PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 310.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Mar 9, 2010
Local Community Radio Act of 2009 - Repeals provisions in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 that required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to: (1) modify rules authorizing the operation of low-power FM radio stations to prescribe minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels; (2) prohibit applicants who have engaged in the unlicensed operation of any station from obtaining a low-power FM license; and (3) conduct a program to test whether low-power FM radio stations will result in harmful interference to existing FM radio stations if minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels are not required.
Requires the FCC to modify the rules authorizing the operation of low-power FM radio stations, as proposed, to prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the unlicensed operation of a station.
Requires the FCC to modify its rules to eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between specified FM stations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the FCC to retain rules that provide third-adjacent channel protection for full-power noncommercial FM stations that broadcast radio reading services via a subcarrier frequency from potential low-power FM station interference.
Requires the FCC, when licensing FM translator stations, to ensure that: (1) licenses are available to both FM translator stations and low-power FM stations; and (2) such decisions are made based on the needs of the local community.
Requires the FCC to conduct an economic study on the impact that low-power FM stations will have on full-power commercial FM stations.
Requires the FCC to retain its rules that provide third-adjacent channel protection for full-power FM stations that are licensed in significantly populated states with more than three million housing units and a population density greater than 1,000 per square mile land area.
People & committees
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 310.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Rockefeller with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-160.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Rockefeller with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-160.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.592 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 S.592 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 S.592 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 S.592 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.