PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 16, 2009
Local Community Radio Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 to require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to modify the rules authorizing the operation of low-power FM radio stations, as proposed in MM Docket No. 99-25, to: (1) prescribe protection for co-channels and first- and second-adjacent channels; and (2) prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of the Communications Act of 1934. (Current law is the same, except that clause (1) instead requires prescribing minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels, as well as for co-channels and first- and second-adjacent channels.)
States that any license that was issued by the FCC to a low-power FM station prior to April 2, 2001, and that does not comply with the modifications adopted by the Commission in the above docket on April 2, 2001, shall remain invalid.
Eliminates provisions prohibiting the FCC from extending the eligibility for application for low-power FM stations beyond the organizations and entities as proposed in the above docket.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) Requires the FCC to eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between: (1) low-power FM stations; and (2) full-service FM stations, FM translator stations, and FM booster stations.
(Sec. 4) Requires the FCC to comply with its existing minimum distance separation requirements for full-service FM stations, FM translator stations, and FM booster stations that broadcast radio reading services via an analog subcarrier frequency to avoid potential interference by low-power FM stations.
(Sec. 5) Requires the FCC, when licensing new FM translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations, to ensure that: (1) licenses are available to FM translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations; and (2) such decisions are made based on the needs of the local community.
(Sec. 6) Requires the FCC to modify its rules to address the potential for predicted interference to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent channels set forth in a specified technical report.
(Sec. 7) Requires the FCC to modify the interference complaint process in specified ways.
(Sec. 8) Requires the FCC to study and report to Congress on the impact that low-power FM stations will have on full-service commercial FM stations.
People & committees
Rep. Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-14] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 12/15/2009 H14903)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 12/15/2009 H14903)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H15473)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Boucher objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1147.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H14903-14907)
Mr. Boucher moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 220.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-375.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-375.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1147 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1147 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1147 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1147 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.