(1) The passage of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996 led to increased ownership consolidation in 
the radio industry. 
(2) At a hearing before the Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 
4, 2003, all 5 members of the Federal Communica-
tions Commission testified that there has been, in at 
least some local radio markets, too much consolida-
tion. 
(3) As a result of consolidation of media owner-
ship, there have been strong financial incentives for 
companies to reduce local programming and rely in-
stead on syndicated programming produced for hun-
dreds of stations. A renewal of commitment to local-
ism—local operations, local research, local manage-
ment, locally originated programming, local artists, 
and local news and events—would bolster radio’s 
service to the public. 
(4) Local communities have sought to launch 
radio stations to meet their local needs. However, 
due to the scarce amount of spectrum available and 
the high cost of buying and running a large station, 
many local communities are unable to establish a 
radio station. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
01:36 Feb 26, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1147.IH
H1147
smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
(5) In 2003, the average cost to acquire a com-
mercial radio station was more than $2,500,000. 
(6) In January 2000, the Federal Communica-
tions Commission authorized a new, affordable com-
munity radio service called ‘‘low-power FM’’ or 
‘‘LPFM’’ to ‘‘enhance locally focused community-ori-
ented radio broadcasting’’. 
(7) Through the creation of LPFM, the Com-
mission sought to ‘‘create opportunities for new 
voices on the air waves and to allow local groups, in-
cluding schools, churches, and other community- 
based organizations, to provide programming respon-
sive to local community needs and interests’’. 
(8) The Commission made clear that the cre-
ation of LPFM would not compromise the integrity 
of the FM radio band by stating, ‘‘We are com-
mitted to creating a low-power FM radio service only 
if it does not cause unacceptable interference to ex-
isting radio service.’’. 
(9) Currently, FM translator stations can oper-
ate on the second- and third-adjacent channels to 
full power radio stations, up to an effective radiated 
power of 250 watts, pursuant to part 74 of title 47, 
Code of Federal Regulations, using the very same 
transmitters that LPFM stations will use. The Com-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
01:36 Feb 26, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1147.IH
H1147
smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
mission based its LPFM rules on the actual per-
formance of these translators that already operate 
without undue interference to FM stations. The ac-
tual interference record of these translators is far 
more useful than any results that further testing 
could yield. 
(10) Small rural broadcasters were particularly 
concerned about a lengthy and costly interference 
complaint process. Therefore, in September 2000, 
the Commission created a simple process to address 
interference complaints regarding LPFM stations on 
an expedited basis. 
(11) In December 2000, Congress delayed the 
full implementation of LPFM until an independent 
engineering study was completed and reviewed. This 
delay was due to some broadcasters’ concerns that 
LPFM service would cause interference in the FM 
band. 
(12) The delay prevented millions of Americans 
from having a locally operated, community-based 
radio station in their neighborhood. 
(13) Over 800 LPFM stations were allowed to 
proceed despite the congressional action. These sta-
tions are currently on the air and are run by local 
government agencies, groups promoting arts and 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
01:36 Feb 26, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1147.IH
H1147
smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
education to immigrant and indigenous peoples, art-
ists, schools, religious organizations, environmental 
groups, organizations promoting literacy, and many 
other civically oriented organizations. 
(14) After 2 years and the expenditure of 
$2,193,343 in taxpayer dollars to conduct this 
study, the broadcasters’ concerns were demonstrated 
to be unsubstantiated. 
(15) The FCC issued a report to Congress on 
February 19, 2004, which stated that ‘‘Congress 
should readdress this issue and modify the statute to 
eliminate the third-adjacent channel distance separa-
tion requirement for LPFM stations.’’. 
(16) On November 27, 2007, the FCC again 
unanimously affirmed LPFM, stating in a news re-
lease about the passage of the Third Report and 
Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
that the Commission: ‘‘Recommends to Congress 
that it remove the requirement that LPFM stations 
protect full-power stations on operating on the third- 
adjacent channels.’’ Five years after the release of 
the FCC’s report and recommendation, this rec-
ommendation has still not been acted upon. 
(17) Minorities represent almost a third of our 
population. However, according to the Federal Com-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
01:36 Feb 26, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1147.IH
H1147
smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS