Second 

FNPRM, we consider the Second 

FNPRM to have been concluded. 

VI. Adminstrative Matters 

A. Congressional Review Act 

21. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Fifth Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

VII. Ordering Clauses 

22. Accordingly, It is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

the Local Community Radio Act of 

2010, Public Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 

4072 (2011), and sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 

307, and 309(j) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

303, 307, and 309(j), that this Fifth 

Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth 

Order on Reconsideration is adopted. 

23. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to the authority contained in the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010, Public 

Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011), and 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, and 307 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307, the 

Commission’s rules are hereby 

amended. It is our intention in adopting 

these rule changes that, if any provision 

of the rules is held invalid by any court 

of competent jurisdiction, the remaining 

provisions shall remain in effect to the 

fullest extent permitted by law. 

24. It is further ordered that the rules 

shall be effective June 4, 2012. 

25. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by REC 

Networks on July 16, 2004, is hereby 

dismissed, and Proceeding No. PRM– 

04–MB is terminated. 

26. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Ace Radio Corp. on February 19, 2008, 

is denied in part. 

27. It is further ordered that the 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 99–25 is 

terminated. 

28. It is further ordered that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this Fifth Report 

and Order, Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth Order 

on Reconsideration, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and shall 

cause it to be published in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 to 

read as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

■ 2. Section 73.807 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.807 Minimum distance separation 

between stations. 

Minimum separation requirements for 

LP100 and LP10 stations, as defined in 

§§ 73.811 and 73.853, are listed in the 

following paragraphs. An LPFM station 

will not be authorized unless the cochannel, first- and second-adjacent and 

IF channel separations are met. An 

LPFM station need not satisfy the thirdadjacent channel separations listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) in order to be 

authorized. Minimum distances for cochannel and first-adjacent channel are 

separated into two columns. The lefthand column lists the required 

minimum separation to protect other 

stations and the right-hand column lists 

(for informational purposes only) the 

minimum distance necessary for the 

LPFM station to receive no interference 

from other stations assumed to be 

operating at the maximum permitted 

facilities for the station class. For 

second-adjacent channel and I.F. 

channels, the required minimum 

distance separation is sufficient to avoid 

interference received from other 

stations. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–8129 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0039] 

RIN 2127–AJ93 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor 

Vehicles; Platform Lift Installations in 

Motor Vehicles 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document adopts 

amendments to the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards on platform lift 

systems for motor vehicles. The purpose 

of these standards is to prevent injuries 

and fatalities during lift operation. 

NHTSA believes it is necessary to revise 

the lighting requirements for lift 

controls; the location requirements, 

performance requirements, and test 

specifications for threshold warning 

signals; the wheelchair retention device 

and inner roll stop tests; and the 

lighting requirements for public use 

lifts. This notice also discusses a 

November 3, 2005 interpretation 

clarifying specific procedures that are 

performed as part of the threshold 

warning signal test. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES