Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band
Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum 
Between 3.7 and 24 GHz )
)
)
)
)
)ET Docket No. 18-295
GN Docket No. 17-183
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER,
SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, AND
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REMAND
Adopted:  October 19, 2023 Released:  November 1, 2023
Comment Date:  30 days after Federal Register publication
Reply Comment Date:  60 days after Federal Register publication
By the Commission:  Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Carr, Starks, Simington, and Gomez 
issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................5
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER.......................................................................................................18
A. VLP Power Levels and Protection of the Fixed Microwave Services............................................19
1. Computer Simulations/Monte Carlo Analysis .........................................................................25
2. Power Level for VLP Devices..................................................................................................50
3. Fixed Infrastructure Prohibition ...............................................................................................55
4. Transmit Power Control Requirement......................................................................................56
5. Equipment Compliance and Enforcement Matters...................................................................57
6. Cumulative Effect of Different Classes of Unlicensed Devices ..............................................60
7. Request for Higher Power ........................................................................................................62
8. Request for Lower Power.........................................................................................................64
9. VLP Devices and the AFC .......................................................................................................66
10. Link Budget Analysis...............................................................................................................69
11. Interference Studies..................................................................................................................76
12. Chain of Coincidences Rationale .............................................................................................80
B. Fixed Satellite Services...................................................................................................................81
C. Radio Astronomy Services .............................................................................................................83
D. Emission Mask and Out-of-Band Emission Limit..........................................................................85
1. Limits for Very Low Power Devices in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 Bands................................85
2. Emission Limits Outside the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 Bands ......................................................87
3. Prioritization of Operations on Channels above 6105 MHz ....................................................93
E. Other Matters ..................................................................................................................................95
1. Restrictions on Very Low Power Device Use on Aircraft, Boats, and Oil Platforms..............95
2. 57-71 GHz Band.......................................................................................................................98
3. Rule Corrections.....................................................................................................................101Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
2F. Benefits and Cost ..........................................................................................................................102
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING...................................................104
A. Power Limits for Geofenced VLP Devices in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 Bands....................105
1. In-band Power Limits.............................................................................................................106
2. Transmit Power Control .........................................................................................................108
3. Emission Mask .......................................................................................................................109
4. Emission Limits Outside the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 Bands. ...................................................110
B. Geofencing System for Geofenced VLP Devices in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 Bands ..........112
1. Requirement to use Geofencing .............................................................................................113
2. Geofencing Architecture ........................................................................................................118
3. Protection of Incumbent Services...........................................................................................123
4. Other Geofencing Requirements ............................................................................................146
C. Client-to-Client Device Communications.....................................................................................150
D. Very Low Power Device Requirements .......................................................................................153
E. Spectrum Availability for Very Low Power Devices ...................................................................165
F. Restrictions on Very Low Power Device Mobile Operations.......................................................166
G. Expanding Very Low Power Operations to U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 ...............................................173
1. Protection of Mobile Services ................................................................................................174
2. Fixed Satellite Services ..........................................................................................................183
H. Emission Limits Below the U-NII-5 Band ...................................................................................185
I. LPI Client-to-client Communications...........................................................................................187
V. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REMAND ............................................................195
A. Introduction...................................................................................................................................195
B. Background ...................................................................................................................................196
C. Discussion .....................................................................................................................................201
D. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................213
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS...............................................................................................................214
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES.....................................................................................................................224
Appendix A – Final Rules
Appendix B – Proposed Rules
Appendix C – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix D – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix E – List of Commenters
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Unlicensed devices employing Wi-Fi and other unlicensed standards are found in 
countless products that Americans use every day.  Whether it is sending information between a watch and 
a smartphone, connecting a laptop computer or smartphone to the internet, or remotely controlling a 
thermostat or other household items, these devices have become an important part of everyday life.  In 
2020, the Commission took a crucial step to ensure that the United States will meet increasing demand for 
wireless connectivity by adopting rules that expanded access for unlicensed devices across 1200 
megahertz of spectrum in the 5.925-7.125 GHz (6 GHz) band.  Those rules have been instrumental in 
bringing the next generation of Wi-Fi devices with even greater connection speeds to the American 
public.  As those rules limit connectivity to communications between client devices, such as smartphones, 
and either low-power indoor (LPI) or standard power access points, we recognize the need to permit even 
more flexibility to enable another class of devices—that is, those that operate at very low power (VLP) 
across short distances to provide very high connection speeds for some of the most advanced applications.
2. Today, we build on the 6 GHz band unlicensed rules to foster unlicensed innovation and 
continue developing an ecosystem for new VLP unlicensed devices by permitting their use in two 
portions of the 6 GHz band.  These devices will be instrumental in supporting cutting-edge applications, 
such as augmented and virtual reality, that will help businesses, enhance learning opportunities, advance 
healthcare opportunities, and bring new entertainment experiences.  As we discuss below, we will limit Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
3these VLP devices to very low power levels and subject them to other technical and operational 
requirements that will permit these devices to operate across the United States while protecting incumbent 
licensed services that operate in the 6 GHz band from harmful interference.  We expect that these VLP 
devices will quickly become invaluable for people as they go about their everyday lives.
3. Our actions today are intended to provide for near-term VLP deployment while also 
exploring a framework to provide additional flexibility to spur even more innovation, all while taking care 
to ensure that incumbent users are protected from harmful interference.  In this connection, we provide 
rules in a Second Report and Order that will allow VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 
MHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 MHz) portions of the 6 GHz band in any location.  In a Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we explore additional steps we could take and rules we could modify to 
provide more utility for VLP devices.  Specifically, we seek comment on permitting higher power VLP 
devices under a two-tiered system where those higher powered devices would be permitted to operate 
only in locations where the potential for causing harmful interference to incumbent operations remains 
insignificant.  Our decision provides a balance between accommodating these new and novel devices to 
deliver innovative applications to the American public now and taking a judicious approach toward 
modifying the rules to provide even more robust use at most locations.  We also seek comment on VLP 
device requirements and limits for operation in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands.  In sum, we believe that 
this may be a first step rather than the culmination of the rulemaking process regarding VLP use in the 6 
GHz band.
4. Finally, we take action today in a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand to 
address a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning 
an issue raised by television broadcasters.  Namely, the court directed the Commission to consider 
whether, in light of broadcasters’ assertions that they have experienced interference from unlicensed 
devices in the 2.4 GHz band, a portion of the 6 GHz band should be reserved for mobile broadcast 
operations.  We find, upon further analysis, that broadcasters’ unsubstantiated claims of interference in 
the 2.4 GHz band do not warrant any changes to the 6 GHz rules.
II. BACKGROUND
5. The demand for wireless broadband continues to grow at a phenomenal pace, as 
American citizens and businesses increasingly rely on Internet connectivity.  To meet this demand, the 
Commission continues to examine ways to increase spectrum options for unlicensed operations in the 6 
GHz band.
6.Incumbent services.  The 6 GHz band is comprised of allocations for Fixed Services, 
Mobile Services, and Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) across four sub-bands.1  These four sub-bands—
which we refer to as U-NII-5, U-NII-6, U-NII-7, and U-NII-8, respectively—are derived based on the 
prevalence and characteristics of incumbent licensed services that operate in each sub-band as denoted in 
Table 1.2  Fixed microwave service licensees, specifically those operating point-to-point microwave links 
that support a variety of critical services provided by utilities, commercial and private entities, and public 
safety agencies, are the largest user group in the 6 GHz band.3  These fixed microwave service licensees 
make significant use of the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands, and also operate in relatively smaller numbers in 
1 Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 10496, 10499-501, paras. 8-13 (2018) (Notice); Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz 
Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Report and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3855, para. 7 (2020) (6 GHz Order), reversed in part, aff’d in part and 
remanded, AT&T Servs. Inc., v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841, 853-54 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (affirming 6 GHz Order and reversing 
and remanding to address issue of whether to “reserve a sliver of the 6 GHz band for licensed mobile operation”).
2 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 10499-501, 10503-04, paras. 8-12, 20.
3 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 10499, para. 8, Figure 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
4the U-NII-8 band.4  The band is used to provide backhaul for commercial wireless providers (such as 
traffic between commercial wireless base stations and wireline networks), and links used to coordinate 
railroad train movements, control natural gas and oil pipelines, manage electric grids, as well as long-
distance telephone service.5
Table 1:  Predominant Licensed Uses of the 6 Gigahertz Band
Sub-
bandFrequency Range 
(GHz)Primary 
AllocationPredominant Licensed Services
U-NII-55.925-6.425Fixed
FSSFixed Microwave
FSS (uplinks)
U-NII-6
6.425-6.525Mobile
FSSBroadcast Auxiliary Service
Cable Television Relay Service
FSS (uplinks)
U-NII-76.525-6.875Fixed
FSSFixed Microwave
FSS (uplinks/downlinks)
U-NII-8
6.875-7.125Fixed
Mobile
FSSFixed Microwave
Broadcast Auxiliary Service
Cable Television Relay Service
FSS (uplinks/downlinks) (6.875-7.075 GHz only)
7. The Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) 
operate in the U-NII-6 band on a mobile basis, and in the U-NII-8 band on both a fixed and mobile basis.6   
Licensees use BAS and CARS pick-up stations to transmit programming material from special events or 
remote locations, including electronic news gathering, back to the studio or other central receive 
locations.7  Television broadcast related microwave links, such as television studio transmitter links, 
television inter-city relay links, and television translator relay links, operate primarily one-way point-to-
point systems in the U-NII-8 band.8  Additionally, Low Power Auxiliary Stations (i.e., wireless 
microphones), which operate on an itinerant basis, are authorized to operate in the U-NII-8 band on a 
4 As of August 21, 2023, the FCC databases indicate that there were 32,276 call signs for fixed microwave links in 
U-NII-5, 13 in U-NII-6, 16,443 in U-NII-7, and 4,878 in U-NII-8.  The predominant usage in the U-NII-5 and U-
NII-7 bands is common carrier, industrial/business pool, and public safety pool fixed point-to-point links.  The U-
NII-6 band is dominated by mobile industrial/business pool and public safety pool microwave and TV Pickup 
operations; of the 363 unique call signs in the band, only 13 have fixed or temporary fixed operations.  The 
predominant usage in the U-NII-8 band is TV intercity relay stations and TV studio-to-translator links.  There are 
also 329 mobile stations (323 TV mobile pickup and 6 Broadcast Auxiliary Service low power stations) in the U-
NII-8 band.
5 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3855, para. 7 (citing Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition Comments at 3 (filed 
Oct. 2, 2017)).
6 47 CFR §§ 74.602(a), (i), 78.18(a)(5), 78.18(a)(7).  We also note that, although less prevalent, the rules permit 
mobile private operational, common carrier, and local television transmission service operations in these bands.  See 
id. §§ 101.101, 101.147, 101.801, 101.803.
7 47 CFR §§ 74.631, 78.11(e).
8 Most systems are comprised of a single point-to-point link without a corresponding return link.  47 CFR § 74.631 
and review of ULS licensing records for TV Studio Transmitter (TS), TV Intercity Relay (TI), and TV Translator 
Relay (TT) licenses.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
5secondary basis for uses such as portable cameras, wireless microphones, cues, and backstage 
communications.9
8. The Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Earth-to-space is allocated in all four sub-bands, except 
for the 7.075-7.125 GHz portion of the U-NII-8 band.10  FSS operations are heaviest in the U-NII-5 band, 
which is paired with the 3.7-4.2 GHz space-to-Earth frequency band to comprise the “conventional C-
band.”11  In the C-Band Order, the Commission adopted rules to make 280 megahertz of mid-band 
spectrum available for flexible use (plus a 20 megahertz guard band) throughout the contiguous United 
States by transitioning existing satellite services out of the lower portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band and 
into the upper 200 megahertz of the band (i.e., 4.0–4.2 GHz).12  Specifically, the C-Band Order 
established a December 5, 2025 deadline, by which incumbent space station operators were to complete 
transitioning their operations to the upper 200 megahertz of the band, but it also provided an opportunity 
for accelerated band clearing by allowing eligible space station operators to voluntarily commit to 
relocate on a two-phased accelerated schedule, with a Phase I deadline of December 5, 2021, and a Phase 
II deadline of December 5, 2023.13  All five eligible space station operators elected accelerated 
relocation14 and completed both phases of the relocation process.  Predominant FSS uses of these 
frequencies include content distribution to television and radio broadcasters, including transportable 
antennas to cover live news and sports events, cable television and small master antenna systems, and 
backhaul of telephone and data traffic.15  The 7.025-7.075 GHz portion of the U-NII-8 band also hosts 
feeder uplinks to Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service space stations.16  Additionally, portions of the U-
NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands are allocated for FSS space-to-Earth operations for Mobile-Satellite Service 
feeder links between 6.700 GHz and 7.075 GHz.17  However, there are currently no licensed FSS space-
to-Earth stations in U-NII-7, and the 7.025-7.075 GHz allocation is limited to two grandfathered satellite 
systems with three grandfathered locations.18
9 47 CFR §§ 74.802(a)(1), 74.803(c).  Wireless microphone users may operate on a licensed basis under part 74 in 
the 6.875-6.9 GHz and 7.1-7.125 GHz bands.  See Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone 
Operations; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum through Incentive Auctions, Report 
and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 8739, 8789-90, paras. 131-32 (2015).
10 47 CFR § 2.106.
11 47 CFR § 25.103; see Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, Report and Order and Order of 
Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2406, paras. 147-48 (2020) (C-Band Order).
12 C-Band Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2345, para. 4.
13 C-Band Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2408, para. 155; see 47 CFR § 27.1412(b)(1)–(2).  By the Phase I deadline of 
December 5, 2021, eligible space station operators were required to repack any existing services and relocate 
associated incumbent earth stations throughout the contiguous United States into the upper 380 megahertz of the C-
band (3820–4200 MHz), and the operators must provide passband filters to block signals from the 3700–3820 MHz 
band to associated incumbent earth stations in 46 of the top 50 PEAs.  C-Band Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2414, para. 
171; accord 47 CFR § 27.1412(b)(1).  By the Phase II deadline of December 5, 2023, eligible space station 
operators must repack any existing service and relocate associated incumbent earth stations throughout the 
contiguous United States into the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band (4.0–4.2 GHz), and the operators must provide 
passband filters to block signals from the 3700–4000 MHz band to all associated incumbent earth stations in the 
contiguous United States.  C-Band Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2414, para. 171; accord 47 CFR § 27.1412(b)(2).
14 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Accelerated Clearing in the 3.7–4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 
18-122, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 5517 (WTB 2020).
15 Notice, 33 FCC Rcd at 10501, para. 12.
16 47 CFR § 25.214(c)(5).
17 47 CFR § 25.214(c)(5).
18 47 CFR § 2.106(b)(458)(ii), (d)(172) (international footnote 5.458B and non-governmental footnote NG172).  The 
space-to-Earth allocation is limited to non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service feeder links and earth stations 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
69. In addition to these licensed incumbent services, an international footnote in the table of 
allocations urges that we take “all practicable steps” to protect radio astronomy service observations in 
6.650-6.6752 GHz.19  Finally, low-power unlicensed ultra-wideband (UWB) and wideband systems 
operate in the 6 GHz band under our part 15 rules.20  Like all other part 15 devices, UWB and wideband 
devices operate on a non-interference basis and are not permitted to cause harmful interference.21 
10.The Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  The April 2020 
Report and Order (6 GHz Order) adopted rules to permit expanded unlicensed use throughout the 6 GHz 
band by authorizing two new types of unlicensed operations.22  First, unlicensed standard power access 
points in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands can access spectrum through use of an Automated Frequency 
Coordination (AFC) system.23  The AFC systems permit the standard power access points to only operate 
on frequencies and at power levels that will protect co-channel incumbent fixed microwave operations 
from harmful interference.24  These standard power access points can operate at the same power levels 
already permitted in the 5 GHz UNII-1 and U-NII-3 bands (5.150-5.250 GHz and 5.725-5.850 GHz 
bands, respectively), enabling synergistic use of both the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands for promoting 
unlicensed broadband deployment.25
11. Second, unlicensed LPI access points can operate without an AFC system over the entire 
6 GHz band.26  In authorizing use of the entire 6 GHz band for this type of use, the Commission provided 
opportunities for unlicensed operations to transmit using up to 320-megahertz wide channels to expand 
capacity and performance capabilities.27  This forward-looking action anticipates the next generation of 
unlicensed devices and advances the U.S.’s role as an innovator and global spectrum policy leader.28  The 
Commission also permitted operation by client devices at varying power levels based on the type of 
access point it is connected to—either standard power or LPI.29  
12. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the Commission 
receiving in this band are limited to locations within 300 meters of coordinates in Brewster, WA, Clifton, TX, and 
Finca Pascual, PR.  Id. § 2.106(d)(172).
19 47 CFR § 2.106(b)(458)(i) (international footnote 5.458A).
20 47 CFR § 15.250; id. pt. 15, subpt. F.  Unlicensed UWB operations are permitted in many different frequency 
bands.  See id. pt. 15, subpt. F.  Wideband operations are mostly limited to the 6 GHz band.  47 CFR § 15.250 
(limiting wideband operations to the 5.925-7.250 GHz band).  For both the wideband and ultra-wideband systems 
permitted under the Part 15 rules, the maximum EIRP allowed is –41.3 dBm/MHz except for certain vehicular radar 
systems which are restricted to –61.3 dBm/MHz EIRP.  See id. § 15.250(d)(1), subpt. F.
21 47 CFR § 15.5(b).
22 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, paras. 17-18.  There are three pending petitions for reconsideration of the 6 GHz 
Order filed by Verizon, CTIA, and the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC).  Verizon Petition for 
Reconsideration, ET Docket 18-295 (filed June 25, 2020); CTIA Petition for Partial Reconsideration, ET Docket 18-
295 (filed June 25, 2020); Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition Petition for Reconsideration, ET Docket 18-
295 (filed June 25, 2020).
23 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, para. 17.
24 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3862, para. 22.
25 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, para. 17.
26 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, para. 18.
27 Id.
28 See D. Lopez-Perez, A. Garcia-Rodriguez, L. Galati-Giordano, M. Kasslin and K. Doppler, “IEEE 802.11be 
Extremely High Throughput: The Next Generation of Wi-Fi Technology Beyond 802.11ax,” in IEEE 
Communications Magazine, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 113-119, Sept. 2019 (stating that 320-megahertz bandwidth is a 
leading candidate for inclusion in the 802.11be standard), available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8847238. 
29 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, para. 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
7proposed to permit an additional class of unlicensed devices—VLP devices.  VLP devices were proposed 
for operations across the entire 6 GHz band, with no requirement that the devices be kept indoors or be 
under the control of an AFC system.30  The Commission envisioned that body-worn devices would make-
up most VLP device use cases and that these devices would provide large quantities of data in real-time.31  
Entities that support the Commission permitting VLP device operation expect that these devices will 
support portable use cases, such as wearable peripherals (e.g., smartphones, glasses, watches, and 
earphones), including augmented reality/virtual reality and other personal-area-network applications, as 
well as in-vehicle applications (e.g., dashboard displays).32  The Further Notice sought comment on the 
appropriate power levels as well as other rules for VLP devices to ensure that the potential for causing 
harmful interference to incumbent operations is minimized.33  To this end, the Further Notice sought 
comment on several topics, such as:  Whether VLP devices should be required to employ a contention-
based protocol that requires the devices to listen to the spectrum prior to transmission;34 how should the 
interference potential of these devices be evaluated when operating outdoors;35 how should clutter losses 
from the presence of buildings and other objects be accounted for when evaluating interference 
potential;36 what value should be assumed for body loss and transmit power control;37 whether a proximity 
sensor could be used to adjust power based on how much body loss is expected;38 how would transmit 
power control be implemented to protect incumbent licensees;39 what technology measures can be 
incorporated into VLP devices to support the operations at the power limits requested by proponents and 
mitigate the potential for harmful interference to incumbent services;40 and what technical or operational 
rules should the Commission consider to maximize the utility of the 6 GHz band and protect incumbent 
licensees?41
13. In the Further Notice, the Commission also sought comment on several modifications to 
the 6 GHz band unlicensed rules.  The Further Notice sought comment on increasing the permitted power 
spectral density of LPI access points from 5 dBm/MHz to 8 dBm/MHz and the maximum transit power 
from 30 dBm to 33 dBm EIRP.42  The Further Notice also sought comment on permitting standard power 
access points to operate under the control of an AFC system while in motion.43  Lastly, the Further Notice 
sought comment on permitting standard power access points that are used for point-to-point links to 
operate at power levels greater than the 36 dBm EIRP level currently permitted.44  Of the topics raised in 
the Further Notice, in this Second Report and Order we are only addressing the proposal to permit VLP 
devices.  We intend to address the remaining issues raised in the Further Notice at a later time.
30 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3939-40, para. 235. 
31 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3939-40, paras. 235-36.
32 See Apple, Broadcom et al. July 2, 2019 Ex Parte at 5,7; Apple, Broadcom et al. Dec 9, 2019 Ex Parte at 8.
33 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3940-42, paras. 236-43.  
34 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3940, para. 237.
35 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3940-41, para. 238.
36 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3940-41, para. 238.
37 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3941, para. 239.
38 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3941, para. 240
396 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3941, para. 241.  
40 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3942, para. 242.
41 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3942, para. 243.
42 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3942-43, paras. 244-45.
43 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3943-44, paras. 246-51.
44 6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3944-45, paras. 252-55.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
814. Several parties filed petitions for review of the 6 GHz Order in the D.C. Circuit45 
asserting that the Commission erred when adopting rules for the 6 GHz band.  The petitioners claimed 
that the rules the Commission put in place to protect incumbent operations from harmful interference 
were not adequate to ensure that such interference would not occur.46  The Court largely denied the 
petitions for review and held that, for the most part, petitioners did not provide a basis for questioning the 
Commission’s conclusions regarding the interference protection the rules would afford to incumbent 
users.47  However, the Court did remand a single issue finding that the Commission failed to adequately 
address NAB’s concern that its experience with contention-based protocols in the 2.4 GHz band should 
have led the Commission to grant NAB’s request to reserve a portion of the 6 GHz band for licensed 
mobile broadcast operations.48 
15. After the Commission adopted the 6 GHz Order and Further Notice, the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET) sought comment on whether the Commission should permit direct 
communications between client devices.49  The rules adopted in the 6 GHz Order prohibited unlicensed 
client devices from acting as “mobile hotspots” because “[p]ermitting a client device operating under the 
control of an access point to authorize the operation of additional client devices could potentially increase 
the distance between these additional client devices and the access point and increase the potential for 
harmful interference to fixed service receivers or electronic news gathering operations.”50  Recognizing 
that such operations could be useful and permit additional use cases, OET “invite[d] interested parties to 
supplement the record, for the Commission’s consideration, on whether and under what circumstances 
client devices could be permitted to directly communicate with each other in a limited manner consistent 
with the rationale underlying the Commission’s decisions in the 6 GHz Order that were targeted at 
protecting incumbent licensed services.”51  OET specifically sought comment on “whether the 
Commission should permit 6 GHz U-NII client devices to directly communicate when they are under the 
control of or have received an enabling signal from a[n] [LPI] access point.”52 
16.The record.  The Commission received comments from numerous parties in favor of 
permitting unlicensed VLP operations in the 6 GHz band as well as parties representing the interests of 
incumbent licensees raising concerns about potential harmful interference from the proposed unlicensed 
VLP operations.  In response to the Further Notice, proponents of unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz 
band—including Apple, Broadcom et al.,53 the Wi-Fi Alliance, the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA), 
45 Parties seeking review of the rules were the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T Services, Inc., Lumen 
Technologies, Inc., APCO International, Edison Electric Institute, the Utilities Technology Council, the National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Public Power Association.
46 See Joint Brief of Petitioners, AT&T Servs., Inc. v. FCC, D.C. Cir. No. 20-1190 (and consolidated cases) 
(Petitioners’ Brief).
47 AT&T Servs. Inc., v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
48 Id. at 853-54.
49 See The Office of Engineering & Technology Seeks Additional Information Regarding Client-To-Client Device 
Communications in the 6 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 
36, 36 (OET 2021) (6 GHz Public Notice).
50 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3927, para. 202.
51 6 GHz Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 37.
52 Id.
53 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments (filed June 29, 2020) (a group of companies that includes Apple, 
Broadcom, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel, Microsoft, NXP Semiconductors, 
Qualcomm, and Ruckus Networks).  This group submitted several joint filings in this proceeding.  Several of these 
companies also submitted individual filings on behalf of their companies.  We also note that, at times, joint filings 
made by Apple, Broadcom, and other companies include variations in the composition of the group, depending on 
the particular filing(s).  Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
9the Consumer Technology Association, and the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition54—support the 
Commission’s proposal for authorizing VLP unlicensed device operations across the 6 GHz band.  They 
emphasize that such operations will support a host of immersive, real-time applications in areas such as 
healthcare, high accuracy location, advanced connectivity, innovative game experiences, and augmented-
reality/virtual-reality devices,55 among other uses.56  These commenters assert that technical rules can be 
established that protect incumbents from harmful interference.57  Apple, Broadcom, et al. submitted 
several technical studies to support their contention that harmful interference will not occur to licensed 
incumbents from VLP devices.58
17. Commenters representing incumbents express various concerns about the potential for 
harmful interference to their operations from standard power, LPI, and VLP unlicensed operations.  
Commenting parties include the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC), AT&T, the Utilities 
Technology Council (UTC) et al., and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council on behalf 
of fixed microwave incumbents,59 Sirius XM Radio representing satellite service incumbents,60 the 
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) on behalf of local radio and television stations and broadcast 
networks,61 and the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio Frequencies regarding radio 
astronomy observatories.62  Several of these commenters also submitted technical studies to support their 
positions.63  The Ultra-Wide Band Alliance and Zebra advocate for lower power levels or placing antenna 
gain requirements on very low power devices.64  Finally, several parties advocate for protection of the 
adjacent 5.9 GHz band.65
54 The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition consists of: New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public 
Knowledge, American Library Association, Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition, Benton 
Institute For Broadband And Society, COSN – Consortium for School Networking, National Hispanic Media 
Coalition, Tribal Digital Village Network, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Next Century Cities, Common Cause, 
Access Humboldt, and X-Lab.
55 Augmented Reality (AR) is the digital creation of a fabricated set of objects that can be interspersed with real 
world elements, usually through a headset that overlays the objects on the lens, as the users also view their real 
surroundings.  Virtual Reality (VR) is the digital creation of a fabricated immersive world, typically via a headset 
technology, that generates all the photons that the eye sees.  
56 See, e.g., Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments at 2 (filed June 29, 2020); Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 4-8 (filed 
June 29, 2020).
57 See, e.g., Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments at 25, 27-29 (filed June 29, 2020); Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 9-12 
(filed June 29, 2020), Consumer Technology Association Comments at 1-3 (filed June 29, 2020); Open Technology 
Institute et al. Comments at 5-13 (filed June 29, 2020).
58 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. A, B, C (filed June 29, 2020).
59 See, e.g., Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition Comments at 3-4 (filed July 8, 2020); AT&T Comments at 7-
11 (filed June 29, 2020); Utilities Technology Council, et al. (a group of commenters including the Utilities 
Technology Council, the American Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative, the 
American Gas Association, and the American Water Works Association) Comments at 5-9 (filed June 29, 2020); 
NPSTC Comments at 3-5 (filed June 29, 2020). 
60 Sirius XM Radio Comments at 12-15 (filed June 29, 2020).
61 NAB Comments at 6-8 (filed June 29, 2020). 
62 National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies Comments at 3-6 (filed June 29, 2020).
63 Nokia Comments Attach. (filed June 29, 2020); Southern Company Comments Attach. A (filed June 29, 2020); 
CTIA Reply Attach. (filed July 27, 2020).
64 See, e.g., Ultra-Wide Band Alliance Comments at 10 (filed June 29, 2020); Zebra Technologies Reply at 1-2 (filed 
July 27, 2020). 
65 See, e.g., 5GAA Comments at 4-7 (filed June 29, 2020); Alliance for Automotive Innovation Comments at 5-7 
(filed June 29, 2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
10III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
18. We adopt rules to permit VLP devices to operate with up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP power 
spectral density (PSD) and 14 dBm EIRP across the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band.  
VLP devices will enable new innovative uses and will provide opportunities to enhance nascent 
applications, such as augmented reality/virtual reality, in-car connectivity, wearable on-body devices, 
healthcare monitoring, short-range mobile hotspots, high accuracy location and navigation, and 
automation.66  The rules we are adopting are designed to support innovation to bring exciting new 
applications to market while protecting the important licensed services that operate in the 6 GHz band 
from harmful interference.  At this time, we are limiting VLP devices to the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands 
because the technical record has mainly focused on the potential for interference to fixed microwave links 
which are the predominate uses of these portions of the 6 GHz band.  In the Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to expand VLP device operation to the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 portions 
of the band which supports mobile operations.
A. VLP Power Levels and Protection of the Fixed Microwave Services
19. Apple, Broadcom et al. and the Wi-Fi Alliance claim that VLP devices will require 14 
dBm EIRP and 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD67 to meet expected consumer use cases, overcome on-body loss, 
and meet minimum throughput, latency, and power efficiency requirements.68  Otherwise, they claim, 
performance will suffer due to lower data rates, increased latency, and higher duty cycles.69  Apple, 
Broadcom et al. state that “[b]ecause power consumption increases with duty cycle, these higher duty 
cycles undermine the ability to achieve low power consumption, which is critical for small-form factor 
battery-power-limited devices,” such as VLP devices.70  Ensuring that latency is minimized is also 
essential for many expected VLP applications, such as augmented reality/virtual reality, screen mirroring, 
and gaming.71  Apple, Broadcom et al. claim that their companies, which include leading product experts 
and engineers, “agree that a minimum of 14 dBm EIRP is critical to balance the tradeoffs between 
latency, data rate, power consumption, and other essential factors required to enable useful consumer 
products and cutting-edge innovative applications.”72  They explain that “[t]he range of potential on-body 
loss scenarios is a central factor driving the required power for [VLP] devices” and point to measurements 
by the Wireless Research Center of North Carolina showing that the path loss between body worn devices 
is highly variable.73  They claim that manufacturers must design VLP devices to function in worst-case 
operating scenarios.74
20. In addition, Apple, Broadcom et al. ask the Commission to adopt the 1 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD limit to avoid unnecessarily constraining power in narrower channel sizes.75  They claim that 
limiting the PSD to lower levels, such as -8 dBm/MHz EIRP, would negatively affect the ability of VLP 
66 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments at 4-5 (filed June 29, 2020); Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 4-8 (filed June 29, 
2020).
67 Because total power increases with increasing bandwidth, 1 dB/MHz EIRP PSD would permit 14 dBm EIRP 
across 20, 40, 80, 160 and 320 megahertz channel bandwidths.
68 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments at 10 (filed June 29, 2020); Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 9 (filed June 29, 
2020).
69 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments at 10.
70 Id.
71 Id. at 10-11.
72 Id. at 12.
73 Id. at 12-13.
74 Id. at 13.
75 Id. at 14.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
11devices to achieve the required throughput.76  They also state that using a smaller bandwidth may be 
necessary to maximize channel use in high user densities or high path loss environments.77  
21. Other commenters also support the need for permitting VLP devices to operate at the 14 
dBm EIRP and 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD power levels.  The Consumer Technology Association states that 
authorizing VLP devices at less than 14 dBm would prohibit important use cases from emerging where 
body losses are a key factor.78  The DSA claims that a 14 dBm EIRP and 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD is 
necessary for anticipated use cases, such as new immersive, real-time applications and personal area 
network, wearable, and in-vehicle portable devices.79  Facebook points to the report from the Wireless 
Research Center of North Carolina illustrating the challenges that arise due to body loss.80  According to 
Facebook, this study demonstrates that VLP devices need to overcome significant variability in body loss 
to provide the expected reliability and the best means to do this is to permit the requested 14 dBm EIRP.81  
Microsoft states that VLP device designers will need the 14 dBm EIRP power level to create innovative 
new product categories, configurations, and form factors.82  It explains that if VLP devices are authorized 
with a lower power, the economic benefits will be tempered as 14 dBm EIRP is the threshold at which 
VLP device throughput would be high enough and latency low enough for personal area network users to 
have a reliable highly interactive mixed-reality experience.83
22. In making this decision to enable this new class of unlicensed devices to operate in the 
6 GHz band while protecting licensed incumbent operations from harmful interference, we note that this 
policy represents a careful balancing between enabling new services and protecting existing services.  In 
response to comments reflecting incumbents’ concerns regarding the potential for harmful interference as 
well as analysis in the record, we are taking reasonable actions to minimize such potential.  However, we 
also take this opportunity to reiterate several core Commission spectrum management principles that 
directly affect our decision-making in this proceeding.  The Commission recently stated in its Policy 
Statement,84 which provides guidance on how the Commission intends to manage spectrum efficiently and 
effectively going forward, that:
•“The electromagnetic environment is highly variable, and zero risk of occasional service 
degradation or interruption cannot be guaranteed”;85
•“Services should plan for the spectrum environment in which they intend to operate, the service 
they intend to provide, and the characteristics of spectrally and spatially proximate operations.  
Planning should be ongoing and account for changes in spectrum operating environments”;86 
76 Id. -8 dBm/MHz EIRP/PSD would permit 5 dBm EIRP for a 20 megahertz channel bandwidth, 8 dBm EIRP for a 
40 megahertz channel bandwidth, 11 dBm EIRP for an 80 megahertz channel bandwidth, and 14 dBm EIRP for 160 
megahertz and 320 megahertz channel bandwidths.
77 Id. at 14-15.
78 Consumer Technology Association Comments at 7 (filed June 29, 2020).
79 Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Comments at 4-5 (filed June 29, 2020).  
80 Facebook Comments at 5 (filed June 29, 2020).
81 Id. at 5-6.
82 Microsoft Comments at 8 (filed June 29, 2020).
83 Id. at 8.
84 Principles for Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum and Opportunities for New Services; Promoting Efficient Use 
of Spectrum through Improved Receiver Interference Immunity Performance, ET Docket Nos. 23-122 and 22-137, 
Policy Statement, FCC 23-27 (Apr. 21, 2023) (Policy Statement).
85 Id. at 2, para. 5 (emphasis omitted); accord id. at 6-7, paras. 15-17.
86 Id. at 2, para. 5 (emphasis omitted); accord id. at 7, paras. 18-19.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
12•“Radio transmitter and receiver system operators and equipment manufacturers should plan for 
and design error tolerant systems, using good engineering practices, to mitigate degradation from 
interference”;87 and
•“Quantitative analyses of interactions between services that are fact- and evidence-based, 
sufficiently robust, transparent, and reproducible are needed to better inform spectrum 
management decision-making.”88
23. We emphasize the core principle from the Policy Statement that expresses the notion that 
data-driven approaches are necessary to promote co-existence.89  And while the Policy Statement 
generally addresses adjacent channel issues, it notes that many of the technical and policy principles 
articulated could be applied to co-channel spectrum sharing as well, such as the sharing scenarios in the 6 
GHz band.90  Our decision herein is consistent with its principles.  In adopting rules to enable VLP 
devices to share the 6 GHz band, we have followed this approach in anchoring our decision on an 
extensive technical record.  We recognize the highly variable nature of the electromagnetic environment 
and rely on analyses that use a probabilistic approach to evaluating interference risk rather than basing our 
decision on worst-case examples.
24. In considering the maximum power level for VLP devices, our goal is to balance 
competing factors.  We aim to permit as much power as possible for these devices so that the maximum 
benefit can be derived from their operation while minimizing the potential risk of harmful interference to 
licensed incumbent operations.  As described below, the record is replete with many analyses and tests 
that come to widely different conclusions.  These analyses and tests provide a basis for our understanding 
of the potential for VLP devices to cause harmful interference under a variety of conditions.  As described 
in detail, we believe based on the technical record that we can permit at this time VLP devices to operate 
at up to -5 dBm/MHz power spectral density (PSD) and 14 dBm EIRP without presenting a significant 
risk of harmful interference to the licensed microwave incumbents that share the 6 GHz band.91
1. Computer Simulations/Monte Carlo Analysis
25. In considering the technical record, we find that two computer simulations based on 
Monte Carlo analysis submitted by Apple, Broadcom et al. and by Apple provide sufficient support for 
permitting VLP operation at up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP power spectral density (PSD) and 14 dBm EIRP 
across the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band.92  Relying on computer simulations is in 
harmony with our Policy Statement’s directive to follow a data-driven approach to spectrum management 
rather than placing dispositive weight on worst-case examples that may be rare or never occur in 
practice.93  In relying on these computer simulations, we follow the path of the Commission’s previous 
decision in adopting rules for unlicensed 6 GHz LPI devices.  For the LPI rules, the Commission 
characterized a computer simulation submitted by CableLabs as “the best evidence in the record of the 
87 Id. at 3, para. 5 (emphasis omitted); accord id. at 10-11, paras. 33-35.
88 Id. at 3, para. 5 (emphasis omitted); accord id. at 12-13, paras. 41-44.
89 See id. at 11-13, paras. 36-47.
90 Id. at note 1.
91 -5 dBm/MHz EIRP/PSD would permit 8 dBm EIRP for a 20 megahertz channel bandwidth, 11 dBm EIRP for a 
40 megahertz channel bandwidth, and 14 dBm EIRP for 80 megahertz, 160 megahertz, and 320 megahertz channel 
bandwidths.
92 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte; Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte. A Monte Carlo simulation 
uses random sampling and statistical modeling to estimate mathematical functions and mimic the operations of 
complex systems.  Harrison RL., Introduction To Monte Carlo Simulation, AIP Conf Proc. 2010;1204:17–21. 
doi:10.1063/1.3295638.
93 See Policy Statement at 11-13, paras. 36-47.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
13impact that unlicensed low-power indoor devices will have on incumbent operations.”94
26. A well-designed computer simulation can simultaneously model many probabilistic 
factors that determine whether harmful interference may occur.  These factors include VLP device 
location variability in relation to the microwave receiver, height of the VLP device, whether the VLP 
device is operating co-channel, the VLP power level, and the radio propagation environment.  In 
examining the potential for harmful interference to occur to microwave links from VLP devices, the 
characteristics of the microwave links must also be considered.  Microwave links use highly directional 
antennas typically located on tall towers or building rooftops to transmit over distances up to 30 
kilometers.  Because of the heights of these antennas and their directional nature, VLP devices only 
present a harmful interference risk if they are located within the main beam of the antenna and are close 
enough to the microwave receiver that a strong signal can be received.95  One important factor to consider 
when modeling interference to 6 GHz microwave receivers is atmospheric multipath fading.  Atmospheric 
multipath fading is caused when stable air masses, such as warm and humid air, lead to stratification of 
the atmosphere.96  Atmospheric multipath fades can be very deep—30 dB or more.  However, deep fades 
are rare while more mild fades occur more frequently.  For a typical link, fades greater than 30 dB occur, 
on average, 15 seconds a month while fades greater than 10 dB occur, on average, 37 minutes a month.97  
Because of this fading phenomenon, 6 GHz microwave links are designed with large “fade margins” that 
are typically 25-40 dB.98  This fade margin provides transmitted power beyond what is needed to maintain 
the link when no fading is occurring.  Thus, the typical microwave link can operate with 5-nines 
availability (99.999%) despite the presence of fading.  Because the links are designed with these large 
fade margins, even when a VLP device is located directly within the main beam of a microwave antenna 
at a close enough distance where it might be possible for it to cause harmful interference, the microwave 
link’s operation will not be degraded unless a deep enough fade occurs so that the combination of 
received signal from the VLP device and fade depth is greater than the link’s fade margin.  Thus, VLP 
operation during the more frequent mild fades that occur which only consume a small portion of the fade 
margin will present only an insignificant harmful interference risk.  An examination of the interference 
potential of VLP devices to microwave links must consider not only the position and transmit power of 
the VLP devices and the technical characteristics of the microwave links, but also include the effects of 
fading.
27. A computer simulation submitted by Apple, Broadcom et al. modeled the effect of VLP 
devices on two hundred forty-seven (247) fixed microwave links in the San Francisco area.99  Data from 
the Commission’s licensing database was used to model each microwave link.100  For each iteration 
during this simulation, 1,146 VLP devices were randomly placed in the San Fransisco area where the 
distribution of devices was determined by the population data—i.e., it was more likely that the devices 
94 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3896, para. 120.
95 FWCC Oct. 31, 2019 Ex Parte at 7 (agreeing that an unlicensed device will cause harmful interference to a 
microwave receiver if it is in or near the receiver’s main beam, there is little attenuation between the device and 
receiver, the device is close enough to the receiver, and the microwave link is in a fade (not always necessary)); 
Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta, Aug. 2, 2023 Ex Parte at 1-2.
96 See George Kizer, Digital Microwave Communication, 321-324 (2013).
97 Apple, Broadcom et al. Oct. 7, 2019 Ex Parte at slide 12.
98 FWCC Comments at 16 (filed Feb. 15, 2019); FWCC Oct 31, 2019 Ex Parte at 12-13.  
99 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8. 
100 Id. at 5.  Apple, Broadcom et al. state that “San Francisco was selected to model one of the most challenging 
cities in the nation—a region with significant height disparities between FS transmitters and receivers, including 
many FS links on hills above the city—resulting in an analysis of many worst-case receiver heights and elevation 
angles. Other cities can be expected to have fewer such scenarios.” They add that “[t]he San Francisco region is also 
useful to simulate because it includes both extremely dense urban cores as well as suburban and rural areas, allowing 
all three environments to be captured in one simulation.”Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
14were placed in areas with higher population density.101  This 1,146 number was based on an estimate of 
how many VLP devices were likely to be operating outdoors in the region at any given time based on the 
population and assumptions on how many people are outdoors, the percentage of those people with a VLP 
device, the percentage of unlicensed devices operating in the 6 GHz band as compared to other bands, and 
the VLP devices’ activity factor.102  One million iterations of the simulation were run for VLP PSD levels 
of 10 dBm/MHz, 1 dBm/MHz, -5 dBm/MHz, -8 dBm/MHz, and -18 dBM/MHz.103  The characteristics of 
each VLP device were determined based on several probability distributions.  The bandwidth that the 
devices used ranged from 20, 40, 80, 160, to 320 megahertz, with 160 megahertz being the most 
common.104  The simulations assumed that 90% of the VLP devices were 1.5 meters above ground level 
and that the remaining devices were randomly distributed using a distribution based on LIDAR data of 
building heights for that location, if the LIDAR data on building heights was available, or an exponential 
distribution if LIDAR data was not available.105  While each simulation iteration assumed a uniform peak 
14 dBm EIRP power level, the VLP devices were assumed to use transmit power control, which reduces 
the transmit power for individual devices based on a truncated gaussian distribution ranging from 0 to 6 
dB with a 3 dB mean and 3 dB standard deviation.106  An antenna pattern based on a model of consumer 
Wi-Fi devices developed by the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrators 
(CEPT) SE45 working group was assumed for all VLP devices.107  The simulation also assumed a 
distribution for body loss with a 4 dB mean and 4 dB standard deviation truncated above and below one 
standard deviation.108  The simulation used a free space path-loss propagation model for distances less 
than 30 m, the WINNER II-Combined model for distances between 30 m and 1 km and heights less than 
15 m, the WINNER-II line-of-sight model for distances between 30 m and 1 km and heights greater than 
15 m, and the ITM model for distances greater than 1 km.109
28. The San Francisco computer simulation indicates that for VLP devices transmitting at -5 
dBm/MHz EIRP PSD the probability of the interference to noise power (I/N) ratio exceeding -6 dB110 was 
0.003% and the probability of the I/N exceeding 0 dB was 0.001% over the one million simulation 
101 Id. at 9.
102 Id. at 9.  This 1,146 number is obtained by multiplying the total area population by all of the factors listed on the 
slide.
103 Id. at 5, 8.
104 Id. at 8.  The bandwidth distribution ranged from 5% of devices operating with 40 megahertz channel bandwidth 
to 35% of devices operating with 160 megahertz channel bandwidth.  Id.
105 Id.  Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is a technology similar to RADAR that can be used to create high-
resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) with vertical accuracy as good as 10 cm.  LiDAR data includes terrain 
and clutter information for the geographic area studied.  See U.S. Geological Survey at www.usgs.gov.
106 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.
107 Apple, Broadcom et al. claim that this antenna pattern is less protective than most masks used in the real world. 
Id. at 8, 11-12.
108 Apple, Broadcom et al. claim that this represents less loss than expected under real world operating conditions. 
Id. at 8.
109 Id.; Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta Aug. 31, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
110 In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission established -6 dB I/N as an interference protection criterion for AFC 
systems when determining spectrum availability for standard power devices.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3878, 
para. 71.  For this interference protection criterion, “I (interference) is the co-channel signal from the standard power 
access point or fixed client device at the fixed microwave service receiver, and N (noise) is background noise level 
at the fixed microwave service receiver.”  See 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(2)(i).  In making this determination, the 
Commission also stated that it was not making a determination that any signal received with an I/N greater than -6 
dB would constitute “harmful interference.”  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3878, para. 71.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
15iterations.111  The simulation specifies that the same probability of exceeding -6 dB I/N results when the 
VLP PSD is 1 dBm/MHz EIRP, but is correspondingly lower for -8 dBm/MHz and -18 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD levels and higher for the simulations that used 10 dBm/MHz EIRP.112  In addition to providing 
statistics on the I/N ratio, the simulation also evaluated the likelihood that the microwave link’s fade 
margin will be exceeded by the combination of the interference power received from the VLP devices and 
the atmospheric multipath fading.113  For each of the 247 microwave links in the San Francisco area, the 
simulation calculated the fade margin by calculating the actual carrier-to-noise (C/N) ratio for the 
microwave link based on the link’s technical parameters—i.e., the transmitted power, propagation 
distance, antenna gain, receiver feeder loss, and receiver noise figure—and subtracting the C/N ratio 
needed for the link to operate at the highest data rate listed in the Commission’s database for that link.114  
The simulation then determined the probability distribution for the atmospheric multipath fading for each 
link using the ITU-R P.530-17 model.115  This model takes into account factors such as the local climate, 
the transmitter and receiver heights for the microwave link, and the average terrain elevation to create a 
fading distribution.116  The simulation then calculated a distribution of the noise floor increase for each 
link based on the I/N statistics and convolved that with the multipath fading distribution.  For VLP 
devices operating at powers up to 1 dBm/MHz EIRP, the results indicate that the probability of the fade 
margin being exceeded by the combination of the interference power received from VLP devices plus the 
multipath fading is not materially different than the probability of the link margin being exceeded solely 
from multipath fading.117  According to the simulation results, of the 247 links assessed in the study, the 
presence of VLP devices transmitting at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP at the “worst-case” location for a microwave 
link would change the probability that the worst-case link will be degraded by 0.3%.118
111 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8, 19.
112 Id. at 19.  The results for each PSD are summarized below:
PSD (dBm/MHz) Average Probability 
of exceeding
I/N > -6 dBPercentage 
Difference from
-5 dB PSDAverage Probability 
of exceeding
I/N > 0 dBPercentage 
Difference from
-5 dB PSD
-5 0.003% - 0.001% -
1 0.003% 0 0.001% 0
-8 0.002% 33% decrease 0.001% 0
-18 0.0003% 90% decrease 0.0001% 90% decrease
10 0.075% 2500% increase 0.020% 2000% increase
113 AT&T claims that the -6 dB I/N ratio that has been a proxy for harmful interference used by the Commission, the 
fixed microwave industry, and standards bodies for decades and complains that the Commission is now replacing 
this concrete defined threshold with “nothing.”  AT&T Oct. 10, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.  As the Commission explained 
in the 6 GHz Order, harmful interference is not defined as exceeding an I/N threshold of -6 dB.  6 GHz Order, 35 
FCC Rcd at 3878, para. 71.  The Commission defines harmful interference as “[i]nterference which endangers the 
functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly 
interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with ITU Radio Regulations.”  47 CFR § 2.1(c).  
See also 15 CFR § 15.3(m).
114 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 24.
115 Id. at 25.
116 Id. at 25.
117 Id. at 17.
118 Id. at 15.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
1629. The computer simulation submitted by Apple has many similarities to the San Francisco 
simulation.  Apple’s simulation modeled VLP to microwave receiver interactions in the Houston, Texas 
area by modeling a single microwave link while varying the VLP parameters for each simulation run 
based on the characteristics of microwave links that area.119  Two hundred twenty-four (224) VLP devices 
operating at 14 dBm EIRP within bandwidths varying from 20 megahertz to 320 megahertz were 
randomly placed within 23.49 kilometers of the microwave link on each of 10 million iterations.120  
Separate simulations were conducted for VLP PSD levels of 1 dBm/MHz, -5 dBm/MHz, -8 dBm/MHz, 
and -18 dBm/MHz, with the total power in each case set at 14 dBm EIRP.121  The simulation assumed a 
body loss that is gaussian distributed with a 4 dB mean and a 4 dB standard deviation, truncated to one 
standard deviation.122  90% of the VLP devices were assumed to be at a height of 1.5 meters above ground 
level, and the remaining devices’ heights were randomly chosen using a distribution based on actual 
Houston area building heights.123  It assumed that transmit power control was used with a gaussian 
distribution in seven discrete steps from 0-6 dB.124  The simulation assumed a 1.3 dB feeder loss and a 5 
dB noise figure for the microwave receivers.125  It also assumed that the microwave antenna had a 44 dBi 
gain, was at a 35 meter height above ground level, and had an elevation angle (downtilt/uptilt) that was 
randomly chosen between plus and minus 2 degrees.126  The simulation used the propagation models 
specified in the Commission’s rules for the AFC systems that control spectrum access for 6 GHz band 
standard power unlicensed devices to calculate the I/N at the microwave receiver on each iteration.  The 
simulation used a free space path-loss propagation model for distances less than 30 m, the WINNER-II 
statistical model for distances between 30 m and 1 km, and the ITM model for distances greater than 
1 km.127
30. The Houston simulation found that for VLP devices operating at -5 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD, the -6 dB I/N level was exceeded approximately 0.06% of the time and 0 dB I/N was exceeded 
approximately 0.01% of the time.128  For VLP devices operating at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD, the -6 dB I/N 
level was exceeded approximately 0.085% of the time and 0 dB I/N was exceeded approximately 0.02% 
of the time.129  Similar to the San Francisco simulation, the Houston simulation also examined the 
likelihood that the microwave link’s fade margin will be exceeded by the combination of the interference 
119 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 4, 9-13.
120 The distribution of channel bandwidths varied from 5% at 320 megahertz to 45% at 80 megahertz. Id. at 1, 10.  
Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.
121 Id. at 10.
122 Id. at 10.
123 Id. at 11.
124 Id. at 11.
125 Id. at 11.
126 Id. at 11.  These parameters were chosen to be representative of fixed links in the Houston area.  Id. at 12-13. 
127 Apple’s filing indicates that a free space propagation model is used for distances greater than or equal to 30 
meters and that WINNER II is used for distances greater than 30 meters and less than 1 kilometer.  We believe this 
is an error and that the free space model was used for distances less than or equal to 30 meters.  Apple Feb. 13, 2023 
Ex Parte at 10.
128 Id. at 20.
129 Id. at 20.  AT&T complains that the computer simulations focus on the 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD power level 
claiming this is 9 dB higher than what was proposed in the Further Notice.  AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.  
While the Further Notice did note that Apple, Broadcom et al. argued that -8 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP was necessary 
for VLP devices, the Commission did not propose a particular power level for VLP devices; it sought comment on 
what would be an appropriate power level while proposing requirements for VLP devices to provide commenters a 
foundation on which to base their preferred power level.  6 GHz Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 3940, 3942, paras. 
236, 243.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
17power received from the VLP devices and the atmospheric multipath fading.130  These results, which were 
derived for various microwave transmitter heights, show that the presence of VLP devices have no 
noticeable impact on microwave link reliability compared to atmospheric multipath fading alone.131  The 
simulation for the Houston area also indicated that the chance of exceeding -6 dB I/N increased from 
0.07% to 0.135% when both VLP and LPI devices were included as compared to just having LPI 
present.132  Finally, this simulation also examined the sensitivity of various inputs to the overall result.  
Apple claims that the results are sensitive to fixed service receiver antenna height, where higher 
microwave receiver antenna height above ground level results in a lower potential for impact to the 
microwave link and that the 35 meter antenna height assumed for the simulation represents a conservative 
value because such a height is significantly lower than the typical microwave receiver height in the 
Houston area.133  Likewise, Apple asserts that the assumed 44 dBi microwave receiver antenna gain and 
assumed ITU-R F.1245 antenna pattern do not represent typical antenna gains or antenna gain patterns 
and that more realistic inputs would result in the results showing a lower potential for exceeding -6 dB 
I/N.134
31. AT&T argues that the approximate 0.1% chance that the Houston simulation indicates for 
the I/N to exceed -6 dB for a VLP device operating at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD implies that 1,300 device 
deployments in the Houston area would impair the fade margin of a microwave link by more than 1 dB 
(i.e., produce an I/N greater than -6 dB) at any given moment.135  AT&T apparently reaches this number 
by multiplying 0.1% times 1.285 million, which is listed as the number of VLP capable devices in 
Houston.136  AT&T argues that this demonstrates a significant risk to microwave links.137  This contention 
is based on several misunderstandings of the Houston Monte Carlo simulation.  In this simulation, only 
224 VLP devices are simultaneously transmitting in each iteration.138  Ten million iterations of the 
simulation were conducted.139  The approximately 0.1% chance of the I/N being greater than -6 dB means 
that on 10,000 of these 10 million iterations, the calculated I/N at the microwave receiver from all 224 
VLP devices was greater than -6 dB; the I/N contribution from any individual VLP device would be much 
less.  As to AT&T’s contention that this demonstrates a significant risk to the microwave links, this 
represents the likelihood that the aggregate signal from all 224 transmitting VLP devices causes the 
microwave link to receive a signal at greater than -6 dB I/N, which represents a 1 dB reduction in the fade 
margin of the link.140  We reiterate that in the 6 GHz Order the Commission stated that it was not making 
a determination that a signal received at greater than -6 dB I/N would constitute “harmful interference.”141
32. These simulations examined the statistical relationship that the combination of the 
interference power received from VLP devices and atmospheric multipath fading could have on 
microwave receivers.  Both the San Francisco analysis and the Houston analysis considered the 
130 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 16-17.
131 Id. at 15.
132 Id. at 19.
133 Id. at 22.
134 Id. at 23-24.
135 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.
136 Apple indicates that there are 1, 285,376 6 GHz capable VLP devices assuming a 50% adoption factor.  Apple 
Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.  Apple does not provide a source for this number.
137 Id.
138 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
139 Id. at 10; Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 7.
140 Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 4.
141 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3878, para. 71.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
18summation of microwave receiver noise floor from VLP device transmissions and the occurrence of 
atmospheric multipath fading.142  Because atmospheric multipath fading and the signal levels received 
from the VLP devices are independent phenomenon, in accordance with a well-known statistical theorem 
the probability distribution of the combination of these two processes is the convolution of the probability 
distribution of each of the individual processes.143  The computer simulations used this mathematical 
convolution process to examine the combination of these two processes144 and illustrate that the presence 
of VLP devices does not result in a significant increase in the likelihood that the fade margin of the links 
will be exceeded by the combination of both atmospheric multipath fading and signals received from the 
VLP devices.145  Because the functioning of a microwave link is only interrupted when the combination of 
multipath fading and received VLP signals exceeds the fade margin, these results show that the presence 
of VLP devices will not significantly increase the potential for harmful interference to a microwave link 
over effects due to atmospheric fading alone.
33. AT&T claims the data on fade margin exceedance from the combination of atmospheric 
multipath fading and VLP devices that the San Francisco Monte Carlo simulation presents is suspect.146  
According to AT&T, Apple, Broadcom et al. have not explained how they calculate these results.147  
AT&T claims that for the data without VLP devices present (the “fading only” data), the presence of links 
with availabilities below 99.95% and above 99.99999999% seem improbable and that the most obvious 
conclusion for this is that the San Francisco simulation may have omitted some parameter in its 
calculations.148  In response, Apple, Broadcom, and Meta explain that the vast majority of links have 
reliability in the five-nines to eight-nines range; the links with higher reliability tend to be short links, 
operating at higher EIRPs, with high gain antennas, narrower bandwidths resulting in high signal-to-noise 
ratios; the links with lower reliability tend to be much longer, transmit at lower power, use lower gain 
antennas, and operate with higher bandwidths resulting in lower signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver.149  
We believe that Apple, Broadcom et al. have sufficiently explained how they calculate this data.  As they 
explain, for each link, the available C/N ratio was calculated based on the link’s transmitted power, 
propagation distance, receiver antenna gain, receiver feeder loss, and receiver noise figure and the 
required C/N ratio was calculated based on the highest order modulation for the link as indicated in the 
Commission’s licensing data.150  The fade margin is simply the difference between these two C/N 
ratios.151  The probability that the fade margin for a link will be exceeded by an atmospheric multipath 
fade was obtained from ITU-R P.530-17.152  As to whether some of the link availabilities are excessively 
low or high, as AT&T claims, we do not find the range of link availabilities indicated by the San 
Francisco simulation to be unrealistic.  As Apple, Broadcom, and Meta indicate, there are many factors 
that impact the calculated availability of the microwave links.  While most of the 247 microwave links are 
142  Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 18; Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 15. 
143 See e.g. Athanasios Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes 136 (3d ed. 1991); 
George Casella & Roger L Berger, Statical Inference 215 (2d ed. 2002).
144 The convolution integral of two functions x(t) and h(t) is defined as:  y(t) = ∫ x(γ) h(t-γ) dγ.  Rodger Ziemer, 
William Tranter, & D. Ronald Fannin, Signals and Systems: Continuous and Discrete 44 (1983).
145 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 26; Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 22.
146 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 12.  While AT&T’s filing refers to “Apple” when making this claim, this 
contention is in the San Franciso Study section and cites the Apple, Broadcom et al. filing.
147 Id. at 11-12.
148 Id. at 12.
149 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte 11.
150 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 24.
151 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 24.
152 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 25.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
19in the five-nines to six-nines range to which microwave links are typically designed, it is reasonable to 
expect that there will be link availabilities outside this range.  This could be the result of atypical 
situations such as very short or long links or because they are being used for applications that either do 
not require high reliability or require extremely high reliability.  It may also be possible that for some of 
the links the information in the Commission’s ULS database upon which these calculations are based is 
inaccurate. AT&T also suggests that it would be useful for the San Francisco simulation to have listed the 
links that appear to be more susceptible to VLP interference to help understand what they have in 
common.153  Because none of the links appear to have an increased potential for the fade margin being 
exceeded by the combination of multipath fading and VLP devices operating at the -5 dBm/MHz power 
level, the information is not necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the potential for harmful 
interference occurring.
34. For the Commission to have confidence in the results of computer simulations, the 
assumptions and models that are used must be appropriate.  We find that for both the San Francisco and 
Houston simulations, the assumptions are not only appropriate, but also represent reasonably conservative 
estimates of the potential impact on microwave receivers and that using more realistic input assumptions 
would produce results showing even less potential impact.  Nevertheless, the Monte Carlo analyses 
results are important as they represent an upper bound on what could be expected under real-world 
conditions with the actual impact likely to be much lower.  To reiterate this point, we discuss these 
assumptions.
35. Each of the simulations randomly distributed a number of VLP devices over the study 
area for each iteration.  Consequently, one of the most important simulation parameters is how many VLP 
devices are placed during each iteration.  This number must represent a realistic estimate of the likely 
number of VLP devices that could be operating at each instant in time so that the simulations accurately 
model the potential interference environment.  Because VLP devices do not yet exist, there are no actual 
use statistics and the number of simulated devices is, by necessity, based on set of assumptions.  We find 
that the number of devices placed within the study area for each simulation iteration appears to be based 
on realistic assumptions.  Both simulations assume that all simulated VLP devices will operate outdoors 
because indoor VLP devices are assumed to not present an interference risk to microwave links.154  We 
agree; such an assumption is consistent with the Commission’s finding in the 6 GHz Order, which 
adopted rules permitting LPI devices to operate with 5 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP and up to 30 dBm EIRP;155 
at least 10 dB more than we are permitting for VLP devices.  The San Francisco simulation, assumes that 
for the population within the study area, 6% of people will be outdoors, and that 25% of those people will 
be using VLP devices.156  Apple, Broadcom et al. indicate that 6% is a realistic assumption because EPA 
and Department of Transportation statistics show that the average American spends 90% of the time 
indoors and, of the remaining 10%, 4% of the time is spent in vehicles, which leaves 6% with no 
attenuation of the signal from buildings or vehicles.157  As this assumption is based on Department of 
Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency statistics, we find that it is reasonable.158  We 
believe that assuming 25% of people outdoors at any given time will be using a VLP device is a 
conservative assumption as even if 25% of the people are simultaneously using devices, many are apt to 
be operating using licensed spectrum and of the devices operating on an unlicensed basis, they are likely 
153 AT&T Aug. 29. 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
154 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 5, 9; Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 12.
155 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, 3892, paras. 18 tbl. 3, 110.
156 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.
157 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.
158 How much time do Americans Spend Behind the Wheel?, U.S. Department of Transportation (Dec. 11, 2017) 
https://www.volpe.dot.gov/news/how-much-time-do-americans-spend-behind-wheel (indicating that American’s on 
average spend just under an hour driving every day); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Report to 
Congress on indoor air quality: Volume 2. EPA/400/1-89/001C. Washington, DC.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
20to be spread across the various bands that support unlicensed devices (e.g., U-NII bands 1-5).  Apple, 
Broadcom et al. acknowledge this by further stating that they assume that 90% of the devices will operate 
on an unlicensed basis (rather than using licensed spectrum), that 50% of unlicensed devices will be 
capable of using the 6 GHz band, and that of these devices capable of using the 6 GHz band, 65% will 
actually be using the 6 GHz band.159  These appear to be reasonable assumptions.  In addition, they 
assume that VLP devices will actively transmit 2% of the time.160  While VLP devices are not yet 
deployed, we find this assumption reasonable for analytical purposes because it is (1) consistent with the 
assumptions in studies by the CEPT;161 (2) several times higher than the 0.4% activity factor the 
Commission assumed for LPI devices in the 6 GHz Order162 and provides a conservative result in 
combination with all the other conservative analysis assumptions.  Thus, as the number of VLP devices 
placed in each iteration for the San Francisco simulation appears to be based on reasonable assumptions, 
we conclude that placing 1,146 devices per iteration was appropriate to model the interference potential of 
VLP devices.163
36. Apple placed 224 VLP devices during each iteration for its Houston area analysis.164  
This number was based on a set of assumptions about VLP device use: 50 percent of the Houston 
residents would have 6 GHz band capable devices, 62.7% of the people with such devices would be using 
them during the busy hour, 90% of the devices would operate on an unlicensed basis rather than using 
licensed spectrum, 64% of the devices operating on an unlicensed basis would operate in the 6 GHz band, 
12.54% of the devices operating the 6 GHz band would be co-channel with the microwave links, and the 
devices would transmit with a duty cycle of 1.5%.165  These assumptions appear to be reasonable.  The 
analysis places all 224 VLP devices around a single microwave receiver166 resulting in a similar device 
density per microwave receiver for I/N computation as the 247 microwave receivers simulated in the San 
Francisco simulation; noting that the reported I/N for each analysis iteration is an aggregate of the 
individual I/Ns calculated for each device in that iteration.  Even with a similar device density, we find 
that the fact that the Houston results show a 20 times increase in the potential for a VLP device to exceed 
-6 dB I/N is not cause for concern regarding an increase in the potential for actual harmful interference.  
The I/N probabilities calculated from the Houston analysis results from a worst-case analysis designed to 
ensure that any possible microwave receiver configuration is accounted for while the San Francisco 
analysis was predicated on the actual microwave receiver layout and characteristics from ULS for that 
159 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.
160 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.
161 Sharing and Compatibility Studies Related to Wireless Access Systems include Radio Local Area Networks 
(WAS/RLAN) in the Frequency Band 5925-6425 MHz, ECC Report 302 at 23, May 29, 2019.
162 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3893, para. 101.
163 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.  The number of devices was derived using the 
aforementioned assumptions and a population of 13,066,000 based on Census Bureau data.  Id.  AT&T claims that 
the number of VLP devices in the simulation is not clear, but we disagree.  AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.  
The number of devices is obtained by multiplying the area population of 13,066,000 by the all of the assumed 
percentages.
164 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.  AT&T raises the possibility that the Houston simulation is implicitly using a 
low 0.017% activity factor for VLP devices based on the 224 simultaneously transmitting devices and a claimed 
universe of 1,285,376 VLP capable devices.  AT&T Aug. 29 Ex Parte at 10.  Apple subsequently explained that the 
number of devices they placed per iteration is consistent with assuming a 1.5% duty cycle.  Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex 
Parte at 7.
165 Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 7.
166 This methodology is consistent with the methodology used by CEPT when it analyzed the potential for VLP 
devices to cause harmful interference to microwave receivers.  Sharing and Compatibility Studies Related to 
Wireless Access Systems include Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN) in the Frequency Band 5925-6425 MHz, 
ECC Report 302 at 62-63, May 29, 2019.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
21market and thus reflects a more real world analysis.  Moreover, the Houston analysis assumed that every 
VLP device was operating co-channel with the microwave receiver.167  This situation is unlikely to occur 
under actual operating conditions as 802.11 unlicensed devices employ a carrier-sense multiple access 
with collision avoidance protocol to ensure that devices only operate when other devices are not 
transmitting, which is a feature that tends to ensure that devices spread out across the available 
spectrum.168  Second, the propagation models estimate clutter losses based on the mean for various 
statistical categories and are likely to underestimate these losses, especially in cities where tall buildings 
and urban canyons are likely to block signals from microwave receivers.169  Third, from a purely 
mathematical standpoint, it stands to reason that the more devices that are randomly placed around a 
microwave receiver, the greater the likelihood that the signal level received at the microwave receiver 
may exceed the interference protection criterion.  However, as we believe that the number of VLP devices 
used in each simulation run for Houston was higher than what would be reasonably expected under actual 
operating conditions, we believe that the results similarly overestimate the actual number of devices that 
would exceed -6 dB I/N.  And even if the results from the San Francisco and the Houston analyses 
represent lower and upper bounds, these percentages are sufficiently low as to pose an insignificant risk 
of harmful interference to microwave links.  And fourth, as noted in the 6 GHz Order and herein, -6 dB 
I/N is an interference protection criterion and exceeding that metric does not in and of itself represent 
harmful interference as microwave links are designed with significant fade margin.  Lastly, many 
microwave links rely on multiple receive antennas that are physically separated from one another to 
provide spatial diversity as a method to mitigate multipath fading.  This will make the receivers even 
more resistant to multipath fading meaning that the likelihood that the fade margin will be exceeded by 
the combination of fading and VLP interference is even lower than is indicated by the simulation.
37. AT&T points out that for many VLP device use cases there will be at least two and 
maybe more VLP transmitters exchanging data at the same location.170  According to AT&T, the 
simulations should therefore account for both devices’ effective radiated power and antenna patterns.171  
Apple, Broadcom, and Meta claims that it is improper to treat multiple devices as simultaneously 
transmitting because when one device is transmitting the other will not be transmitting so it can receive 
the signal.172  We agree with AT&T that many VLP device use cases, such as body worn devices and 
mobile hotspots, involve communication between multiple VLP devices.  However, only one of these 
devices will be transmitting at a time.  Furthermore , such usage will usually involve devices located in 
close proximity, in many cases on the same person’s body, sharing the same channel through intermittent 
transmissions.  Thus, these multiple devices can appropriately be considered a single device within the 
simulation.  Moreover, if multiple proximate devices communicate over different channels, then only one 
of the simulated devices would be co-channel with a given microwave receiver, negating it from 
consideration within the simulation.  Therefore, we do not agree with AT&T that it is necessary for 
multiple proximate VLP devices communicating with each other to be specifically modeled by the 
simulations as such use is implicitly accounted for.
38. One of the key parameters in computer simulations is the propagation model used to 
calculate the signal level received by the microwave receivers from the VLP devices.  The Houston 
167 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
168 The 802.11 protocol uses a carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) method in which the wireless stations (STA) 
first sense the channel and attempt to avoid collisions by transmitting only when they sense the channel to be idle.  
National Instruments, Introduction to 802.11ax High-Efficiency Wireless (Apr. 19, 2023) http://www.ni.com/en-
us/innovations/white-papers/16/introduction-to-802-11ax-high-efficiencywireless.html#section-1277099502.
169 See ITU Recommendation ITU-R P.2108-1 (09/2021), “Prediction of Clutter Loss”, available at: 
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/p/R-REC-P.2108-1-202109-I!!PDF-E.pdf.
170 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 5.
171 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 5.
172 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 7.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
22simulation uses the exact propagation models that the Commission specified for the AFC systems that 
manage access to 6 GHz band spectrum by standard power access points,173 while the San Francisco 
simulation departs slightly from this framework.174  Our rules require AFC systems to use a free space 
path-loss propagation model for a separation distance of up to 30 meters, the WINNER II model for a 
separation distance of more than 30 meters and up to and including one kilometer, and the Irregular 
Terrain Model for a separation distance of greater than one kilometer.175  As the Commission concluded 
that these models are appropriate in preventing harmful interference from standard power devices in this 
band, we agree that these models are appropriate for a computer simulation for VLP devices.  The San 
Francisco simulation departs from our AFC rules by using the WINNER-II combined version when the 
VLP device is below 15 meters in height and the WINNER-II line-of-sight (LOS) version when the VLP 
device is 15 meters or more in height.176  The combined version of WINNER-II is required by our AFC 
rules when site-specific information on buildings and terrain is not available to determine whether there is 
LOS between the VLP device and microwave tower.177  Using the WINNER-II (LOS) version always 
results in less propagation loss than the WINNER-II combined version.  Hence, employing the WINNER-
II (LOS) version when the VLP device is 15 meters or more in height is a more conservative assumption 
than the AFC rules.  As the difference in the propagation models used in the San Francisco simulation and 
our AFC rules produces a more conservative result—i.e. overpredict the possibility of interference—they 
are not only appropriate for evaluating the potential for exceeding -6 dB I/N, but also act to overprotect 
microwave receivers beyond the limits we deem appropriate in our rules.
39. Another input modeled within the simulations was attenuation to account for “body loss” 
due to scattering and absorption from a VLP device operating on or near a body or other object (e.g., a 
VLP device placed on a table).178  As VLP devices are envisioned to generally be small form factor body 
worn type devices or devices used in close proximity to people, this is an appropriate input for analysis.  
Commenters suggest different attenuation levels that should be used for body loss.  Southern Company 
suggests that it would be reasonable to assume 4.5 dB for body loss since a VLP device is as likely to be 
in full view of the fixed microwave receiver as it is to be obstructed and that this value seems to be 
industry practice.179  AT&T cites a CEPT Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) report that 
assumes a 4 dB body loss for VLP devices.180  The Wi-Fi Alliance points to an ITU report to support a 4 
173 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.  As stated in footnote 127 supra, there is apparently a mistake in the 
Houston simulation’s description of when the free space propagation model is used.
174  Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta Aug. 31, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
175 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(1); 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3875-77, paras. 64-66.
176 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.
177 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(ii).  The “combined” WINNER-II propagation model is what the rule refers to as using “a 
probabilistic model combining the line-of-sight path and non-line-of-sight path into a single path-loss.”
178 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.
179 Southern Company Comments at 9 (filed June 29, 2020).
180 AT&T Comments at 9 (referencing European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations 
Electronic Communications Committee, Sharing studies assessing short-term interference from Wireless Access 
Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN) into Fixed Service in the frequency band 5925-6425 
MHz, ECC Report 316 at 11; see ECC 316 Report at 7 (“A fixed body loss of 4 dB is applied to VLP devices when 
performing sharing studies.”); id. (“Very Low Power portable battery-operated device category is expected to enable 
a hand-held or wearable client device class.  VLP devices will provide connectivity to client devices when located 
outside of locations that contain low power indoor access points.  Example outdoor use cases include short range 
personal area networks for Automotive, such as improved vehicle to driver interface, and Augmented and Virtual 
Reality (AR/VR) applications in education, medicine, training, defense, remote presence, gaming, and more 
generally, next generation human – computer interaction.”)) (filed June 29, 2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
23dB body loss value when suggesting parameter values.181  Nokia also used a 4 dB body loss in its 
technical analysis of VLP interference potential.182  Apple, Broadcom et al. submitted a measurement 
study by the Wireless Research Center of North Carolina that includes measured data on the effect of the 
human body on transmissions from VLP devices with respect to receivers in the far field for six test 
subjects and six positions and finds that the median body loss was 8 dB.183  Meta also submitted a study 
with measurement data indicating that the attenuation from the body was 3-5 dB for handheld devices, 
around 3 dB for an eyeglass device, and 8-16 dB for a device in a pocket.184
40. Body loss is a random variable and subject to variation due to a multitude of factors, such 
as whether a device is body-worn or not, what part of the body it is worn on, body type, and whether it is 
in a pocket.  Thus, a body loss value for analytic purposes must reflect not just the body loss itself,  but 
also the wide range of values possible, the varying behavior of VLP device users, and the variety of uses 
for which VLP devices may be employed.  For non-body-worn devices, such losses will occur due to 
absorption and reflections from a table or other surface the device is sitting on or, for in-vehicle use, from 
the vehicle’s cabin.185  The body loss reduces the signal level that reaches a potential victim receiver from 
a VLP device.  Considering the data placed on the record reflecting widely varying levels of body loss 
under different conditions, as well as the general consensus among studies relied on by other regulators, 
we find that the computer simulations’ assumptions that there would be a mean attenuation of 4 dB for 
body and/or clutter loss and that this would follow a gaussian distribution is appropriate.  We believe that 
this is a reasonable approach as it is in the range specified by many commenters, is consistent with the 
measurements made by Meta, and is consistent with what was used by the ITU and ECC for interference 
analysis.  While many commenters put data on the record purporting to show losses greater than 4 dB, we 
note that this data also shows, in some instances, losses less than this value.186  Because VLP devices are 
anticipated to be worn across a wide range of positions on the body or placed on a wide range of surfaces, 
we believe that use of a gaussian distribution with a 4 dB mean as used by the computer simulations 
captures the wide range of use cases described by VLP proponents and is appropriate for analytical 
purposes.  Gaussian distributions are commonly used to represent random processes that vary over a 
range such as far-field body loss.  As body loss is used to represent attenuation from a range of objects 
near the VLP device such as a human body or the surface of table, using such a distribution is appropriate.  
Considering that the body loss measurements submitted by Apple, Broadcom et al. and Meta have a mean 
181 Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 11 (filed June 29, 2020) (citing Characteristics of terrestrial IMT-Advanced 
systems for frequency sharing interference analysis, International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R M.2292-0 
(Dec. 2013)).
182 Nokia Comments Technical App. at 5 (filed June 29, 2020).
183 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. B at 9, Figure 26 (filed June 29, 2020).  The median value in this 
Figure is 14 dB but it includes 6 dB of antenna mismatch.  See Apple, Broadcom et al. Nov. 3, 2020 Ex Parte at 2.  
AT&T claims this study is not relevant for the potential harm of VLP devices to microwave links.  AT&T Oct. 13, 
2020 Ex Parte at 11.  This appears to be based on only looking at the data in the study for relative loss between two 
body worn devices.  However, the study also contains data showing the energy received in the far-field from body 
worn devices, which is what Apple, Broadcom et al. are relying on here.  Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments 
Attachs. B at 8-11.
184 Meta Platforms April 12, 2023 Ex Parte slides at 10. Meta is the new name for Facebook, effective Dec. 1, 2021. 
Facebook submitted comments in this proceeding under the name Facebook Inc. up to and including the year 2021. 
All Facebook subsequent comments were submitted under the new name Meta Platforms Inc.
185 The Commission previously assumed 3 dB for absorption and reflection loss for a 600 MHz band device when 
placed on a surface.  Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television 
Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, Report and Order, 30 
FCC Rcd 9551, 9600, para. 125 (2015).  Given the reduced signal propagation in the 6 GHz band compared to 600 
MHz band, a loss of at least 4 dB is reasonable for 6 GHz band devices.
186 Meta Platforms April 12, 2023 Ex Parte slides at 12; Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. B at 6-9, (filed 
June 29, 2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
24higher than 4 dB and some measured attenuations were much greater than the then 8 dB maximum of the 
truncated distributions used in the simulations, use of these distribution appears to be a conservative 
assumption.187  We do not find merit in AT&T’s criticism of the body loss distribution used by the 
simulations as not being justified or being “abnormally" truncated to plus/minus one standard deviation.188  
While AT&T implies the distribution must be “justified,” it does not provide any information on what 
such a justification may entail or how body loss should otherwise be modeled.  Use of a truncated 
distribution is reasonable as this prevents the distribution from unrealistically including a body loss less 
than 0 dB or incorporating very high body loss values (more than one standard deviation from the mean) 
which could be viewed as outliers and not realistic while maintaining the 4 dB mean.189
41. Both computer simulations assumed that 90% of VLP devices would operate at a 1.5 
meter height above ground level.190  Device height is an important variable in these simulations as devices 
located at greater height are more likely to present an interference risk due to a higher likelihood for being 
within the main beam of a microwave antenna and because the propagation models will include less 
clutter loss to represent the fact the devices at greater heights will be above clutter from buildings, trees, 
etc.  As the simulations are only modeling outdoor VLP devices, the VLP devices that are at greater 
heights will represent use on building balconies and rooftops.  We agree with Apple, Broadcom et al. that, 
assuming that 10% are at heights greater than 1.5 meters appears to be a conservative assumption.191  For 
those 10% of VLP devices that are assumed to be above 1.5 meters, both simulations base the height of 
the device on data for building heights in the cities they are modeling.192  We conclude that this is a 
reasonable approach to modeling the VLP device heights.  Moreover, for devices that may be operated on 
a balcony or a rooftop, it is likely that there will be other buildings in the vicinity which create clutter that 
reduce the signal level received by the microwave receiver.
42. Both simulations used the ITU-R F.1245 antenna pattern to model microwave receiver 
antennas.193  This ITU recommendation provides an average antenna pattern to be used in interference 
assessments.194  AT&T criticizes the simulations for not using actual antenna patterns for the antennas 
specified in the Commission’s licensing database.195  AT&T claims that the ITU-R F.1245 pattern has 
“better side lobe performance than many fixed antennas in use today” and suggests that if the actual 
antenna patterns are not used that “a better choice would have been to base the antenna pattern on F.699 
and the FCC antenna mask in Part 101.115 as has been agreed within the WinnForum” for the AFC 
187 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. B at 9, Figure 26 (filed June 29, 2020); Meta Platforms April 12, 
2023 Ex Parte slides at 10.
188 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 5.  AT&T also points out “that there is no demonstrated correlation between 
body loss and orientation of the VLP device relative to the FS receiver.”  Id.  This statement appears to be confusing 
two different types of body loss: 1) the propagation loss of transmissions between two body worn devices and 2) the 
signal attenuation due to the presence of the body when a body worn device transmits to a distant transmitter.  
AT&T with this statement appears to be referring to the first type of body loss.  However, the Monte Carlo 
simulations are modeling the second type of body loss in determining the signal received by microwave receivers 
from VLP devices.  As mentioned in footnote 183, data on both of these types of losses was included in the study 
submitted by Apple, Broadcom et al.
189 Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 6.
190 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple Feb. 23, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
191 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 7.
192 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple Feb. 23, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
193 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple Feb. 23, 2023 Ex Parte at 24.
194 Mathematical model of average and related radiation patterns for point-to-point fixed wireless system antennas 
for use in interference assessment in the frequency range from 1 GHz to 86 GHz, ITU-R F.1245-3, Jan. 2019, 
available at https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-F.1245-3-201901-I/en.
195 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
25specification.196  When not using the actual antenna patterns, for the primary antenna the WinnForum 
AFC specification uses the ITU-R F.699 mask for angles within 5 degrees of the boresight of the main 
beam and a mask based on the part 101.115 rules, which differs by category of antenna, for larger angles 
(i.e. for the side lobes).197  Apple, Broadcom, and Meta assert that ITU-R- F.1245 is the appropriate 
choice because the documentation indicates it should be used when there are multiple sources of 
interference and that use of ITU-R F.699 may lead to inaccurate results in this type of study.198 
43. Given that the actual antenna model is not specified for many of the microwave link 
licensing records in the Commission’s ULS database and the added complexity of obtaining and 
integrating into the simulation antenna patterns for microwave links where the antenna pattern is known, 
we appreciate why the simulations did not use actual antenna patterns.  In addition, as the Houston 
simulation did not model specific microwave links, using a particular actual antenna pattern would have 
been completely arbitrary.  We do not believe the Monte Carlo simulations using a different antenna 
pattern than the WinnForum AFC specification detracts from the simulation’s accuracy for two reasons.  
First, because ITU-R F.699 is based on the peak envelope for the side lobes it will overestimate the level 
of interference from signals received in the side lobes because most actual antennas will have lower side 
lobe gain.199  ITU-R F.1245, which is based on the average side lobe levels for microwave antennas, 
appears to be a more appropriate choice given that the purpose of a Monte Carlo simulation is to 
determine the typical level of interference experienced by microwave receivers and that the simulations 
are summing the signals received at the microwave antenna at different arrival angles from multiple VLP 
devices.  Second, the WinnForum AFC specification appears to use a mask based on our Part 101.115 
rules for the side lobes because this permits use of different levels of attenuation for different categories 
of microwave antennas for angles of arrival outside the main beam of the antenna.  Because the goal of 
the AFC systems is to protect specific fixed microwave receivers from harmful interference from standard 
power unlicensed devices, trying to more closely match the characteristics of particular classes of 
antennas is important for this purpose.  In a Monte Carlo simulation the goal is to obtain overall statistics 
on the likelihood of occurrence of harmful interference to all the microwave links rather than determining 
exclusion zones around specific microwave receivers.  Hence, trying to match the characteristics of 
individual antennas is of less importance.  For this purpose, we believe that use of the ITU-R F.1245 
pattern, which represents an “average” antenna pattern, is a reasonable alternative to using the actual 
antenna patterns or to following the approach used in the WinnForum AFC specification.  As this pattern 
represents an average antenna, there will be some actual antennas with worse side lobe performance as 
AT&T points out.  However, there will also be many antennas with better performance.  Across the many 
simulation iterations, the average antenna performance of the ITU-R F.1245 pattern should provide a 
reasonable estimate of the interference performance of the microwave links.  Therefore we believe that 
using the ITU-R F.1245 pattern was appropriate for use in these simulations.
44. AT&T also criticizes the Houston simulation for not using the actual microwave link data 
available in the Commission’s ULS licensing database and instead using different antenna heights and 
either a 44 dBi antenna gain or antenna gains selected from a distribution whose source was 
196 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.
197 Wireless Innovation Forum, Functional Requirements for the U.S. 6 GHz Band under the Control of an AFC 
System, WINNF-TS-1014 Version V1.3.0 at 30-32 (Mar. 9, 2023), 
https://winnf.memberclicks.net/assets/work_products/Specifications/WINNF-TS-1014.pdf.
198 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 7 (citing Mathematical model of average and related 
radiation patterns for point-to-point fixed wireless system antennas for use in interference assessment in the 
frequency range from 1 GHz to 86 GHz, Recommendation ITU-R F.1245-3 at 4 (Jan. 2019)).
199 Mathematical model of average and related radiation patterns for point-to-point fixed wireless system antennas 
for use in interference assessment in the frequency range from 1 GHz to 86 GHz, Recommendation ITU-R F.1245-3 
at 4 (Jan. 2019).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
26unspecified.200  AT&T suggests that these parameters should have been tied to real-world data or the 
distributions validated against real world data.201  In response, Apple points out that the Houston 
simulation used real-world data from the Commission’s ULS database to set characteristics of its 
analysis.202  According to Apple, its simulation used actual building heights, microwave receiver heights, 
and microwave antenna patterns for Houston to establish conservative characteristics for the simulation.203  
Apple claims that this method allowed it to conduct an enormous number of iterations to achieve a high 
degree of accuracy and to provide a sensitivity analysis on microwave antenna height, antenna gain, and 
antenna pattern.204  Monte Carlo simulations are designed to assess the potential of various outcomes 
(e.g., probability of I/N > -6 dB) based on the range of potential inputs.205  While the San Francisco 
simulation used the data from the ULS for each individual link,206 the Houston simulation took a different, 
yet also valid, approach in which it simulated both the range of microwave receiver characteristics 
(antenna gain, antenna height, etc.) and VLP parameters over 10 million iterations to determine the 
probability of exceeding -6 dB I/N for any potential VLP to microwave receiver configuration.207  
Contrary to AT&T’s assertion, the parameters the Houston simulation used are based on distributions 
taken from the Commission’s ULS licensing database for the Houston market and are based on real-world 
data representative of the Houston area.208  By choosing a microwave antenna height at the 10-percentile 
and a microwave antenna gain at the 90-percentile for the Houston market, the Houston simulation 
represents a conservative estimate of the potential for harmful interference to occur to microwave links 
from VLP devices in the Houston area.209  While we believe the more complex approach taken by the San 
Francisco simulation does have some advantages over the approach taken in the Houston simulation, the 
Houston simulation is a reasonable approach for assessing VLP device operation in the Houston 
market.210
45. The San Francisco simulation used an antenna pattern for all VLP devices that is based 
on a model of consumer Wi-Fi devices developed by the CEPT SE45 working group.211  The Houston 
simulation used an antenna pattern for client devices from the ECC 302 report, which examined the 
200 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.
201 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.
202 Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.
203 Id.
204 Id. at 9.
205 A Monte Carlo simulation uses random sampling and statistical modeling to estimate mathematical functions and 
mimic the operations of complex systems.  Harrison RL., Introduction To Monte Carlo Simulation, AIP Conf Proc. 
2010;1204:17–21. doi:10.1063/1.3295638.
206 Apple, Broadcom, et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 5.
207 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 9.
208 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 13.
209 Id.
210 To emphasize the validity of Apple’s simulation approach for the Houston market, we note that this is the same 
approach used by CEPT in their Monte Carlo analyses assessing the harmful interference risk to microwave 
receivers from LPI and VLP devices.  In those analyses, CEPT relied on both a site-general and a site-specific 
Monte Carlo analysis akin to the Houston and San Francisco simulations, respectively.  See Sharing and 
Compatibility Studies Related to Wireless Access Systems include Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN) in the 
Frequency Band 5925-6425 MHz, ECC Report 302, May 29, 2019; Sharing studies assessing short-term 
interference from Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN) into Fixed Service in 
the frequency band 5925-6425 MHz, ECC Report 316, May 21, 2020.
211 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
27interference potential of unlicensed 6 GHz devices.212  AT&T states that it has “previously shown that 
assumptions made in simulations by [proponents of VLP devices] rely on inaccurate antenna patterns and 
illogical assumptions regarding [device] positioning.”213  In making this broad statement, AT&T refers to 
its previous discussion of a Monte Carlo simulation for LPI devices conducted by CableLabs.214  That 
discussion finds fault with CableLabs using a distribution of EIRP transmitted by LPI devices from the 
ECC 302 report, which is based on a combination of antenna patterns for different indoor devices, such as 
a consumer access point or gaming router.215  AT&T claims that this EIRP distribution has several flaws.  
First, AT&T claims that the EIRP distribution assumes that all elevation angles are equally likely, even 
though this is not the case for the antenna patterns of the different classes of devices it is based on and 
only relatively low elevation angles are likely to occur for LPI devices in practice.216  Second, AT&T 
claims that the patterns are not typical for devices sold in the United States, giving one example of a 
pattern for a Wi-Fi device sold by Cisco.217  Third, AT&T claims that even consumer Wi-Fi devices use 
multiple antennas, which improves performance.218  And lastly, AT&T claims that there is no suggestion 
that the ECC 302 used a non-zero beamwidth in its EIRP distribution, which would understate the power 
in many cases.219  We do not believe AT&T’s concerns have validity for the two simulations under 
consideration here.  We find each of these studies provide independent grounds for our conclusions.  
Neither of these simulations use the ECC 302 EIRP distribution for VLP transmit powers that is the 
subject of AT&T’s detailed discussion.  Rather than using the ECC 302 EIRP distribution, the Houston 
simulation uses an antenna pattern for client devices from that report.220  The antenna patterns that each of 
the simulations used is more uniform than that ECC 302 EIRP distribution and, consequently, AT&T’s 
concerns regarding elevation angle do not apply.  These two patterns also do not appear to be that 
different from the Cisco antenna pattern that AT&T uses as an example of a pattern for a “typical” United 
States device.  As for AT&T’s third concern, this also does not apply to VLP devices as small battery-
powered devices, such as VLP devices, are not likely to have numerous antennas to improve performance.  
Regarding AT&T’s final concern, AT&T’s description of this non-zero beamwidth issue is not detailed 
enough for us to determine if this is a valid concern.
46. Transmit power control is another important parameter that VLP devices will use and 
was appropriately included in the analyses.221  In their filings, Apple, Broadcom et al. and the Wi-Fi 
Alliance suggest that the permitted power level for VLP devices be adjusted to reflect that the devices 
will employ transmit power control.222  According to Apple, Broadcom et al., we should allow a 3 dB 
reduction in the link budget223 to account for transmit power control for body worn devices and an 8 dB 
212 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 11 (referring to Sharing and Compatibility Studies Related to Wireless Access 
Systems include Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN) in the Frequency Band 5925-6425 MHz, ECC Report 302 
at 150, May 29, 2019).
213 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 6.
214 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at footnote 23 (citing AT&T Sept 9, 2022 Ex Parte at A14-19).
215 AT&T Sept 9, 2022 Ex Parte at A14.
216 AT&T Sept 9, 2022 Ex Parte at A14-A17.
217 AT&T Sept 9, 2022 Ex Parte at A18.
218 AT&T Sept 9, 2022 Ex Parte at A18.
219 AT&T Sept 9, 2022 Ex Parte at A19.
220 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 11; Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 6.
221 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 3; Apple, Broadcom, et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.
222 Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 9; Apple, Broadcom, et al. Reply at 9.
223 A link budget accounts for all of the gains and losses in power that a signal experiences in a telecommunication 
system.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
28reduction for off-body use.224  They justify the 3 dB transmit power control reduction for body-worn 
devices by pointing to an ITU resolution and ECC regulations for the U-NII-2A (5.250-5.350 MHz) and 
U-NII-2C (5.470-5.725 GHz) band requiring that mobile devices employ transmit power control with an 
average mitigation factor of at least 3 dB in order to operate at higher power.225  For the off-body devices, 
they justify the 8 dB reduction based on a computer simulation showing the power reduction between a 
laptop computer and a smartphone placed on a table.226  The Wi-Fi Alliance supports a minimum 3 dB 
reduction for transmit power control based on the ITU resolution and a proposal the Commission 
previously made to require U-NII devices to employ transmit power control with a 6 dB back-off.227  
Southern Company claims that based on the body loss measurements submitted by Apple, Broadcom et 
al., VLP devices will be using little or no transmit power control most of the time and, consequently, 
transmit power control should not be considered in analyzing possible interference.228  Broadcom, 
Microsoft, and Intel, proponents of VLP operations at the 14 dBm power level, in a joint filing state that 
transmit power control will “reduce transmit power for 17-30% of operations.”229  For transmit power 
control the San Francisco simulation used a gaussian distribution with a mean and standard deviation of 3 
dB that is truncated at 0 and 6 dB.230  The Houston simulation used a gaussian distribution with 7 discrete 
steps from 0 to 6 dB for transmit power control.231
47. We believe that transmit power control is likely to be implemented for most VLP 
devices, such as body worn devices, to save battery power.  The actual amount of power reduction from 
transmit power control will depend on how often that reduction may occur and under what circumstances.  
Consequently, modeling the transmit power control as a random variable in the computer simulations is 
appropriate.  As VLP devices do not yet exist, there are no actual statistics on how often and to what 
extent transmit power control will reduce the transmit power of VLP devices.  However, the body loss 
measurements submitted by Apple, Broadcom et al. show that the signal attenuation between two body-
worn devices can be over 90 dB.232  Transmit power control will generally reduce VLP power under most 
operating conditions, but does provide for full power operation when needed in such extreme situations.  
While we do believe that some statistical modeling for transmit power control in a computer simulation is 
useful and appropriate, we do not have a strong foundation on which to base a distribution.  However, 
given that the form factors proposed for VLP devices will necessitate that the vast majority are battery 
powered and to maximize customer satisfaction, designers strive to ensure that batteries last as long as 
possible and devices almost always employ some form of transmit power control.  Given the ITU 
resolution and ECC regulation requiring an average power reduction of 3 dB from transmit power control 
for U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C devices and that the Commission previously required that U-NII-2A and U-
224 Apple, Broadcom et al. Nov. 3, 2020 Ex Parte at 2-3.
225 Apple, Broadcom et al. Nov. 3, 2020 Ex Parte at 3 (citing ITU-R Res. 229 (WRC-19) resolves 8); see On the 
harmonized use of the 5 GHz frequency bands for Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks 
(WAS/RLAN), ECC (04)08, July 1, 2022 available at: https://docdb.cept.org/download/4053.
226 Id.; Broadcom, Intel, Microsoft Oct. 22, 2020 Ex Parte Attach. at 6-11.
227 Wi-Fi Alliance Nov. 11, 2020 Ex Parte at 1, 2, 6, 8.  Although the rules require certain U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C 
devices to incorporate a transmit power control mechanism with capability to operate at least 6 dB below the mean 
EIRP level, reduced power operation only occurs when the device is capable of closing the link at reduced power; 
reduced power operation does not occur 100% of the time.  See 47 CFR § 15.407(h)(1).
228 Southern Company Reply at 11-12 (filed July 27, 2020); Southern Company Sept. 11, 2020 Ex Parte at 2; see 
also UTC Reply at 6 (filed July 27, 2020).
229 Broadcom, Microsoft, Intel Oct. 22, 2020 Ex Parte at 2.
230 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.
231 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
232 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. B at 6-7, Figures 16, 19-22 (filed June 29, 2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
29NII-2C devices have the capability for at least 6 dB transmit power control,233 we believe that the 
distributions used in the San Francisco and Houston simulations are reasonable approximations for the 
amount of transmit power control VLP devices are likely to employ for VLP devices.
48. The Houston simulation used a noise figure of 5 dB and a feeder loss of 1.3 dB for the 
microwave receivers.234  AT&T claims that the 5 dB noise figure is “larger than typical” and suggests that 
using 4 dB for U-NII-5 and 4.5 dB for U-NII-7 microwave receivers, as in WinnForum’s functional 
requirements document for AFC systems, would be a better choice.235  AT&T also claims that a 1.3 dB 
feeder loss may not be appropriate for all cases as many microwave radios are mounted directly to the 
antenna and have no feeder loss.236  AT&T notes that the San Francisco simulation states it uses data from 
the Commission’s ULS licensing database, “but the exact radio parameters such as noise figure, 
waveguide feeder loss, and antenna pattern are not always available in ULS,” and the parameters the 
simulation used were not disclosed.237  The initial San Francisco simulation filing stated that the 
simulation used the microwave antenna pattern from ITU-R F.1245 and Apple, Broadcom, and Meta 
subsequently indicated that the simulation used 2 dB for waveguide feeder loss and 5 dB for the noise 
figure.238  According to Apple, Broadcom, and Meta, the 2 dB waveguide feeder loss was used in the 6 
GHz Order and the 5 dB noise figure is supported by an ITU recommendation.  While we agree that the 
noise figure numbers from the WinnForum AFC specification would have been a better choice than the 5 
dB that both simulations used, this up to 1 decibel difference is not significant enough to make an 
appreciable difference in the simulation results.  For feeder loss, when no feeder loss is available in the 
Commission’s ULS database and the type of microwave radio is known, WinnForum’s AFC specification 
document indicates that a value of 3 dB be used for radios that are identified as indoor units—i.e., radios 
that are not mounted directly to the antenna—while no feeder loss should be used for outdoor units.239  
Hence, according to WinnForum’s AFC specification, a 1.3 dB or 2 dB feeder loss would be too large for 
an outdoor radio and too small for indoor radio.240  As these simulations are designed to model the 
potential for harmful interference to occur to microwave links in general rather than explore the 
interference risk of a particular microwave receiver, we believe that employing such an “in-between” 
value for feeder loss is a reasonable approach for a Monte Carlo simulation.241
233 Use of the frequency bands 5.150-5.250 MHz, 5.250-5.350 MHz and 5.470-5.725 MHz by the mobile service for 
the implementation of wireless access systems including radio local area networks, World Radio Conference 2019 
(WRC-19), Resolution 229, resolves 8 (2019); On the harmonized use of the 5 GHz frequency bands for Wireless 
Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN), ECC (04)08, July 1, 2022 available at: 
https://docdb.cept.org/download/4053;  Although the Commission’s rules require certain U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C 
devices to incorporate a transmit power control mechanism with capability to operate at least 6 dB below the mean 
EIRP level, reduced power operation only occurs when the device is capable of closing the link at reduced power; 
reduced power operation does not occur 100% of the time.  See 47 CFR § 15.407(h)(1).
234 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
235 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 10-11.
236 Id. at 11.
237 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
238 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
239 Wireless Innovation Forum, Functional Requirements for the U.S. 6 GHz Band under the Control of an AFC 
System, WINNF-TS-1014 Version V1.3.0 at 41 (Mar. 9, 2023), 
https://winnf.memberclicks.net/assets/work_products/Specifications/WINNF-TS-1014.pdf.
240 Because the Houston simulation is not modeling a particular fixed microwave link it would not have been 
possible for the simulation to use a feeder loss that varies based on whether the microwave receiver uses an indoor 
or outdoor radio as WinnForum’s AFC specification suggests.
241 Because the San Francisco simulation modeled actual microwave links it could have used values for feeder loss 
and noise figure based on ULS data regarding the radio employed by the microwave link, if this information was in 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
3049. In sum, our review of Apple, Broadcom et al’s San Francisco Monte Carlo simulation 
examining the potential for VLP device interaction with microwave links and the similar Apple 
simulation for Houston provide a solid basis for concluding that VLP devices can coexist with incumbent 
services in the 6 GHz band with an insignificant potential for causing harmful interference.  In fact, as 
noted, we believe that the assumptions and thus, the results, err on the side of caution, are conservative, 
and overestimate the potential for any given VLP device to exceed -6 dB I/N.  The worst case operating 
scenario occurs when the VLP device is in the main beam of a microwave receiver, at close distance, 
operating co-channel to the microwave receiver, and not significantly attenuated by terrain, body loss, or 
blocked by buildings, which is an event that the simulations show will be a rare occurrence.
2. Power Level for VLP Devices
50. The computer simulations show virtually no impact on the microwave links even for VLP 
devices operating at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD—the Houston and San Francisco simulations indicate that a -
6 dB I/N event occurs only at either 0.06% or 0.003% of the time, respectively.  The San Francisco results 
show an identical outcome for VLP devices transmitting at -5 dBm/MHz PSD and for the Houston 
simulations, a slight decrease in occurrences that -6 dB I/N may be exceeded.  Thus, as a conservative 
initial approach for permitting VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz 
band, we will limit them to a maximum of -5 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP and 14 dBm EIRP at this time.  We 
believe the conservative nature of the analyses resulting in extremely low probabilities for exceeding -6 
dB I/N justify this approach which balances the need to provide enough power for VLP devices to ensure 
manufacturers can provide useful devices with the requirement to protect licensed incumbent operations 
from harmful interference.  This approach recognizes, as pointed out by licensed incumbents, that there 
are locations where VLP devices operating at these power levels could result in a signal with I/N ratios 
that may exceed -6 dB I/N.242  However, Apple, Broadcom, et. al. and Broadcom argue that the risk of 
exceeding that interference protection criterion is low at even higher power levels.  Therefore, we believe 
that it is appropriate to be conservative at this time and permit the VLP devices to operate at no more than 
-5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.  We also limit total EIRP to no more than 14 dBm consistent with Apple, 
Broadcom, et al. and other VLP proponents’ comments.243  While there may be some worst case locations 
where harmful interference is possible, we find the overall risk insignificant.  In addition, because (i) we 
are concluding that VLP devices can operate at -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD with an insignificant potential of 
causing harmful interference to incumbent operations, and (ii) VLP devices are inherently mobile, 
communications between two VLP devices present no more harmful interference risk than a VLP device 
communicating with an access point.  Thus, we will permit VLP devices operating at this PSD level to 
directly communicate with each other.  We examine in the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking additional steps that we could take to provide additional power or operating flexibility to 
VLP devices.  However, given that no VLP devices have yet to be deployed, we believe limiting 
operation to no more than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD is appropriate at this time.  Given the conservative 
PSD limit we are adopting, we are confident that the harmful interference risk is insignificant.
51. Southern Company cautions that to the extent the Commission is relying on computer 
simulations to inform its decisions for the 6 GHz band, it should require the underlying algorithms used 
by the simulation to be disclosed to all stakeholders consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement 
ULS for a particular link.  However, obtaining this information for the different radios and integrating it into the 
simulation would have been complex.  We do not believe the approach taken detracted from the accuracy of the 
simulation results given that they have used reasonable values for noise figure and feeder loss.
242 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 9; Southern Company July 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.
243 Apple, Broadcom, et al. Aug. 26, 2022 Ex Parte at 1; Public Interest Spectrum Coalition Aug. 6, 2023 Ex Parte 
at 3; Wi-Fi Alliance May 18, 2023 Ex Parte at 19.  -5 dBm/MHz PSD equates to 8 dBm maximum total power in a 
20 megahertz bandwidth channel, 11 dBm in a 40 megahertz bandwidth channel, and 14 dBm in 80 megahertz or 
greater bandwidth channels.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
31on spectrum management.244  The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) et al. express similar views, arguing 
that 6 GHz band unlicensed use proponents relied on simulation information that is not reproducible by 
any party and that others have not been given the opportunity to review or fully understand the data and 
simulation methodology.245  In addition to echoing these views, AT&T suggests that the Commission 
should require the simulation code to be released consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement and 
the practices of NTIA, which released similar software for evaluation of 3.1 GHz network deployments.246  
AT&T claims that requiring the simulation authors to produce their source code would allow the public to 
reproduce the simulation results and investigate other scenarios to ensure that interference is correctly 
modeled and explore variations that inform the Commission of relevant risk.247  Both AT&T and Southern 
Company also criticize the Commission for not conducting its own computer simulations and instead 
relying on those submitted by interested parties.248
52. While Apple Broadcom et al. and Apple have not made their simulation code or the 
resulting raw data produced by the simulations publicly available, we believe that they have provided 
sufficient information for knowledgeable engineers to understand the algorithms and models used in the 
simulations.249  Both Apple, Broadcom et al. for the San Francisco simulation and Apple for the Houston 
simulation provided filings detailing the significant simulation assumptions.250  Apple has indicated that 
its simulation was prepared using the widely available and well understood SEAMCAT Monte Carlo 
simulation tool,251 while Apple, Broadcom et al. indicated that its simulation was implemented using the 
C++ programming language using well-established Monte Carlo simulation techniques.252  Through these 
filings to the record, we believe that Apple, Broadcom et al. and Apple have provided enough technical 
details that engineers experienced in radio propagation modeling and coexistence analysis would be able 
to conduct identical simulations and obtain consistent results.253  Furthermore, we observe that it is 
244 Southern Company Aug. 24, 2023 Ex Parte at 1; Southern Company Oct. 10, 2023 Ex Parte at 1-2.
245 Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) et al. April 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.
246 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 7-8.
247 Id. at 8.
248 AT&T Oct. 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 2; Southern Company Oct. 10, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.  UTC suggests that, because 
proponents of 6 GHz unlicensed devices made, in its view, material misrepresentations concerning the duty cycles 
of LPI devices at an earlier stage of this proceeding, the Commission cannot reasonably rely on simulations that 
proponents of unlicensed use presented at this stage of the proceeding.  UTC Oct. 12, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.  We 
disagree.  The alleged misrepresentations do not directly relate to the accuracy of the San Francisco and Houston 
simulations.  Furthermore, the simulations discussed here were made and submitted to the record by different 
parties.  As discussed in paragraph 49, it is our independent judgment that the San Francisco and Houston 
simulations in the present record appear to be a valid basis for concluding that VLP devices may only present an 
insignificant potential for causing harmful interference to microwave receivers based on conservative assumptions.
249 AT&T seems to be advocating that we mandate that all parties providing simulations be required to provide their 
source code based on one instance of another government agency, NTIA, providing the public with code that it 
developed.  The Commission would need to develop a more robust record before adopting such a policy.  
250 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8-9; Apple February 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 9-13.  
251 Apple February 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 8.  SEAMCAT – Spectrum Engineering Advanced Monte Carlo Analysis 
Tool allows statistical modelling of different radio interference scenarios for performing coexistence studies 
between wireless systems operating in overlapping or adjacent frequency bands.  The software is maintained by the 
European Communications Office (ECO) and is distributed free of charge at https://www.cept.org/eco/eco-tools-
and-services/seamcat-spectrum-engineering-advanced-monte-carlo-analysis-tool.
252 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023, Ex Parte at 4-5; Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 
10.
253 As AT&T points out, the initial simulation filings did not include a few parameters that would need to be 
disclosed to reproduce the simulations, such as the area in which the VLP devices were deployed in the Houston 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
32noteworthy that no opponents of VLP deployment have conducted their own simulations to confirm or 
refute the results.254  The Commission has no statutory obligation to “conduct or commission [its] own 
empirical or statistical studies.”255  We therefore conclude that the results presented in the filings are 
adequate to inform our decision.  Our decision to authorize VLP devices will encourage innovative 
methods of using the 6 GHz band and we are exercising our technical judgment in relying on the 
simulations from Apple, Broadcom et al. and Apple in reaching this decision.256  We note that parties 
opposing our LPI rules raised a similar concern in a challenge to our 6 GHz Order in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding a computer simulation conducted by 
CableLabs on which the Commission relied.257  The court rejected that challenge noting that “requiring 
agencies to obtain and publicize the data underlying all studies on which they rely would be impractical 
and unnecessary.”258  In accordance with this established precedent, we find that Apple, Broadcom et al. 
and Apple provided ample information on the record such that any interested party could undertake 
similar analyses and that opponents’ challenge on this point is meritless.
53.Fade margin infringement.  FWCC expresses a strong opinion that unlicensed devices 
should not be permitted to infringe on the fade margin of microwave links.  According to FWCC, the 
microwave systems “are entitled to enjoy the benefits of the fade margin which is built into their system 
designs at considerable cost to enhance reliability by maintaining communications through atmospheric 
fades.”259  FWCC claims that it has “shown that interference from unlicensed (RLAN) operations will cut 
into the fade margin and leave FS systems vulnerable to data loss and outages.”260  FWCC believes it 
would be “bad policy” for the Commission to permit even occasional failures caused by unlicensed 
devices to high reliability microwave links, many of which carry safety-critical services.261  FWCC claims 
that because adding fade margin is expensive, system designers build only the necessary minimum, with a 
simulation and the noise figure and feeder loss used for microwave links when this information was not available in 
the Commission’s database for the San Francisco simulation.  AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 10-11.  Apple and 
Apple, Broadcom, and Meta subsequently provided this information.  Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 3; Apple, 
Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.  Apple Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 3; Apple, Broadcom, and 
Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.  UTC “disagrees with the Commission that the simulations can be replicated 
without the underlying data and algorithms” and “request[s] that the Commission require disclosure of this 
information.”  UTC Oct. 12, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.  We note that in making this assertion UTC does not explain what 
would prevent replication of the simulations or describe what information is lacking.  Consequently, we see no 
reason to change our conclusion that knowledgeable engineers can replicate the simulations.
254 AT&T complains that “if these study results can be replicated without significant efforts, the Draft 6 GHz Order 
fails to explain why the FCC’s own engineers did not conduct their own simulations . . .”  AT&T Oct. 11, 2023 Ex 
Parte at 2.  We are not claiming that conducting such simulations is a simple task as AT&T implies.  Rather, we 
recognize the complexity and are stating our conclusion that both Apple Broadcom et al. and Apple have provided 
sufficient information for others to reproduce the simulations.
255 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1160 (2021).
256 See NTCH, Inc. v. FCC, 950 F.3d 871, 879-80 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (stating that “when the Commission acts to foster 
innovative methods of exploiting the spectrum, it functions as a policymaker to which [the court] afford[s] the 
greatest deference” (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 880 (stating that the court “will accept the 
Commission’s technical judgments when supported with even a modicum of reasoned analysis, absent highly 
persuasive evidence to the contrary,” and that “the Commission’s predictive judgments within its field of discretion 
and expertise are entitled to particularly deferential review, as long as they are reasonable” (internal quotation marks 
and brackets omitted)).
257 AT&T Servs., Inc. v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841 at 847 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
258 Id. at 848 (quoting Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
259 FWCC April 13, 2020 Ex Parte at 2; see also AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 6-7.
260 FWCC April 13, 2020 Ex Parte at 2.
261 FWCC Oct. 31, 2019 Ex Parte at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
33small safety margin, and that any unlicensed interference that encroaches into a microwave link’s fade 
margin will reduce the link reliability.262
54. As the Commission stated in the 6 GHz Order, it “is not required to refrain from 
authorizing services or unlicensed operations whenever there is any possibility of harmful 
interference.”263  Instead, “the Commission may authorize operations in a manner that reduces the 
possibility of harmful interference to the minimum that the public interest requires, and it will then 
authorize the service or unlicensed use to the extent that such authorization is otherwise in the public 
interest.”264  There is no prohibition in either previous Commission decisions or legal precedents on the 
Commission adopting rules that permit VLP devices to occasionally infringe upon the fade margins of 
microwave links.265  Instead, the Commission’s responsibility is to ensure that the operation of the VLP 
devices might only impose an insignificant risk of harmful interference occurring to the microwave links 
to the minimum that the public interest requires.266  We believe based on the computer simulations, which 
take into account both the technical characteristics of actual microwave links and reasonable technical 
assumptions for VLP devices, that our decision is within the bounds of this principle.  Furthermore, 
noting that the 6 GHz band is populated by both microwave licensees representing commercial and public 
safety interests, we observe that there is no appreciable difference between the systems operated by those 
different entities and find that the rules we are adopting protect both commercial and public safety 
microwave systems in a comparable manner.  Finally, we reiterate that in its recent Policy Statement, the 
Commission noted that “zero risk of occasional service degradation or interruption cannot be guaranteed” 
whether from natural events or other spectrum users.267
3. Fixed Infrastructure Prohibition
55. As suggested by Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Meta, we are prohibiting VLP devices 
from operating as part of a fixed outdoor infrastructure.268  We note that no commenters have opposed us 
adopting this prohibition.  This measure is being adopted as an additional means of protecting incumbent 
operations to ensure that all VLP devices are subject to body and/or clutter loss, to add additional 
assurance that the simulation assumption that most outdoor devices will operate at 1.5 m above ground 
level is correct, and to force all devices to be itinerant consistent with the VLP devices simulated in the 
262 Id. at 3, 14.
263 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3907, para. 146.
264 Id.
265 See, e.g., Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 234 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (recognizing longstanding 
Commission interpretation of section 301 “to allow the unlicensed operation of a device that emits radio frequency 
energy as long as it does not ‘transmit[ ] enough energy to have a significant potential for causing harmful 
interference’ to licensed radio operators”) (quoting Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra–
Wideband Transmission Systems, 19 FCC Rcd 24558, 24589 & n.179 (2004)); Amendment of Part 15 of the 
Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz 
Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37 et al., Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9551, 9562-64, paras. 28-31 
(2015) (authorizing expanded unlicensed operations of fixed white space devices where potential of causing harmful 
interference to TV reception would be minimized, while still providing increased opportunities for the provision of 
unlicensed service); Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access 
Broadband over Power Line Systems; Carrier Current Systems, Including Broadband over Power Line Systems, 
Second Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 15712, 15719-20, paras.  (2011) (establishing “a regime of rules for Access 
BPL systems that will provide a robust environment for the development and deployment of this important new 
technology option for delivery of broadband internet/data services while at the same time minimizing the potential 
for interference to licensed services caused by leakage from power lines of the RF energy used by BPL 
transmissions,” despite “some potential for increased harmful interference from BPL operations”).
266 Id.
267 Policy Statement at 2, para. 5 (emphasis omitted); accord id. at 6-7, paras. 15-17.
268 Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Meta July 25, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
34Monte Carlo analyses.  Thus, VLP devices will be prohibited from attaching to outdoor infrastructure, 
such as poles or buildings, that would make any instances of potential interference more than fleeting.  In 
addition, device mobility results in devices, even if remaining in a general location, constantly changing 
their orientation due to even subtle body movements.  Such movements can result in widely varying VLP 
signal levels in any given direction.  Thus, the maximum VLP signal level, which is likely to be less than 
the maximum our rules permit for a device in the worst-case location and operating co-channel to a 
microwave system, may only be oriented toward a microwave receiver for a short period of time, which 
also serves to keep the potential for causing harmful interference to a minimum.
4. Transmit Power Control Requirement
56. We are adopting a requirement that VLP devices employ a transmit power control 
mechanism that has the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD level 
permitted for VLP devices.  Both computer simulations, which we have concluded are the best evidence 
that the potential for VLP devices to cause harmful interference is insignificant, assume that VLP devices 
would operate with a transmit power control mechanism with a range up to 6 dB and a mean power 
reduction of 3 dB.269  To ensure that actual VLP devices operate consistent with the simulations on which 
we are relying, we adopt this provision to provide confidence that such devices do indeed operate using 
transmit power control.  We are not placing any specific requirements in our rules as to how the VLP 
device transmit power control algorithm will function, but proof of such functionality must be provided 
with a device’s application for equipment certification.  We do not expect that placing this transmit power 
control requirement will present an undue burden on device manufacturers as such functionality is 
routinely included in battery-powered device design to conserve battery power.  In this connection, 
Broadcom states that transmit power control is enabled in 100% of its portable products.270  In addition, 
Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Meta jointly suggested that the Commission adopt a VLP device transmit 
power control requirement that would require such devices to reduce their PSD by 3 dB on average.271  
No commenters have opposed us mandating that VLP devices employ a transmit power control 
mechanism.  While AT&T advocates that any limitation on VLP device use that was assumed in the 
computer simulations, such as average power due to transmit power control, should be subject to a 
specific rule,272 we note that we are adopting a rule requiring VLP devices to have transmit power control 
capability to reduce power by at least 6 dB.  While the exact power distribution that VLP devices will use 
is unknown at this time, we believe this requirement is reasonable given the diversity in propagation 
environments in which VLP will operate.
5. Equipment Compliance and Enforcement Matters
57. Consistent with the requirements for most other unlicensed transmitters, we require 6 
GHz VLP transmitters to be approved under the Commission's certification procedure.273  This procedure 
requires that the equipment be tested by an accredited laboratory and approved by a designated 
Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) to ensure that the equipment complies with all 
requirements that we are adopting, e.g., maximum power (EIRP and PSD), transmit power control, 
contention based protocol, which are designed to ensure that the risk of harmful interference to licensed 
incumbent services is insignificant.274  As a general matter, only 6 GHz VLP devices certified as 
compliant by a TCB will be permitted to be imported into and marketed and operated within the United 
269 Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 2, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple Feb. 23, 2023 Ex Parte at 11.
270 Broadcom July 6, 2022 Ex Parte at 4.
271 Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta July 25, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
272 AT&T Aug. 29 2023 Ex Parte at 6.
273 47 CFR § 15.201(b).
274 47 CFR §§ 2.907, 2.962.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
35States.275
58. For reasons discussed throughout this Report and Order, we are confident that the risk of 
harmful interference to licensed incumbent services is insignificant, based on the VLP technical rules 
adopted herein and on the compliance measures in place under our equipment authorization rules.  We 
also emphasize that 6 GHz VLP devices, like other part 15 devices, are not permitted to cause harmful 
interference and that any such interference is actionable for enforcement purposes.276  Section 15.5(b) of 
the Commission’s rules provides that “[o]peration of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is 
subject to the condition[] that no harmful interference is caused.”277  In the unlikely event that harmful 
interference does occur due to VLP operations, section 15.5(c) of the Commission’s rules provides that 
“[t]he operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon 
notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference,” even if the 
device in use was properly certified and configured, and that “[o]peration shall not resume until the 
condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.”278  Although UTC asks the Commission 
to “propose processes and procedures for the identification, reporting and resolution of interference from 
unlicensed operations as part of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,”279 we already have 
processes and procedures in place under which the Enforcement Bureau investigates complaints of 
harmful interference and takes appropriate enforcement action, as necessary.280  These processes and 
procedures have been effective in identifying and resolving harmful interference to licensed operations in 
other situations and are available for use in the 6 GHz band as well.281
275 47 CFR §§ 2.1204(a), 2.803(b), 15.201(b).  Sections 2.1204 and 2.803 provide certain limited exceptions to the 
equipment authorization requirement for radiofrequency devices being imported into or marketed within the United 
States, but devices marketed to and operated by the general public require equipment authorization, e.g., 
certification.
276 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3909, para. 149 (“[O]nce interference to a protected service crosses the relevant 
threshold specified in section 15.3(m) for harmful interference, it is immediately actionable for enforcement 
purposes.”); see also 47 CFR § 15.3(m) (defining “harmful interference” as “[a]ny emission, radiation or induction 
that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, 
obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter”).
277 Id. § 15.5(b).
278 Id. § 15.5(c).
279 UTC Oct. 12, 2023 Ex Parte at 3; see also AT&T Oct. 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that “primary [Fixed 
Service] incumbents will be left with no pragmatic recourse for redress” of harmful interference from unlicensed 6 
GHz devices, including VLP devices).
280 See 47 CFR §§ 0.311, 0.111(a)(4) (stating that a function of the Enforcement Bureau is to “[r]esolve complaints 
regarding radiofrequency interference and complaints regarding radiofrequency equipment and devices”).  Part of 
the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau web page discusses the investigation and resolution of harmful interference, 
including highlighting the ability of the Enforcement Bureau’s field agents to “us[e] their radio frequency expertise 
and specialized instruments and equipment, including direction-finding equipment, to identify the source of radio 
frequency interference.”  https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/areas/interference-resolution.  In adopting the 6 GHz 
Order, the Commission noted that “Enforcement Bureau field agents use fixed, vehicular-mounted, and portable 
commercial and specialized spectrum monitoring equipment to conduct investigations and carry out interference 
resolution and enforcement activities.”  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3909, para. 149 n.397.  The Commission also 
stated that “[t]he Enforcement Bureau works with entities at the federal, state, county, and local levels of 
government to resolve interference.”  Id.  To further the Enforcement Bureau’s efforts to resolve any occurrences of 
harmful interference, the Commission established an online, user-friendly “Radio Frequency Service Interference 
Complaint Portal” for the submission of radio interference complaints by, among others, public safety, commercial, 
and federal entities.  https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/psix-esix.
281 See, e.g., Victor Rosario, Brooklyn, New York, 11229, EB-FIELDNER-17-00025658, Notification of Harmful 
Interference, 2018 WL 923275, at *1 (EB Feb. 15, 2018) (stating that, in response to a complaint from T-Mobile 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
3659. Parties that believe particular 6 GHz VLP devices are not compliant with the 
Commission’s rules or are causing harmful interference to licensed incumbent services can contact the 
Enforcement Bureau, which will address any rule violations, such as impermissible operations or 
marketing of non-compliant devices, as appropriate.282
6. Cumulative Effect of Different Classes of Unlicensed Devices
60. AT&T contends that 6 GHz unlicensed devices have been modeled under the erroneous 
presumption that each type of device — standard power, LPI, and VLP — can interfere with microwave 
links up to a threshold of -6 dB I/N, but as there is only one -6 dB I/N margin, the modeling must account 
for consumption of that margin by all three types of devices.283  AT&T points out that no computer 
simulation models the combined impact of all these different types of unlicensed devices.284   According 
to AT&T, standard power devices operating under the control of the AFC systems can consume any 
headroom up to the -6 dB I/N interference threshold specified in the rules and that LPI devices were 
justified under this same basis.285  AT&T claims that proponents of VLP devices are justifying these 
devices on an identical basis of being able to generate interference up to the same threshold.286  AT&T 
points to the CEPT computer simulation that addressed 6 GHz devices that did not include standard 
power devices, simulated LPI devices at a lower power level than our rules permit, and only assumed 1% 
of devices located outdoors as illustrating the error in the VLP proponents reasoning.287
61. As we stated above, typical microwave link architecture results in 6 GHz band unlicensed 
devices only presenting a potential interference risk if they are in the microwave antenna’s main beam at 
a close enough distance that a signal of sufficient strength will be received.  The AFC systems that control 
standard power access points’ spectrum access will prevent those devices from operating at locations 
where they present a risk of causing harmful interference.  Therefore, we do not believe that it is 
necessary for unlicensed proponents to provide a study that jointly considers the potential for harmful 
interference from the cumulative effect of standard power devices and other types of unlicensed 6 GHz 
devices.  Regarding VLP and LPI devices, we again point out that Apple’s Monte Carlo analysis for 
devices operating in the Houston areas included results for the additive effect of LPI and VLP devices and 
concluded that the likelihood that there was no material effect on potential microwave degradation due to 
the presence of both the LPI and VLP devices.288
7. Request for Higher Power
62. While supporting comments advocating for a 14 dBm EIRP power level, a subset of VLP 
device advocates point out that allowing even higher power would enable VLP devices to communicate 
with higher order modulation, which would enable higher throughputs and lower latencies and request 
that the Commission authorize up to 21 dBm EIRP.289  They claim that the 14 dBm EIRP power level 
would be insufficient for untethered augmented reality/virtual reality, remote surgery, data center wireless 
flyways, educational applications requiring transmitting high resolution materials, and other demanding 
regarding harmful interference to its 700 MHz LTE network, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s New York 
Office used direction-finding techniques to confirm and resolve the source of the harmful interference).
282 47 CFR §§ 0.311, 0.111(a)(4), 0.314(g).
283 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte 8-9; AT&T March 31, 2022 Ex Parte at 3-4.
284 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte 8.
285 AT&T Reply Comments at 4 (filed July 27, 2020).
286 Id. at 5.
287 Id. at 5-6.
288 Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 17.
289 Apple, Broadcom, Google, Microsoft Comments at 5 (filed June 29, 2020) at 5.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
37applications.290  They point to the computer simulation conducted by RKF to claim that operation at this 
power level would not cause harmful interference to licensed stations.291
63. As these commenters also support the more modest 14 dBm EIRP power level and the 
applications cited are more speculative than those generally cited as other use cases for VLP devices, we 
decline to permit additional power for VLP devices at this time.  We also observe that devices delivering 
many of the cited applications, such as remote surgery, necessitate indoor operation and can be conducted 
under the LPI device rules that already permit more power than we are permitting for VLP devices.  
Much of our decision is based on the computer simulations that are based on a maximum 14 dBm EIRP 
power level.  Due to the undeveloped record on operations with up to aa 21 dBm EIRP, we decline to 
permit VLP devices to operate at greater than 14 dBm EIRP.  We do seek comment, however, in the 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on whether we can, under certain circumstances, increase 
the VLP power level without increasing the harmful interference risk to incumbent operations.
8. Request for Lower Power
64. The Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance expresses concern that VLP devices will radiate 
power uniformly in all directions even though they likely only need the maximum power in a specific 
direction and that this will result in unnecessary interference to other receivers, including other VLP 
devices.292  To address this issue, it suggests that VLP devices meet one of two alternate power limits:  (1) 
a -32 dBm power spectral density with a peak power of 0 dBm;293 or (2) a -8 dBm power spectral density 
that is reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 12 dBi as well as a peak power of 
14 dBm that is reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 7 dB.294  According to the 
UWB Alliance, the use of directional antennas by VLP devices can improve link performance and reduce 
interference.295  The UWB Alliance notes that many VLP device use cases advocates assert require 14 
dBm are currently being served by wideband and ultra-wideband devices at 50 dB less power.296  The 
UWB Alliance also suggests that dynamic transmit power control be required for VLP devices as the 
power needed for on-body locations can vary from nearly free space to over 70 dB.297  Other commenters 
suggest that we only permit VLP if we limit such devices to much lower power than what we proposed.  
Nokia suggests that a -18 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP would minimize the potential for co-channel interference 
to microwave receivers.298  The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) states that VLP devices 
should operate at no more than -15.5 dBm/MHz to be consistent with the Commission’s previous finding 
for unlicensed 6 GHz low-power indoor devices.299  NAB arrives at this number by subtracting the 20.5 
dB building entry loss assumed in the Commission’s low-power indoor analysis in the 6 GHz Order from 
the adopted 5 dBm/MHz PSD level for low-power indoor access points.300  AT&T points out that because 
VLP devices are mobile, they are analogous to LPI client devices that operate at -1 dBm/MHz indoors, 
which means VLP devices are operating at an outdoor power level that is effectively hundreds of times 
290 Id. at 5-6.
291 Id. at 7-8.
292 Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance Comments at 9-10 (filed June 29, 2020).
293 Although not explicitly stated, we believe the intended reference bandwidth for the power spectral density is 
1 megahertz.
294 Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance Comments at 10 (filed June 29, 2020).
295 Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance Reply at 7-8 (filed July 27, 2020).
296 Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance Reply at 10 (filed July 27, 2020).
297 Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance Comments at 12 (filed June 29, 2020).
298 Nokia Comments at 3 (filed June 29, 2020).
299 NAB Oct. 30, 2020 Ex Parte at 3.
300 NAB March 4, 2021 Ex Parte at 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
38greater when adjusted for the assumed 20.5 dB building entry loss.301
65. While several commenters request that we only permit VLP devices to operate at lower 
power, for the reasons already articulated we decline to do so.  First, we conclude based on the computer 
simulations that VLP device operation at -5 dBm/MHz PSD will only pose an insignificant risk of 
harmful interference to incumbent operations.  Additionally, we appreciate the UWB Alliance’s concern 
for improving spectrum efficiency and reducing the potential for interference by proposing rules that 
would incentivize the use of directional antennas.  However, we agree with Apple, Broadcom et al. that 
directional antennas are likely infeasible for small form factor portable devices, particularly when the 
device’s orientation is constantly changing.302  We do not believe that it would be appropriate to adopt 
rules that would likely make it impractical to manufacture devices for many of the proposed VLP use 
cases, such as small portable body-worn devices.  As for the UWB Alliance’s suggestion to require 
dynamic transmit power control, as explained above, we are adopting such a requirement on VLP devices.  
Second, we do not believe that tying the power level for VLP devices to the power levels for low-power 
indoor devices, as NAB and AT&T suggests, is appropriate, given the fundamental differences between 
these device classes.  VLP devices will inherently be mobile rather than stationary like LPI access points, 
have smaller form factors, less efficient antennas due to the small form factors, and operate at low power 
levels to conserve battery.  Finally, as we specified in the 6 GHz Order, ultra-wideband and wideband 
devices operate under Part 15 unlicensed rules, and providing specific accommodations would effectively 
provide those devices with a level of interference protection to which they are not entitled.303  
Consequently, we believe that the -5 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP and maximum 14 dBm EIRP are appropriate 
and will result in widespread coexistence within the 6 GHz band among the various devices that operate 
there.  Thus, we are not persuaded to reduce VLP device utility by artificially restricting their power 
levels to even lower levels.
9. VLP Devices and the AFC
66. Many microwave incumbents advocate that VLP devices should be required to use an 
AFC system to control spectrum access based on their potential to cause harmful interference to 
microwave receivers.304  AT&T claims that the only rationale for not requiring VLP devices to operate 
under AFC control is that either they cannot be located or they will not be connected to a network that can 
establish a connection to an AFC system.305  AT&T points out that the suggested use cases for VLP 
devices require network connections and that filings in the record have indicated that accurate geolocation 
for indoor devices is both possible and effective.306  According to AT&T,VLP devices should be limited 
to ultra-wideband device power levels unless AFC control is also required.307  Cisco et al. respond that 
there are significant costs to develop, deploy, and update AFC-controlled devices, including geolocation 
requirements, additional installation requirements, support for the AFC-to-device protocol, changes to the 
radio resource management algorithm, and updates to the user interface.308  AT&T casts doubt on these 
claims, asserting that there is no increased cost to implement those features, that the AFC systems are 
already developed for standard power devices, that the suggested use cases for VLP devices involve 
301 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 6.
302 Apple, Broadcom et al. Reply at 29 (filed July 27, 2020).
303 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3939, para. 219.
304 E.g., AT&T Comments at 11 (filed June 29, 2020); UTC et al. Comments at 6-7 (filed June 29, 2020); Edison 
Electric Institute Comments at 10 (filed June 29, 2020); Century Link Comments at 4 (filed June 29, 2020).
305 AT&T Sept. 9, 2022 Ex Parte at 2.
306 Id. (citing Ex Parte filings by HP Enterprise on July 28, 2022 and Apple on Aug. 17. 2022 and Apple Comments 
filed on June 29, 2020).
307 AT&T Comments at 11 (filed June 29, 2020).
308 Cisco Systems, Extreme Networks, HP Enterprise, Juniper Networks Oct. 13, 2022 Ex Parte at 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
39geolocation capabilities, and that there are no examples of changes needed to user interface, installation 
cost, or device operational management requirements.309  AT&T also suggests that VLP advocates have 
failed to even roughly quantify the costs and balance them against the benefit of protecting incumbents 
through a proper cost/benefit analysis.310  Apple, Broadcom, and Meta claim that communications with an 
AFC system, device location reporting, and the hardware and software needed to support these functions 
would needlessly consume a VLP device’s power and system resources and points out that existing 
standard-power device rules do not allow portable operations.311
67. As we conclude that the risk of harmful interference from VLP devices operating at 
-5 dBm/MHz is insignificant, the use of AFC systems to control spectrum access by VLP devices is 
unnecessary.  Thus, we see no reason to impose such a requirement on VLP devices.  While there is 
dispute on the record as to how much it would cost to impose AFC control on VLP devices, there clearly 
is some cost to imposing such a requirement without a requisite benefit.  Furthermore, there will likely be 
some VLP devices, such as laptop computers that do not have geolocation capabilities and requiring such 
devices to operate under AFC control would limit the utility of the VLP rules.312  In addition, neither the 
standard power or LPI rules support the highly mobile applications envisioned for VLP devices as LPI 
devices are limited to indoor locations utilizing access points that are supplied power by a wired 
connection while standard power access points may not be mobile.313  We do note that consistent with 6 
GHz low-power indoor unlicensed devices as well as all client devices, we will require VLP devices to 
include a contention-based protocol which will act to avoid channels on which incumbent systems are 
actively transmitting.
68. We also note that AT&T clearly mischaracterizes the Apple, Broadcom, Google and 
Meta filing regarding exclusion zones for AFC devices.314  In this filing, Apple, Broadcom, Google, and 
Meta make no statement regarding the burden of adding an AFC or exclusion zone capability to VLP 
devices.  Instead, the parties, in response to questions from OET, explain how the Commission could 
ensure the VLP exclusion zones would be no larger than an AFC system would have calculated for the 
same device power level and that the Commission should avoid prescriptive rules requiring specific 
geolocation accuracy or re-check periods for devices in motion.315
10. Link Budget Analysis
69. As discussed in more detail below, a number of commenters submitted link budget 
analyses that they claim show that harmful interference will result from VLP device operation.  
According to CTIA, an earlier simulation presented by Apple, Broadcom et al. demonstrates that a single 
device-emitter scenario is the primary interference event for VLP operation.316  CTIA claims that a link 
budget is a better analytic tool for analyzing interference from a single device than a computer simulation 
in order to deterministically assess whether the device is causing interference.317  Southern Company also 
claims that the appropriate way to model the potential interaction between VLP devices and microwave 
309 AT&T Dec. 19, 2022 Ex Parte at 11.
310 Id.
311 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.
312 AT&T Dec. 19, 2022 Ex Parte at 3 (“VLP versions of other internet devices that are not body-worn can and will 
be developed . . . .”).
313 47 CFR § 15.403; 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3929 para. 207.
314 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 2-3.
315 Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta July 26, 2023 Ex Parte at 1-2.
316 CTIA Reply at 11 (filed July 27, 2020).
317 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
40incumbents is through a link budget analysis.318  Southern Company states that as VLP device deployment 
reaches millions of devices or higher, an analysis that uses duty cycle or computer simulations becomes 
irrelevant due to the high probability that enough units will be transmitting at the same time co-channel 
with a microwave receiver.319
70. We disagree with CTIA, Southern, and others regarding the utility of link budget analysis 
in driving our decision regarding VLP devices.  In determining whether to permit VLP devices to operate 
in the 6 GHz band, the controlling factor is the potential risk that VLP devices could cause harmful 
interference to microwave links.  This is a function not just of the received power level from a VLP 
device at a “worst-case” location, but also of the likelihood that a device will be at the location at the 
same time that a severe enough atmospheric multipath fade occurs to overcome the microwave link’s fade 
margin.  This question is not one that a link budget analysis alone can answer.  A link budget provides a 
calculation of the power received at a receiver at one instant of time based on deterministic quantities for 
quantities such as transmitted power level, propagation loss, antenna gain, polarization loss, feeder loss, 
etc.  Such an analysis does not take into account probabilistic quantities such as multipath fading or the 
likelihood of a transmitting device being in a particular location or transmitting co-channel with a 
microwave links.  One important factor that a link budget analysis cannot consider is the fact that, 
because we are prohibiting VLP device use for fixed infrastructure purposes, the VLP devices will be 
mobile and will not remain in potentially problematic locations for significant periods of time.  A 
computer simulation that takes into account the transient nature of VLP use is a better model for 
determining VLP device interference potential as compared to a link budget analysis.  We also disagree 
with Southern Company’s contention regarding the utility of computer simulations as the number of VLP 
devices reach the millions.  In fact, that is exactly what Monte Carlo simulations are designed to analyze, 
especially when each device is subject to multiple probabilistic operating conditions.  The assumptions 
used in the San Francisco simulation to determine the number of simultaneously transmitting devices in 
the San Fransisco area assumed millions of VLP devices present in that area, but that did not mean that all 
these devices were transmitting simultaneously co-channel.  As discussed above, that simulation starts 
with the 13,066,000 people in the San Francisco area and calculates how many VLP devices will be 
simultaneously transmitting outdoors in the area based on assumptions as to how many people are 
outdoors, how many of these people use VLP devices, how many VLP devices are capable of using the 6 
GHz band, how many VLP devices actually use the 6 GHz band, and how many VLP devices are actively 
transmitting at a given moment.320  While the link budget analyses submitted by VLP opponents do not 
convince us to change our decision allowing VLP devices in the 6 GHz band, for completeness we shall 
briefly discuss them.
71. Southern Company and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) submitted identical link budget 
analyses for assumed VLP devices operating at five locations near an actual microwave link in Georgia.321  
These analyses assume that VLP devices operate with a -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.322  In the 6 GHz Order, 
the Commission applied a 5 dB adjustment to the link budget analysis of six real-world examples 
submitted by AT&T to account for the assumed loss for the antenna pattern mismatch between the 
unlicensed LPI device and the microwave antenna.323  As LPI devices and VLP devices will have similar 
antennas, we believe it is appropriate to also adjust the I/N numbers of this link budget analysis by the 
318 Southern Company Comments at 15 (filed June 29, 2020).
319 Id. at 10.
320 See supra para. 35 (citing Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 9).
321 Southern Company Comments at 23-26 (filed June 29, 2020); Edison Electric Institute Comments at 22-24 (filed 
June 29, 2020).
322 Southern Company Comments at 23 (filed June 29, 2020); Edison Electric Institute Comments at 22 (filed June 
29, 2020) .  The analyses used 14 dBm EIRP total power in an 80 megahertz channel, which results in a -5 
dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.  E.g., Southern Company Comments at 26 (filed June 29, 2020).
323 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3900, para. 128.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
41same amount.  When this is done, the resulting I/N at the microwave receiver from a single device at the 
five locations ranged from -12.9 dB to -20.3 dB, which is far below the level that any commenters have 
suggested would constitute harmful interference to 6 GHz incumbent operations.
72. Southern and EEI also present their assessments of the aggregation impact that 10 and 
100 VLP devices operating at the same locations and transmitting simultaneously would have on the I/N 
interference protection criterion.324  Their analyses show that for 10 VLP devices, the I/N levels adjusted 
for 5 dB antenna pattern mismatch ranged from -2.9 dB to -10.3 dB and for 100 devices the adjusted I/N 
levels ranged from 7.1 dB to -0.3 dB.325  While these results indicate it may be theoretically possible for 
the aggregate emissions from multiple VLP devices to cause harmful interference to a microwave link, a 
link budget analysis gives no indication of the likelihood of such an occurrence.  For such interference to 
actually occur, all of these VLP devices would have to be located within the main beam of the microwave 
at a close enough distance and actually transmitting co-channel with the microwave link at the same 
instant.  Furthermore, this would have to occur at the same time that a sufficiently deep atmospheric 
multipath fade is occurring.  As the Monte Carlo simulations show, the probability that one device could 
be in the position to result in an I/N over -6 dB is extremely low.  The likelihood that multiple devices 
would be in such a position at the same time is even lower.  Hence, we believe that using a Monte Carlo 
simulation is more appropriate for examining aggregate interference than using a link budget approach.
73. Nokia submitted a VLP link budget analysis for devices operating in buildings directly 
beneath a microwave receiver and at street level within line-of-sight to a 6 GHz microwave receiver.326  
Based on this analysis, Nokia concludes that a power limit for VLP devices “on the lower side of the 
power range considered by the Commission, e.g. 4 dBm EIRP (-18 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP), would 
minimize the potential for co-channel interference” to a microwave receiver based on maintaining a -6 dB 
I/N ratio.327  However, we note that the Nokia analysis does not include two factors that the Commission 
included in its LPI device analysis.  Specifically, Nokia does not include a 5 dB loss to account for 
RLAN/FS antenna pattern mismatch between unlicensed devices and microwave receivers nor a 2 dB 
microwave receiver feeder line loss.328  When accounting for these additional 7 dB of losses, Nokia’s 
suggested -18 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD rises to -11 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.  While Nokia concludes that the 
I/N ratio may exceed -6 dB, which in itself is not an indication that harmful interference will occur, as 
detailed below, we continue to believe that Monte Carlo analysis rather than a static link budget analysis 
provides a more realistic indication of the potential for devices to cause harmful interference.
74. CTIA submitted a link budget analysis showing the interference potential that VLP 
devices could have on five “real-world” microwave links.329  This analysis makes a number of 
assumptions which we do not find appropriate.  Most significantly, CTIA’s analysis assumes free space 
propagation rather than using one of the propagation models the Commission used in its analysis when 
324  Southern Company Comments at 23-26 (filed June 29, 2020); Edison Electric Institute Comments at 22-24 (filed 
June 29, 2020).
325 Southern Company Comments at 26.  While Southern Co. and EEI’s analysis includes 4.5 dB of body loss, the 
San Francisco and Houston computer simulations used a body loss distribution with a mean of 4 dB.  Edison 
Electric Institute Comments at 22; Southern Company Comments at 26; Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex 
Parte at 8; Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 10.
326 Nokia Comments Technical App. (filed June 29, 2020).
327 Nokia Comments at 3, Technical App. at 1, 3, 6 (filed June 29, 2020).
328 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3900, para. 128, tbl. 5; Nokia Comments Technical Appendix at 2-6 (filed June 29, 
2020).  Because the Nokia analysis is a link budget analysis of the same type of microwave antennas the 
Commission examined in its LPI analysis and the VLP antennas are likely to have similar antenna patterns, these 
same assumptions are appropriate for use in adjusting Nokia’s results.
329 CTIA Reply Attach: 6 GHz VLP Interference (filed July 27, 2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
42adopting the LPI rules.330  As the Commission explained in the 6 GHz Order, while the free space path 
loss may be appropriate for short distances it drastically underpredicts path loss for longer distances 
because, as a practical matter, there is almost always interaction with the environment that reduces the 
signal level below the free space level.331  For this reason the Commission in the 6 GHz Order relied on 
either the WINNER II or ITM models rather than using free space when conducting link budget 
analysis.332  CTIA’s analysis uses a cumulative distribution function from the body loss measurement 
study that Apple, Broadcom et al. submitted that has a mean body loss of 8 dB rather than a mean of 4 dB 
that we believe is more appropriate.333  It also assumes that VLP devices transmit at -8 dBm/MHz.334  
CTIA’s analysis reached a conclusion that the I/N for the five links ranged from 9-16.1 dB.335 
75. As already noted, we believe that Monte Carlo analysis is the most appropriate method 
for evaluating the potential for VLP devices to exceed -6 dB I/N.  Although these link budget analyses 
provided by commenters concluded that in some instances the I/N caused by a VLP device could exceed 
that interference protection criterion, these analyses suffer from one of the same fundamental flaws as the 
AT&T link budget analysis that the Commission rejected in the 6 GHz Order—that is, they rely on worst-
case scenarios that overstate the potential for harmful interference.336  For example, as previously noted, 
Southern and EEI submitted link budget analyses which assumed that all VLP devices are operating in 
locations within the main beam of the antenna.  Nokia submitted a link budget analysis in which it 
similarly assumed that VLP devices were operating either in buildings directly beneath a microwave 
receiver and at street level within line-of-sight to a 6 GHz microwave receiver.  Furthermore, all the link 
budget analyses relied on inappropriate assumptions for certain values, such as antenna pattern mismatch, 
feeder line loss, and propagation model.  Moreover, just the mere possibility that under certain 
circumstances and in certain locations an I/N may rise to a level greater than -6 dB I/N does not translate 
to any certainty that harmful interference will occur; several other independent factors must also 
simultaneously occur and the probability of those events occurring is sufficiently low to lead us to our 
conclusion that based on the analyses in the record, VLP devices can coexist with incumbent operations 
in the 6 GHz band with an insignificant risk of causing harmful interference.
11. Interference Studies
76. Several utilities filed field test measurement reports directed at quantifying LPI device 
interference potential on actual microwave receivers.  While the focus of those studies is on LPI devices 
that are located indoors, some of the results do have implications for understanding the potential for VLP 
devices to cause harmful interference.  CTIA and Southern Company jointly conducted field 
measurements using a signal generator to emulate both LPI and VLP devices.337  They took outdoor 
measurements at three locations directly in front of a microwave antenna using an emulated VLP device 
330 Id. at 4; see 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3900, tbl. 5.
331 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3877, para. 67.
332 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3899-00, Tables 4, 5.
333 CTIA Reply Attach: 6 GHz VLP Interference at 2-3.
334 CTIA assumes a 14 dBm EIRP power level in a 160 megahertz signal bandwidth, which results in a PSD of 
-8 dBm/MHz.  Id. at 6.
335 CTIA Reply Attach: 6 GHz VLP Interference at 6 (filed July 27, 2020).
336 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3897-901, paras. 123-30.  In AT&T Services, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the 
Commission’s rejection of the AT&T link budget analysis and noted that “because the AT&T study uses worst-case 
scenarios, it does not ‘rebut the persuasive showing by CableLabs’ [in its Monte Carlo analysis] that the likelihood 
of harmful interference is insignificant.”  21 F.4th at 849-50 (quoting 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3901, para. 
130)).
337 Letter from Jennifer L. Oberhausen, Director of Regulatory Affairs; Doug Hyslop, VP of Technology and 
Spectrum Planning,  CTIA , to Marlene H.- Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 4 (  Nov. 13, 2020) (on file in ET Docket No. 
18-295) (6 GHz Field Test Report).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
43operating with 11 dBm EIRP in a 80 megahertz wide channel, which corresponds to -8 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD.338  They made measurements when the device was operating with a 30% activity factor and a 100% 
activity factor.339  They claim that the emulated VLP device reduced the microwave link fade margin 
between 5.2 dB and 10.9 dB.340
77. For its test, Evergy used a commercially purchased LPI access point located within a 
school classroom, which was located directly in the main beam of a microwave receiver 1.3 miles 
away.341  When the access point was placed in the classroom window, the microwave receiver I/N ratio 
was 24.5 dB for a high data rate transmission.342  Because this test used an LPI device, it could have been 
transmitting at 5 dBm/MHz rather than the -5 dBm/MHz we are permitting for VLP devices.  When the 
I/N ratio is adjusted to account for the transmit power difference, this still indicates that the I/N could be 
14.5 dB for a VLP device at that location.  Other electric utilities also conducted field test measurements:  
First Energy reports I/N ratios as high as 9.1 dB and Southern Company reports I/N ratios at high as 25.7 
dB.343
78. Apple, Broadcom et al. criticize these field tests for using an indirect methodology to 
measure the reduction in link fade margin and estimating the I/N ratio.344  Apple, Broadcom et al. claim 
the field test methodology is unreliable and produces inconsistent results.345  They also claim that the test 
chose worst-case locations and set the LPI access point parameters to reflect only extreme worst-case 
scenarios with unrealistic data rates.346  NCTA expresses many of the same concerns with the Southern 
Company field test regarding its testing methodology, testing locations, and device activity rates.347  In 
addition, NCTA suggests that the field test should use a metric based on the microwave link’s signal to 
interference-plus-noise ratio S/(I+N) rather than using an I/N ratio or a reduction in fade margin as an 
interference metric as the S/(I+N) ratio would take into account the characteristics of the microwave 
link.348
79. We believe Apple, Broadcom et al. and NCTA express valid points about the field test 
results, especially regarding the testing methodology.  However, as our focus here is on the potential for 
VLP devices to cause harmful interference and the field tests were mainly directed to LPI devices, we 
338 6 GHz Field Test Report at 4.
339 Id.
340 Id. at 12.
341 Wi-Fi 6E and 6 GHz Microwave Testing, Evergy at 2-9, 3-1(filed December 8, 2022).
342 Id. at 4-10.
343 First Energy 6 GHz Additive Interference Study, EPRI at 3-4, 3-5, 3-11, 3-12 (filed by First Energy Oct. 12, 
2022); First Energy 6 GHz Additive Interference Study: Phase 2-Winter, EPRI at 3-4 (filed by First Energy May 9, 
2023); Test Report on the Effects of 6 GHz Unlicensed RLAN Units on Fortson to Columbus Microwave Link, 
Southern Company at 55 (filed June 23, 2021); see also Reliable Operation of 6 GHz Microwave Links, EPRI (filed 
by Ameren Dec. 14, 2021); Impact of Unlicensed use of the 6 GHz Band Summary Report for FCC Filing, Pacific 
Gas and Electric (filed Apr. 25, 2023).
344 Apple, Broadcom et al. Oct 21, 2021 Ex Parte at 7-13; Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 22, 2023 Ex Parte at 8-10, 
23-24; Apple, Broadcom et al. March 9, 2021 Ex Parte at 3-5.
345 Id.
346 Apple, Broadcom et al. Oct 21, 2021 Ex Parte at 13, 30-35; Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 22, 2023 Ex Parte at 4-
8, 19-20.
347 NCTA Feb. 23, 2022 Ex Parte at 7, 10-12.
348 Id. at 4-5.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
44refrain from opining on how representative the tests are of LPI device use.349  As for their connection to 
assessing VLP interference potential, we observe that they too rely on worst-case scenarios that overstate 
the potential for harmful interference and therefore suffer from the same flaw as the link budget analyses 
and as the AT&T study that was rejected in the 6 GHz Order.350  The field tests purport to measure the I/N 
ratio at a worst-case location directly within the main beam of a microwave receiver.  Furthermore, as 
these tests do not take into the account the fade margin designed into the microwave link and the 
occurrence of atmospheric multipath fading, they are of limited utility in determining the likelihood that 
the microwave links will actually experience harmful interference from a mobile VLP device, which by 
nature is unlikely to remain at any specific location or in a fixed orientation for a significant interval of 
time.351  Thus, these field tests are not informative with respect to the impact that VLP devices could have 
on microwave link reliability.
12. Chain of Coincidences Rationale
80. AT&T claims that the VLP device proponents make a flawed argument in claiming that 
“a chain of improbable coincidences” is necessary for interference to occur to microwave links and 
“citing indoor use, device positioning, channel overlap, body loss, RLAN antenna gain, transmit power 
control, fade margin and itinerant use.”352  We agree with AT&T to the extent that it intimates that merely 
mentioning each of these factors, claiming each is unlikely, and thus deducing that harmful interference is 
unlikely to occur is of little utility.353  Consequently, while these assertions may have some merit, we did 
not rely on them in reaching our conclusions here.  Instead, our conclusions rely heavily on the San 
Francisco and Houston Monte Carlo simulations, which considered the respective likelihood for different 
factors that could impact interference potential to quantify the overall risk of harmful interference 
occurring to 6 GHz microwave links.  Based on these analyses, we conclude that the risk is insignificant.
B. Fixed Satellite Services
81. The entire 6 GHz band is allocated for the FSS in the Earth-to-space direction.354  
Additionally, portions of the U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands are allocated for FSS space-to-Earth (downlink) 
operations.355  However, there are no licensed downlink earth stations in the U-NII-7 band.  Sirius XM 
and Globalstar were the only FSS operators to file comments in response to the Further Notice, but these 
349 Professor Monisha Ghosh of the University of Notre Dame filed a study of an extensive network of low-power 
indoor access points at the University of Michigan campus as well as a smaller number of access points at Notre 
Dame University.  Monisha Ghosh July 21, 2023 Ex Parte at 5, 17.  The study concluded that signal levels from the 
indoor access points present outside the buildings do not pose any interference risk to licensed incumbents.  Id. at 1.
350 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3897-901, paras. 123-30; see also AT&T Services, Inc., 21 F.4th at 849-50.
351 AT&T points to the results of these test as demonstrating that VLP devices in ordinary locations will cause 
interference to microwave links.  AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 3-4.  We disagree with AT&T’s contention as 
exceedance of a -6 dB I/N ratio in and of itself is not indicative of harmful interference.
352 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 2; see id. at 2-7.
353 AT&T appears to make the opposite mistake in asserting that “the threat of interference should evaluate the 
probability of [VLP] devices being within the main beam [of a microwave receiver] based on real-world 
deployments—with the probability of some [VLP] devices being in that zone at any given time being nearly 
100%”—given the level of VLP device deployment suggested.  AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte at 4.  This ignores 
all the other factors that must occur for harmful interference to occur besides the location of the VLP device.
354 47 CFR § 2.106 footnotes NG172 and 5.458B. The space-to-Earth allocation is limited to use by non-
geostationary mobile-satellite service feeder links and earth stations receiving in this band are limited to locations 
within 300 m of coordinates in Brewster, WA, Clifton, TX, and Finca Pascual, PR. Globalstar also operates earth 
station receive sites at Wasilla, AK and Seabring, FL. These last two locations are authorized to operate on a 
coprimary basis for feeder downlinks for FSS, except for 7.025-7.055 GHz band, where they are authorized only on 
an unprotected basis .
355 47 CFR § 25.214(c)(5).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
45comments were limited to their operations in the U-NII-8 band.356
82. In 6 GHz Order, the Commission concluded that FSS receivers in space would not 
receive harmful interference from either 6 GHz standard power or LPI devices.357  Considering that the 
satellites receiving in the 6 GHz band are limited to geostationary orbits, approximately 35,800 kilometers 
above the equator, the Commission found that it is unlikely the relatively low power unlicensed devices 
would cause harmful interference to the space station receivers.358  The only restriction that the 
Commission adopted to protect the satellite receivers was to require that outdoor standard-power access 
points limit their maximum EIRP above a 30 degree elevation angle to 21 dBm.359  Because VLP devices 
are limited to no more than 14 dBm EIRP, for the same reasons, we conclude that no restrictions on VLP 
devices are necessary to protect FSS Earth-to-space operations.
C. Radio Astronomy Services
83. Incumbent operations in the U-NII-7 band include several radio astronomy observatories, 
located in remote areas, that observe methanol spectral lines between 6.65-6.6752 GHz.360  To protect 
these radio observatories, the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) 
requests that we implement exclusion zones for this band, as listed in Allocation Table footnote US385, if 
VLP devices are able to determine their locations.361  If the devices are not able to determine their 
locations, CORF claims that the radio observatories must be protected by notching out the VLP device’s 
transmissions within this band.362  CORF claims that an individual VLP device operating at -8 dBm/MHz 
could cause a threshold exceedance for spectral line observations in an ITU recommendation at a distance 
of several hundred kilometers.363
84. When we adopted the rules for 6 GHz LPI devices, we did not implement exclusion 
zones or require the LPI devices to notch out the 6.65-6.6752 GHz band.  Because VLP devices will 
operate at an even lower power than LPI devices, we do not expect them to create an interference problem 
for the radio observatories.  We recognize the importance of these observations to the scientific 
community but, as VLP devices will not operate under the control of an AFC system and will not be 
required to have a geolocation capability, we are not able to adopt exclusion zones around these radio 
observatories.364  The radio observatories that receive in the 6 GHz band are in remote locations, and it is 
unlikely that unlicensed VLP devices will be operating nearby.  Furthermore, these observatories can 
restrict such devices from being used at their facilities.  Consequently, we conclude that radio astronomy 
operations will not be subject to harmful interference from unlicensed VLP devices.  Given this 
356 Sirius XM Comments (filed June 29, 2020); Globalstar Reply (filed July 27, 2020).
357 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3886-87, 3916-17, paras. 91-92, 171-72.
358 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3886, para. 91.
359 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3886, para. 92; see 47 CFR § 15.407(a)(4).
360 47 CFR § 2.106 5.458A .  Observation of methanol spectral lines is a significant contributor to research of star 
formation. See Nicolas Clarisse; Anuj P. Sarma, Methanol Masers in Star-Forming Regions (2019), 
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=depaul-disc.  The observatories where such 
research is conducted are Arecibo Observatory, the Green Bank Observatory, the Very Large Array, the 10 Stations 
of the Very Long Baseline Array, the Owens Valley Radio Observatory, and Allen Telescope Array.  National 
Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies Comments at 6.
361 National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio Frequencies Comments at 5 (filed May 28, 2020).
362 Id.
363 Id. at 4.
364 We note that there is no radio astronomy allocation for these observations requiring that they be protected from 
interference; the radio astronomy allocation table footnote merely provides that “all practicable steps shall be taken 
to protect the radio astronomy service” in this band from harmful interference.  47 CFR § 2.106(c)(142) (U.S. 
footnote 342).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
46conclusion, we cannot justify requiring VLP devices to notch out this band as requested as this would 
increase device complexity and result in less efficient spectrum use.
D. Emission Mask and Out-of-Band Emission Limit
1. Limits for Very Low Power Devices in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 Bands
85. In the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on appropriate power levels and 
other technical parameters that VLP unlicensed devices in the 6 GHz band should have to meet.365  We 
note that there were no comments regarding the in-band emission mask for 6 GHz VLP devices.  The 
Commission’s previous decision in the 6 GHz Order366 found that the emission mask originally proposed 
by RKF engineering, with certain modifications, was necessary to protect incumbent microwave links and 
other services operating in the adjacent channel to unlicensed devices within the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 
bands.  Because 6 GHz VLP devices will operate in two of these same bands and on the same channels as 
LPI and standard power 6 GHz devices and need to protect the same incumbent operations, we find that 
using the same emission mask for VLP devices as we adopted for LPI and standard power devices is 
appropriate.  As the incumbent operations’ protection requirements have not changed since our previous 
decision for this band, using the same mask ensures that those operations are fully protected from 
unlicensed adjacent channel operations.  Moreover, by adopting the same emission requirements, we 
anticipate that device manufacturers will be able to take advantage of economies of scale regarding filters 
necessary to meet these requirements which should help to reduce costs.  Finally, we take this opportunity 
to again point out that the emission specification we are adopting represents the minimum requirement.  
We encourage device manufacturers, consistent with the recent Commission Policy Statement, to design 
their devices to minimize energy transmitted into adjacent channels.367
86. Accordingly, we are requiring emissions from VLP devices in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 
bands to comply with the transmission emission mask adopted in the 6 GHz Order.368  That is, we are 
requiring the power spectral density to be suppressed by 20 dB at one megahertz outside of an unlicensed 
device’s channel edge, suppressed by 28 dB at one channel bandwidth from an unlicensed device’s 
channel center, and suppressed by 40 dB at one and one-half times the channel bandwidth away from an 
unlicensed device’s channel center.369  At frequencies between one megahertz outside an unlicensed 
device’s channel edge and one channel bandwidth from the center of the channel, the limits must be 
linearly interpolated between the 20 dB and 28 dB suppression levels.370  At frequencies between one and 
one and one-half times an unlicensed device’s channel bandwidth from the center of the channel, the 
limits must be linearly interpolated between the 28 dB and 40 dB suppression levels.371  Emissions 
removed from the channel center by more than one and one-half times the channel bandwidth, but within 
the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands, must be suppressed by at least 40 dB.372
2. Emission Limits Outside the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 Bands
87. We are adopting emissions limits at the edge of the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 bands for VLP 
devices that are identical to the emissions limits that we adopted in the 6 GHz Order.373  Specifically, we 
365 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3940–42, paras. 236-43.
366 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3924–25, para. 196.
367 See Policy Statement at 2, 8-9, paras. 5, 23-25.
368 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3924-25, para. 196.
369 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3925, para. 196.
370 Id.
371 Id.
372 Id.
373 47 CFR § 15.407(b)(6); 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3925, para. 197.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
47are adopting a -27 dBm/MHz EIRP limit for 6 GHz VLP devices at frequencies below the bottom of the 
U-NII-5 band (5.925 GHz) and above the upper edge of the U-NII-8 band (7.125 GHz), but will not 
require it between the sub-bands, i.e., between the U-NII-5 and U-NII-6, the U-NII-6 and U-NII-7, and 
the U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands; those emissions are subject to the emission mask and out-of-band 
emission (OOBE) limits discussed above.374  These limits are intended to protect cellular vehicle-to-
everything (C-V2X) operations below the 6 GHz band and federal operations above the band.  The 
Commission previously determined that the -27 dBm/MHz limit will sufficiently protect C-V2X 
operations from harmful interference from U-NII devices operating in other bands.375
88. We note here that the Commission adopted rules that require Intelligent Transportation 
System (ITS) licensees to cease use of the 5.850-5.895 GHz band and operate only in the 5.895 – 5.925 
GHz band.376  In the 5.9 GHz Order, the Commission also required that DSRC-based technology 
operating in the ITS radio service transition to C-V2X-based technology.377  The Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in that proceeding addressed transitioning all ITS operations in the revised ITS 
band at 5.895-5.925 GHz to C-V2X-based technology, including the appropriate timeline for the 
implementation and codification of C-V2X technical parameters for operation in the 5.895-5.925 GHz 
band.378  Since then, the C-V2X proponents requested and the Commission has begun granting waivers to 
allow immediate C-V2X deployment in the ITS bands prior to the initiation of final rules for CV2X 
operations.379
89. Several parties support the -27 dBm/MHz EIRP emission limit,380 while other parties 
make alternative proposals.  For example, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI) offers two 
alternative out-of-band emission proposals:  adopt an emission mask that requires VLP devices to 
suppress out-of-band emissions to -60 dBm/MHz below 5.9 GHz or alternatively require VLP devices 
operating in the lowermost channel to utilize a low 1-2% duty cycle averaged over a range in the tens of 
374 See supra para. 86.
375 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3925-26, paras. 197-98 (recognizing that -27 dBm/MHz is the appropriate out-of-
band emission limit and that using a root-mean-square (RMS) measurement is sufficient to protect incumbent 
services from unlicensed 6 GHz devices.); see Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, First 
Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 
13440, 13474-76, paras. 80-83 (2020) (5.9 GHz Order); see also Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to 
Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, First Report and Order, 
29 FCC Rcd 4127, 4158-60, paras. 114-20 (2014) (5 GHz Order); 47 CFR § 15.407(b)(6).
376 5.9 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 13446, para. 14.
377 5.9 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 13483-84, para. 107-110. 
378 5.9 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 13500-07, para. 146-168.
379 See Request for Waiver of 5.9 GHz Band to Permit Initial Deployment of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything 
Technology, Order, ET Docket No. 19-138, DA 23-343 (PSHSB/OET/WTB rel. Apr. 24, 2023) (Joint Waiver 
Order); Request for Waiver of 5.9 GHz Band Rules to Permit Initial Deployments of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything 
Technology, Ford Motor Company, et al., ET Docket No. 19-138, at 1 (filed Dec. 13, 2021) (C-V2X Joint Waiver 
Request).
380 See, e.g., Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 13 (filed July 27, 2020) (stating that protection of ITS operations is necessary 
but that “there is no reason to require VLP devices to protect ITS to a different out-of-band emission (‘OOBE’) level 
than currently required from other licensed and unlicensed services”); Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Reply at 10, 13 
(filed July 27, 2020) (stating that the Commission should maintain -27 dBm/MHz as the out-of-band emission limit 
from all 6 GHz unlicensed devices at frequencies below the lowest frequency available in the U-NII-5 band and 
above the highest frequency available in U-NII-8 and that “[n]one of the comments submitted to the Further Notice 
provide sufficient justification for the Commission to change its 6 GHz [out-of-band emission limit] rules”); 
Facebook, Inc. Reply at 5 (filed July 27, 2020) (stating that very low power devices “will not cause harmful 
interference to adjacent C-V2X operations”).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
48milliseconds.381  Panasonic suggests that the Commission require unlicensed U-NII-5 devices to include 
sensing technology that would enable the device to detect adjacent C-V2X signals and cease operating in 
the lowest U-NII-5 channel, similar to the environmental sensing capability employed by the spectrum 
access systems in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.382  A group of VLP proponents jointly propose a 
compromise out-of-band emission limit that would apply at the bottom of the U-NII-5 band.383  
Specifically, they propose that VLP devices comply with a -37 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit at 
5925 MHz measured by root mean square (RMS) to ensure coexistence when 6 GHz devices are 
operating in the lowermost channels and that VLP devices prioritize operations in channels above 6105 
megahertz.384  NTIA filed a technical exhibit into the record that includes a Department of Transportation 
study (DoT Exhibit) addressing C-V2X protection requirements in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band from 6 GHz 
VLP devices’ out-of-band emissions which endorsing this two-part compromise proposal.385
90. We are not convinced at this time that a more stringent out-of-band emission limit nor 
operational restrictions suggested by C-V2X proponents are necessary to protect in-vehicle C-V2X 
devices from harmful interference.  The Commission already determined that standard power and LPI 6 
GHz devices must comply with this same -27 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit and that emissions at 
or under that limit will protect adjacent band users from harmful interference.386  C-V2X devices must be 
designed to successfully operate in an interference-limited environment as they are subjected to co-
channel and adjacent channel signals between each other that are higher than the -27 dBm/MHz out-of-
band emission limit we are adopting here for 6 GHz unlicensed VLP devices.387  C-V2X devices have to 
coexist with other C-V2X devices that operate in close proximity to each other, e.g., other on-board units 
(within vehicles) and roadside units.   Finally, to the extent that commenters raised concerns about 
harmful interference from aggregate VLP device emissions, we note that the number of such devices 
present in any given vehicle is anticipated to be low and because transmissions between VLP devices 
would occur over very short distances, the transmit power levels and their associated out-of-band 
emissions are expected to be well below the maximum permitted.  Thus, even if multiple out-of-band 
emissions were aggregated, the total out-of-band emissions in the local area would still be expected to be 
381 Alliance For Automotive Innovation Reply at 7-8.
382 Panasonic Comments at 3 (filed June 29, 2020); see also 47 CFR §§ 96.3, 96.15, 96.67.  The Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service (CBRS) operates in the 3550-3700 MHz band and utilizes a three-tiered access and authorization 
framework to accommodate shared federal and non-federal use of the band.  47 CFR §§ 96.1, 96.11.  Access and 
operations are managed by an automated frequency coordinator, known as a Spectrum Access System (SAS).  Id. § 
96.3.  While coordinating spectrum access, SASs may incorporate information from an Environmental Sensing 
Capability (ESC).  Id. § 96.15.  The ESC is a system that detects and communicates the presence of a signal from an 
incumbent user to an SAS to facilitate shared spectrum access.  Id. § 96.3.
383 Broadcom, Cisco, Facebook, Intel, Qualcomm Mar. 1, 2021 Ex Parte at 1.
384 Id.
385 U.S. DoT Technical Exhibit on Protection of the V2X 30 MHz (5.895-5.925 GHz) Band, ET Docket No. 18-295 at 
3 (filed Oct. 10, 2023).
386 47 CFR § 15.407(b)(6); 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3925, para. 197; 5.9 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 13474-75, 
paras. 80-83.
387 5 GHz Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4127, para. 114; see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau Seek Comment on a Request for Nationwide Waiver of Intelligent Transportation 
System Rules to Use C-V2X Technology in the 5.895-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, Public Notice, DA 
22-611, at 3 (WTB/PSHSB June 7, 2022) (Table on page 3 shows the out-of-band emission limits for C-2VX 
proposed by parties seeking waiver. The limits for zero frequency offset are higher than the out-of-bound emission 
limit for 6 GHz devices.); C-V2X Joint Waiver Request .  More recently, additional information on the request was 
submitted to the Commission.  See Letter from the C-V2X Joint Waiver Parties to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, ET Docket No. 19-138 (filed Apr. 20, 2022) (C-V2X Joint Waiver Request Supplement).  According to the 
joint waiver request, C-V2X proponents anticipate operating with a 33 dBm on-board unit EIRP limit within 20 
MHz channels.  C-V2X Joint Waiver Request Supplement at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
49below C-V2X device’s own signal levels.  We also believe that maintaining the -27 dBm/MHz emission 
limit is appropriate in part because the rules for C-V2X operation in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band are the 
subject of a pending rulemaking proceeding and current C-V2X operations are pursuant to conditional 
rule waivers.388
91. We decline to adopt the -37 dBm/MHz out-of-band emissions limit suggested by some 
parties.  However, we are seeking additional information in the Second Further Notice on the potential 
impact that VLP devices operating in motor vehicles could have on C-V2X performance and whether any 
modification of the out-of-band emission limit or other technical or operational requirements are 
appropriate.389  Likewise we find the -60 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit suggested by AAI for 
application at the U-NII-5 band edge to be too restrictive.  In addition, we find AAI’s suggestion to 
require VLP devices to operate with a 1-2% duty cycle that is averaged over a range of tens of 
milliseconds is not reasonable.  While duty cycle is an important parameter for system operation, we 
typically do not make rules requiring adherence to specific duty cycle requirements as they may 
artificially restrict design choices and limit the applications that can be used by the American public.  
Similarly, we decline to adopt a requirement advocated by Panasonic that VLP devices include sensing 
technology as we do not believe that such a complex solution is necessary to achieve the protection 
requirements needed for all users in the band.  Moreover, any new sensing technology often requires long 
development cycles along with extended testing to ensure proper operation, which would only delay the 
benefits that VLP devices can provide.
92. As discussed above, we remain convinced that the -27 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission 
level at the lower edge of U-NII-5 will protect C-V2X operations below 5925 MHz and adopt that level 
for VLP devices.  This will create a consistent out-of-band limit for all 6 GHz unlicensed devices 
throughout the 6 GHz band.
3. Prioritization of Operations on Channels above 6105 MHz
93. We are mindful of the concerns from the auto industry regarding the potential for harmful 
interference to automotive safety systems operating below the U-NII-5 band.  For example, the 
proponents of the compromise proposal propose that VLP devices prioritize unlicensed operation in 
channels above 6105 MHz (i.e., the top edge of the first 160 megahertz wide channel in the IEEE band 
plan) before operating below 6105 MHz and that manufacturers submit with their equipment 
authorization application a declaration that the equipment complies with this prioritization rule.390  The 
proponents of the compromise proposal claim that prioritizing channels above 6105 MHz will reduce the 
likelihood of VLP device traffic adjacent to the 5.9 GHz band when VLP devices are used in vehicles.391  
The DoT Exhibit filed by NTIA also endorses VLP devices prioritizing operation above 6105 MHz.392  
Additionally, the 5G Automotive Association and others believe that when operating at that proposed 
emission limit, unlicensed VLP devices transmitting at 14 dB EIRP inside vehicles in the lowermost U-
NII-5 channel could cause interference to C-V2X devices that operate in the ITS band from 5.895-5.925 
GHz and propose that the Commission prohibit VLP devices from operating on the lowermost channel in 
388 Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 13440, 13474-76, paras. 80-83 (2020); Request for 
Waiver of 5.9 GHz Band Rules to Permit Initial Deployment of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything Technology, Order, 
ET Docket 19-138 (PSHSB, OET, WTB April 24, 2023).
389 See infra para. 186.  Regardless of the OOBE limits in place, 6 GHz unlicensed devices are subject to Part 
15.5(b) of the Commission’s rules.
390 Broadcom, Cisco, Facebook, Intel, Qualcomm Mar. 1, 2021 Ex Parte at 1.
391 See supra footnote 383.
392 U.S. DoT Technical Exhibit on Protection of the V2X 30 MHz (5.895-5.925 GHz) Band, ET Docket No. 18-295 at 
3 (filed Oct. 10, 2023).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
50the 6 GHz band.393  The 5G Automotive Association offers a technical study in which it claims that C-
V2X performance will be degraded and its range reduced by up to 50% when operating in the presence of 
in-vehicle VLP devices.394  NAB expresses concern regarding the aforementioned compromise proposal 
contending that the compromise proposal could effectively concentrate unlicensed operations in portions 
of the band used by broadcasters for ENG operations because U-NII-6 and U-NII-8, where broadcasters 
operate, are above 6105 MHz.395  NAB also claims that this proposal would be inconsistent with the 
Commission’s previous decision to not adopt NAB’s proposal to forbid unlicensed operation in an 80 
megahertz swath of the 6 GHz spectrum where the Commission stated that providing reduced spectrum 
for unlicensed devices would increase the likelihood of harmful interference because unlicensed 
operations would be concentrated into fewer channels.396
94. To ensure that safety of life services below the U-NII-5 band are protected from harmful 
interference, we adopt the suggestion from the compromise proposal to require VLP devices to prioritize 
spectrum above 6105 MHz.  We disagree with NAB that this is inconsistent with our previous decision 
not to exclude VLP devices from a portion of the 6 GHz band to protect ENG operations as this 
requirement does not prohibit operation below 6105 MHz; it merely requires that devices seek to operate 
in the spectrum above that frequency first before operating below it.  Although under this approach, there 
may be fewer VLP devices operating on the spectrum below 6105 MHz, many devices will still operate 
on that spectrum and we do not expect abnormal concentrations of VLP devices in U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 
where ENG operates as devices would still naturally spread across the available spectrum.
E. Other Matters
1. Restrictions on Very Low Power Device Use on Aircraft, Boats, and Oil 
Platforms
95. In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission did not permit mobile (i.e., in cars, trains, boats, or 
aircraft 10,000 feet and under) unlicensed standard power and LPI access points to operate in the 6 GHz 
band due to the potential for increasing interference to incumbent licensees.397  Similarly, in the 6 GHz 
Order, the Commission prohibited standard power and LPI access points from operating on oil 
platforms.398  The restrictions on boats and oil platforms were put in place to protect incumbent licensees 
393 5G Automotive Association Dec. 9, 2019 Ex-Parte at 2; see also Alliance for Automotive Innovation Reply at 
6-7 (filed July 27, 2020) (contending that the Commission should prohibit very low power and mobile standard 
power access points in the lowermost U-NII-5 channels and generally offers support for the analysis provided by 5G 
Automotive Association); American Trucking Association Reply at 1-2 (filed July 27, 2020) (offering general 
support for Automotive Innovative Alliance, 5G Automotive Association, Panasonic and Qualcomm positions 
regarding adjacent band interference into the C-V2X band); Qualcomm Comments at 9 (filed June 29, 2020) 
(supporting generally the 5G Automotive Association request asking the Commission to prohibit very low power 
and mobile standard power access point operations in the lowermost channels of the 6 GHz band to protect the 
adjacent ITS band); Panasonic Comments at 2-3 (filed June 29, 2020) (stating that “[t]he proposed . . . out of band 
emissions from [VLP] and mobile standard-power access point unlicensed operations would cause harmful 
interference to C-V2X Direct receivers if permitted to operate in adjacent channels of the U-NII-5 band in close 
proximity to C-V2X on-board units (“OBUs”) installed in vehicles” and that VLP devices “should not be permitted 
to be installed or operated in motor vehicles due to their proximity to the OBU receiver and antenna”).
394 5G Automotive Association Nov. 16, 2020 Ex-Parte at 9, 90-96.  (The 5G Automotive Association submitted a 
technical study in association with the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partners (CAMP) consortium, which asserts that 
out-of-band emissions into 5895-5925 MHz from U-NII-5 very low power devices will be slightly more interfering 
than from U-NII-4 devices.)
395 National Association of Broadcasters Mar. 4, 2021 Ex Parte at 1.
396 Id. at 2 (citing 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3852, paras. 103, 117, n.297).
397 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3929, para. 207; see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4).
398 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3931, para. 212; see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
51and protect Earth-Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) sensing operations.399
96. Because VLP access points can operate in motion, unlike standard power and LPI devices 
that the rules limit to stationary operation, we will permit VLP devices to operate in terrestrial land-based 
vehicles, including cars, buses, trains, etc.400  We will also not prohibit VLP device use on boats in 
contrast to our decision to prohibit standard power and LPI devices from operating on boats.401  That 
decision stemmed from a request from the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio 
Frequencies (CORF) seeking protection for EESS remote sensing operations over oceans.402  Given that 
VLP devices will operate at much lower power levels than LPI and standard power devices, and many 
boaters, particularly recreational boaters operate either on inland lakes and waterways or in close 
proximity to the coastline, we do not believe that they will present an interference threat to EESS sensing 
over the oceans.  However, we are seeking comment in the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on whether any restrictions should be put in place for VLP operation on boats.  We will 
continue to prohibit 6 GHz devices, including VLP devices, from operating on oil platforms because 
EESS operations in this band mainly include oceanic sensing, and operation of VLP devices on oil 
platforms could potentially interfere with passive and active sensing operations over the oceans and 
coastal where these oil rigs tend to be concentrated.  We also note that ocean based oil platforms, are 
located anywhere from a few hundred meters to a few hundred miles off of the coast where EESS 
operations are monitoring critical data oceanographic and weather phenomenon.403  However, we are 
seeking comment on whether this restriction should be eliminated in the Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking.
97. Consistent with our decision in the 6 GHz Order to prohibit standard power and LPI 
devices from operating in low flying aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) (i.e., drones), we 
similarly prohibit such operation for VLP devices.  Use on such platforms presents novel propagation 
paths and introduces the potential for causing harmful interference to fixed microwave receivers, which 
are typically located on towers and rooftops.  Unlike operation that may occur outside on a balcony above 
ground level, operation on a low flying aircraft or UAS may not have buildings or other structures nearby 
to attenuate signals and thus will have a higher probability of having a line-of-sight path to an incumbent 
receiver location resulting in a higher potential for causing harmful interference.  Hence, we will apply 
the same aircraft restriction to VLP devices as we adopted for LPI and standard power devices.  VLP 
devices will not be permitted on aircraft, except in large aircraft while flying above 10,000 feet.404  
Consistent with our decision in the 6 GHz Order, we believe that operating at those altitudes along with 
attenuation provided by an aircraft’s fuselage will keep signal levels to such a low level at incumbents’ 
receivers as to pose an insignificant harmful interference risk.  We will permit VLP devices operating on 
aircraft above 10,000 feet to operate across the 5.925-6.425 GHz band.405  This is consistent with the 6 
399 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3931, para. 212.
400 In the Second Further Notice we seek additional information on the OOBE limits of VLP devices operating 
inside motor vehicles.
401 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3929, para. 207; see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4).
402 Id. at 3931, para. 212 (citing The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies Comments, 
ET Docket No. 18-295 at 8-9 (filed Jan. 29, 2019)).
403 See Thomas Kuegler, 7 Interesting Facts About Offshore Oil Rigs (Dec. 23, 2016), 
https://www.billypugh.com/newsroom/7-interesting-facts-offshore-oil-
rigs/#:~:text=Offshore%20platforms%20are%20located%20anywhere,2%20kilometers%20beneath%20the%20surfa
ce; Energy Information Administration, Oil and petroleum products explained (Oct. 4, 2022), 
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/offshore-oil-and-gas-in-depth.php.
404 See 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4); 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3931-32, paras. 214-15.
405 For example, because transmitting devices are required to be in airplane mode when on flights, compliance with 
this requirement could be achieved by the VLP access point defaulting to the U-NII-5 band when in airplane mode 
and thus also forcing any associated client devices to also use only the U-NII-5 band.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
52GHz Order, which restricted LPI operation on large aircraft flying above 10,000 feet to the U-NII-5 band 
to prevent harmful interference to radio astronomy and EESS operations in the U-NII-6, U-NII-7, and U-
NII-8 bands.406  VLP devices will also not be permitted to be used for control of or communications with 
unmanned aircraft systems.407
2. 57-71 GHz Band
98. CTIA opposes expanding AFC-free VLP unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz band and 
instead proposes that unlicensed proponents consider the 57-71 GHz band for VLP operations.408  It 
claims that the band is “ideal for short-range, very low-power use cases” as there are no incumbent 
operations that require protection from harmful interference.409  In response, Apple, Broadcom et al. assert 
that the 57-71 GHz band is not compatible with VLP use because short range, high-data applications at 
those frequencies require line-of-sight propagation to function effectively on battery power and that line 
of sight will not be achievable for most wearable devices and personal area network applications.410  We 
decline to prohibit VLP device operations in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the of the 6 GHz band 
in favor of the 57-71 GHz band.  The Commission’s policy has been to provide as much flexibility for 
spectrum users – both licensed and unlicensed - to use spectrum bands that best meet their needs based on 
their business case and expected use cases.411  VLP operations are no different and, as explained in this 
Second Report and Order, we believe that permitting VLP operations in the 6 GHz band meets that goal.  
The rules we are adopting provide flexibility for VLP operations while still protecting authorized services 
from harmful interference.  Furthermore, we note that the 57-71 GHz band has flexible rules for 
unlicensed operations412 and that manufacturers could develop similar devices to 6 GHz VLP devices 
under those rules should they determine that it is both feasible and would meet consumer demand.
99.LPI and standard power devices as substitute for VLP.  AT&T points to claims by VLP 
device proponents that 90% of these devices will operate indoors to argue that VLP devices are not 
necessary to address the use cases purportedly supported by the VLP rules.413  According to AT&T, the 
small residual percentage of applications that are outdoors can be addressed by standard power device 
regulations requiring devices operate under the control of a AFC system.414  AT&T also claims that VLP 
device proponents essentially concede that the burden of adding AFC capability to VLP devices would be 
minimal, pointing to a filing by Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Meta that discusses implementing 
exclusion zones for VLP devices.415  According to Apple, Broadcom, and Meta, LPI is not a substitute for 
VLP because the Commission’s rules prohibit direct communications by LPI client devices.416  This 
would result in applications like virtual reality and augmented reality experiencing increased latency and 
decreased spectrum efficiency.  Apple, Broadcom, and Meta also claim that VLP is essential for 
406 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3929, 3932, paras. 207, 215; see also 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4).
407 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3931, para. 213.
408 CTIA Comments at 2 (filed June 29, 2020).
409 Id.
410 Apple, Broadcom et al. Reply at 31 (filed July 27, 2020).
411 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, 
GN Docket No. 12-354, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959  
(2015); Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands, ET Docket No. 20-36, Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 12603 (2020).
412 47 CFR § 15.255.
413 AT&T Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte 2-3.
414 Id. at 2.
415 Id. at 2-3 (citing Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta July 26, 2023 Ex Parte).
416 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 14, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
53supporting mobility which would be inconsistent with the indoor-only requirement of LPI.417
100. We do not agree with AT&T’s rationale that if 90% of VLP use is assumed to be indoors, 
there is no utility in enabling outdoor VLP device operation.  VLP proponents describe portable battery-
powered consumer products as a primary use case for these devices,418 and apportioning significant 
battery resources to the overhead necessary to operate pursuant to an AFC could reduce utility of these 
devices to the point that they would be infeasible.  In addition, as discussed above, we disagree with 
AT&T’s assertion that there is no cost to implement an AFC capability in VLP devices.419  Adding AFC 
capability to these small battery-powered portable device would likely increase their complexity and, 
correspondingly, their cost.  We also agree with Apple, Broadcom, and Meta that VLP devices will be 
suitable for applications that require direct communications between client devices and to support 
mobility that may require devices to transition between indoor and outdoor use.  Therefore, we find 
AT&T’s contention to be without merit.
3. Rule Corrections
101. We are making two minor changes to section 15.407 to correct cross-references that were 
inadvertently not updated when the Commission previously renumbered paragraphs in this section.420  
Specifically, we correct the cross-reference in the introductory text of section 15.407(b) to reference 
paragraph (b)(10) rather than (b)(7), and we correct the cross-reference in section 15.407(l)(2)(ii) to 
reference paragraph (b)(7) rather than (b)(6).
F. Benefits and Cost
102. As discussed above, we adopt rules to permit VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 and 
U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band while protecting the licensed services that operate in the band from 
harmful interference.  Enabling new unlicensed use types in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands will yield 
important economic benefits and will allow more extensive use of technologies, such as Wi-Fi and 
Bluetooth, by American consumers.  Consumers are using more and more data, on average, and this is 
expected to continue to grow significantly.421  One report estimated that in 2021, the economic benefits 
associated with Wi-Fi in the United States was valued at almost $979 billion and that by 2025, 40% of 
Wi-Fi traffic will rely on 6 GHz.422  Another report estimated that making the 6 GHz band accessible to 
VLP devices would produce over $39 billion in economic value over five years.423  Even if the rules that 
we adopt herein lead to expected benefits of 5% of $39 billion, or approximately $2 billion—a figure we 
417 Id.
418 Qualcomm, Google July 27, 2023 Ex Parte at 2; Apple, Broadcom, et al. Nov. 4, 2020 Ex Parte at 2; Apple, 
Broadcom, et al. Reply at 27-28.
419 See supra para. 67.
420 In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission renumbered paragraph (b)(7) of section 15.407 as paragraph (b)(9) but did 
not update the cross-reference to this paragraph in the introductory text to paragraph (b).  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd 
at 3951-52, Appx. A.  In the subsequent 5.9 GHz Order, the Commission renumbered paragraph (b)(9) as (b)(10) 
but also did not update the cross-reference in the introductory text to paragraph (b).  5.9 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 
13521-22, Appx. A.  Additionally, the Commission renumbered paragraph (b)(6) as (b)(7) in the 5.9 GHz Order but 
did not update the cross reference in paragraph (l)(2)(ii).  Id. at 13521-23, Appx. A.
421 GSMA, The Mobile Economy, North America 2022 at 13 (Sept. 2022) 
https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/290922-Mobile-Economy-North-America-
2022.pdf.  GSMA estimates that demand for mobile data in North America will increase from 15 GB per subscriber 
per month in 2021 to 52 GB per subscriber per month in 2027.
422 Telecom Advisory Services, The Economic Value of Wi-Fi: a global view (2021 – 2025) at 34-35 (Sept. 2021), 
https://www.wi-fi.org/file/detail-global-economic-value-of-wi-fi-2021-2025.
423 Telecom Advisory Services, LLC, Assessing the Economic Value of Unlicensed Use in the 5.9 GHz & 6 GHz 
Bands at 49-56 (Apr. 2020), http://wififorward.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/5.9-6.0-FINAL-for-distribution.pdf.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
54find to be below the likely benefits of these rules—the expected benefits will be well in excess of the 
costs that we estimate.
103. Because there are presently no VLP devices in operation, the rules that we promulgate do 
not have cost implications for the existing unlicensed device ecosystem.  And because the harmful 
interference risk to incumbent operators is insignificant and we are not imposing any specific 
requirements on any incumbent operator, there is also no cost implication on them.  Thus, by 
promulgating these rules to enable VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 
GHz band, significant economic benefits will be bestowed on the American public.
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
104. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on how we can 
refine the VLP device rules to provide those devices greater use of the band while continuing to protect 
licensed incumbents.424  Our intent here is to seek comment on specific rules aimed at providing 
additional power and flexibility for VLP devices.  With the limited exception of seeking comments on 
some aspects of the VLP out-of-band emission limits, we are not seeking comment on any of the rules 
adopted in the Second Report and Order.  Below, we propose to allow VLP devices to operate in the U-
NII-5 through U-NII-8 bands (i.e., a total of 1200 MHz of spectrum) at a PSD level greater than -5 
dBm/MHz—up to 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP—provided they operate under the control of 
a geofencing system that prevents devices from operating in close proximity to co-channel licensed 
incumbent services in these bands.  VLP access points would obtain information from a geofencing 
system on locations where operation is prohibited on specific frequencies, and VLP client devices would 
operate only under the control of VLP access points.  These geofenced VLP devices would be a new class 
of higher-power VLP devices in addition to those we are permitting in the Second Report and Order.  We 
also seek comment on whether we should relax the restrictions on mobile use of VLP devices (e.g., on 
aircraft and oil platforms).  In addition, we seek comment on whether we could allow VLP devices that 
operate without a geofencing system in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands in addition to the U-NII-5 and U-
NII-7 bands where the Second Report and Order permits them to operate.425  As the Commission stated in 
the Policy Statement, “[r]elevant information about services’ transmitter and receiver standards, 
guidelines, and operating characteristics is needed to promote effective spectrum management and 
efficient co-existence.”426  Thus, going forward, we encourage representatives from the unlicensed device 
community and those representing the incumbent services to work collaboratively and provide relevant 
information on their systems to the Commission to allow us to continue to refine our rules for the 6 GHz 
band and to ensure that equipment designed for and used in the 6 GHz band can fully function within the 
spectral environment.
A. Power Limits for Geofenced VLP Devices in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 Bands
105. As discussed above in the Second Report and Order, we are permitting VLP devices to 
operate at power levels up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and up to 14 dBm EIRP.  Apple, Broadcom, et al. 
request that we permit a higher maximum level of 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD with the same maximum total 
424 Southern Company, AT&T, and UTC suggest that the Commission include in this Second Further Notice 
providing a means for incumbent licensees to recover the cost they incur from receiving harmful interference from 6 
GHz unlicensed devices.  Southern Company Oct. 10, 2023 Ex Parte at 2-3; AT&T Oct. 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 3; 
UTC Oct 12, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.  This request was included in a rulemaking petition filed by a group of 
organizations representing 6 GHz band microwave licensees which the Commission intends to consider at a future 
date.  Petition for Rulemaking of the Utilities Technology Council, American Gas Association, Edison Electric 
Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Public Power Association, American Water Works Association, 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, International Association of Fire Chiefs, The Association of 
American Railroads, APCO International, Nuclear Energy Institute, and the National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council, ET Docket No. 18-295, at 11-13 (filed Dec. 7, 2021).
425 47 CFR § 15.407(a)(4).
426 Id. at 3, para. 5 (emphasis omitted); accord id. at 11-12, paras. 37-40.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
55power of 14 dBm EIRP, which they contend would enable important new VLP devices while protecting 
incumbent operations.427  This PSD level would permit VLP devices to operate at the maximum 14 dBm 
EIRP levels for any channel bandwidth greater than 20 megahertz, whereas under the rules we are 
adopting in the Second Report and Order that maximum EIRP level can only be achieved for 80 
megahertz and wider channel bandwidths.  Based on the record and our analysis of that record, we 
declined to adopt rules permitting VLP devices to operate at this requested level of 1 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD at this time.  However, we believe that we can leverage the AFC systems for use within a framework 
that combines higher power operation with geofencing to keep these higher powered VLP devices in 
locations where there have an insignificant potential to cause harmful interference to other users in the 
band.  We note that these proposals are not intended to curtail the VLP use we are adopting in the Second 
Report and Order.  We are fully satisfied that VLP devices operating at -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD in the U-
NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands will protect incumbent operations and we do not seek comment on these 
existing rules.  Rather, these proposals are designed to explore the possibility for providing more 
flexibility for higher power use at the expense of additional complexity to implement and use a 
geofencing capability so that additional use cases and applications can be brought to the American public.
1. In-band Power Limits
106. We believe that we could allow geofenced VLP devices to operate at the higher PSD 
level suggested by Apple, Broadcom, et al. if we require certain frequency and geographic area 
restrictions, specifically, that VLP devices with higher PSD be prohibited from operating co-channel and 
in close proximity to licensed incumbent services receive sites.  Accordingly, we propose to allow VLP 
devices to operate in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 bands at a level greater than -5 dBm EIRP PSD and 14 
dBm EIRP, specifically up to 1 dBm EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP, provided they operate under the 
control of a geofencing system to minimize the likelihood of harmful interference to licensed incumbent 
services.  Under this system, geofenced VLP devices would be required to incorporate a capability to 
ensure that they avoid transmitting on certain channels within certain geographic areas, i.e., this is 
analogous to erecting a fence to prevent VLP devices from operating on certain channels within certain 
geographic areas, hence the descriptive term “geofencing system.”  While a geofencing system is not 
identical to an AFC system that several parties requested be required for VLP device operation,428 it will 
provide similar protection to licensed incumbent operations.
107. We seek comment on these proposals.  Should we allow VLP devices to operate with up 
to 1 dBm EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP, provided they are prevented from operating in areas where there 
is an elevated risk of harmful interference?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing a 
higher PSD limit?  What additional VLP applications could be enabled by this proposed increase?  Could 
we allow a power limit higher than 14 dBm EIRP, e.g., up to 21 dBm EIRP, as suggested by some 
commenters?429  What are the advantages and disadvantages of a higher power limit?  Would higher 
power limits result in higher data usage and if so by how much?  Would a higher power limit create new 
use cases for VLP?  Would even higher PSD and EIRP limits increase the risk of harmful interference to 
licensed incumbent services, and would the proposed geofencing system described below be sufficient to 
reduce this risk?  What are the costs and benefits of requiring higher power VLP devices to operate under 
a geofencing system?  How would the additional benefits of geofenced U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 operations 
compare to the benefits we estimate for non-geofenced U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 operations in the Second 
Report and Order?  Would the power level increase that we propose provide a sufficient incentive for 
equipment manufacturers to develop geofencing systems?
427 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. A, B, C (filed June 29, 2020).
428 See supra footnote 304.
429 Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments at 3-10 (filed June 29, 2020).  With a PSD limit of 1 dBm/MHz EIRP, a VLP 
device would have to operate with a channel bandwidth of approximately 125 MHz to achieve an EIRP of 21 dBm.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
562. Transmit Power Control
108. Consistent with the rules we adopt for VLP devices in the Second Report and Order, we 
propose to require geofenced VLP devices operating within the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 bands to 
employ a transmit power control mechanism that has the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the 
maximum EIRP we permit for the bands (e.g., 14 dBm or 21 dBm).  Because geofenced VLP devices do 
not yet exist and we do not know what specific transmit power control algorithm these devices may 
employ, we do not propose any specific requirements in our rules as to how the transmit power control 
algorithm of the VLP devices will function.  We do not expect that adopting this transmit power control 
requirement will present an undue burden on geofenced VLP device manufacturers since these are 
expected to be battery-powered devices that are likely to employ transmit power control to conserve 
battery power.  In the Second Report and Order, we require VLP devices to employ a transmit power 
control mechanism with the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the permitted power level.430  
Because many VLP devices will be capable of both geofenced and non-geofenced operation, these 
devices will by necessity incorporate the ability to implement at least a 6 dB power reduction.  
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether a different transmit power control requirement may be 
appropriate for geofenced VLP devices.  Is there a need to specify any additional transmit power control 
requirements for geofenced VLP devices that we propose could operate at a higher power than VLP 
devices?  For example, should the Commission adopt a different requirement along the lines of the 
European requirement in the 5250-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz bands?  That requirement specifies 
that transmit power control shall provide, on average, a mitigation factor of at least 3 dB on the maximum 
permitted output power of the systems; or, if transmit power control is not in use, then the maximum 
permitted mean EIRP and the corresponding mean EIRP density limit shall be reduced by 3 dB.431  What 
information should manufacturers be required to include in their application for certification to show 
compliance with a transmit power control requirement, e.g., an attestation of compliance, a detailed 
operational description, actual equipment test data?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of 
requiring a transmit power control mechanism in terms of spectrum efficiency, costs, and complexity?  
Commenters who favor the European requirement should provide specific information regarding how 
such an requirement could be implemented, verified during the equipment certification process, and 
enforced.  What ramifications, if any, would arise if there were differing transmit power control 
requirements for VLP devices and geofenced VLP devices?
3. Emission Mask
109. We propose to require emissions from geofenced VLP devices within the U-NII-5 
through U-NII-8 bands to comply with the transmission emission mask adopted for standard power and 
LPI devices in the 6 GHz Order432 and for VLP devices in the Second Report and Order.433  That is, the 
power spectral density would have to be suppressed by 20 dB at one megahertz outside of an unlicensed 
device’s channel edge, suppressed by 28 dB at one channel bandwidth from an unlicensed device’s 
channel center, and suppressed by 40 dB at one and one-half times the channel bandwidth away from an 
unlicensed device’s channel center.434  At frequencies between one megahertz outside an unlicensed 
device’s channel edge and one channel bandwidth from the center of the channel, the limits would be 
linearly interpolated between the 20 dB and 28 dB suppression levels.435  At frequencies between one and 
430 See supra para. 56.
431 See ECC Decision (04)08, On the harmonised use of the 5 GHz frequency bands for Wireless Access Systems 
including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN), amended 1 July 2022, available at: 
https://docdb.cept.org/download/4053.
432 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3924-25, para. 196.
433 See supra para. 86.
434 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3925, para. 196.
435 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
57one and one-half times an unlicensed device’s channel bandwidth from the center of the channel, the 
limits would be linearly interpolated between the 28 dB and 40 dB suppression levels.436  Emissions 
removed from the channel center by more than one and one-half times the channel bandwidth, but within 
the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 bands, would have to be suppressed by at least 40 dB.437  Because geofenced 
VLP devices would operate in the same bands and on the same channels as VLP devices, LPI and 
standard power 6 GHz devices and need to protect the same incumbent operations, we believe that using 
the same emission mask for geofenced VLP devices as we adopted for VLP devices, LPI and standard 
power devices is appropriate.  Using the same mask would ensure that licensed incumbent operations are 
fully protected from unlicensed adjacent channel operations.  Moreover, by specifying the same emission 
requirements, we anticipate that these requirements would act to reduce costs by permitting all devices 
throughout the VLP ecosystem to use the same filters and benefit from economies of scale for their 
acquisition.
4. Emission Limits Outside the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 Bands.
110. We propose emissions limits at the edge of the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 bands for geofenced 
VLP devices that are identical to the emissions limits that we adopted in the 6 GHz Order and the Second 
Report and Order.438  Specifically, we propose a -27 dBm/MHz EIRP limit for 6 GHz VLP devices at 
frequencies below the bottom of the U-NII-5 band (5.925 GHz) and above the upper edge of the U-NII-8 
band (7.125 GHz), but propose to not require it between the sub-bands, i.e., between the U-NII-5 and U-
NII-6, the U-NII-6 and U-NII-7, and the U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands; those emissions would be subject to 
the emission mask and OOBE limits proposed above.439  These limits are intended to protect cellular 
vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) operations below the 6 GHz band and federal operations above the band.  
The Commission previously determined that the -27 dBm/MHz limit will sufficiently protect C-V2X 
operations from harmful interference from U-NII devices operating in other bands.440  Because geofenced 
VLP devices could be mobile and potentially used near C-V2X operations, to help protect these services 
below the U-NII-5 band from harmful interference, we propose to require that geofenced VLP devices 
prioritize spectrum above 6105 MHz, as we required in the Second Report and Order for VLP devices.441
111. We seek comment on the proposed emission mask and the proposed emission limits 
outside the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 bands.  Are these limits appropriate for geofenced VLP devices?  Would 
they adequately protect licensed incumbent services, both within and outside of the U-NII bands?  Would 
different emission limits be more appropriate?  If so, what limits should we require and why?  Is a 
requirement for geofenced VLP devices to prioritize spectrum use above 6105 MHz necessary?  What are 
the costs and benefits of the proposed emission mask and limits?  Would requiring the same emission 
limits for geofenced devices that we require for non-geofenced VLP devices reduce the cost of 
compliance with the emission mask?
B. Geofencing System for Geofenced VLP Devices in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 
436 Id.
437 Id.
438 47 CFR § 15.407(b)(6); 6 GHz Order, 35 Rcd at 3925, para. 197.
439 See supra para. 86. 
440 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3925-26, paras. 197-98 (recognizing that -27 dBm/MHz is the appropriate out-of-
band emission limit and that using a root-mean-square (RMS) measurement is sufficient to protect incumbent 
services from unlicensed 6 GHz devices.); see Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, First 
Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 
13440, 13474-76, paras. 80-83 (2020) (5.9 GHz Order); see also Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to 
Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, First Report and Order, 
29 FCC Rcd 4127, 4158-60, paras. 114-20 (2014) (5 GHz Order); 47 CFR § 15.407(b)(6).
441 See supra para. 94.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
58Bands
112. We propose to allow VLP devices to operate at a PSD greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD, up to a maximum of 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD, when they operate under the control of a geofencing 
system to minimize the likelihood of causing harmful interference to licensed incumbent services.442  The 
proposed geofencing system would ensure that geofenced VLP devices with greater than -5 dBm/MHz 
EIRP do not operate on the same channels as licensed incumbents inside of defined exclusion zones 
designed to minimize the potential for geofenced VLP devices to cause harmful interference.  We propose 
requirements for geofencing systems and the criteria that would be used to calculate the exclusion zones 
as well as technical requirements for geofenced VLP devices.  We also propose procedures for testing and 
approving geofencing systems to ensure that they would operate as intended and correctly restrict co-
channel operation with licensed incumbents in the 6 GHz band at certain locations.
1. Requirement to use Geofencing
113.Background.  Standard power access points and fixed client devices must register with 
and be authorized by an AFC system prior to their initial service transmission by providing their 
geographic coordinates, antenna height above ground level, FCC identification number, and 
manufacturer's serial number.443  They may transmit only on frequencies and at power levels as indicated 
by an AFC system.444  After registration, they must contact an AFC system at least once per day to obtain 
the latest list of available frequencies and the maximum permissible power the device may use on each 
frequency at their location.445  As discussed in the Second Report and Order, we are permitting VLP 
device operation at levels up to -5 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP and 14 dBm EIRP maximum without the use of 
an AFC or other database system because we determined that the risk of harmful interference to licensed 
incumbent services is insignificant at that power level.
114.Discussion. For VLP device operation at PSD levels higher than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP 
where the risk of harmful interference to incumbent services is elevated, we propose to require VLP 
access points to use a geofencing system to protect fixed microwave service, BAS, CARS, radio 
astronomy, and FSS receive sites in the 6 GHz band.  We believe that this would be an effective approach 
to protecting licensed incumbent services since it could be implemented using the same methodology that 
the Commission previously developed for standard power access points and fixed client devices to protect 
these services.  A geofencing approach, as opposed to requiring VLP devices to access an AFC system, 
could help preserve VLP device battery life by not requiring each device to re-check a database every 
time it moves, as is the case for standard power access points.  Similarly, a geofencing approach could 
help protect user privacy since devices would not be required to report their location to a centralized 
system.446  A geofencing system would enable VLP devices to operate at PSD levels greater than 
-5 dBm/MHz EIRP to enable a variety of uses while protecting licensed incumbent services in the 6 GHz 
band.  The Commission previously required certain types of devices to operate pursuant to a geofencing 
system.  It adopted similar requirements to ensure protection to fixed service receivers in the 5925-6425 
442 As described below, a VLP access point (e.g., a smartphone) operates in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band and 
communicates with and receives authorization from a geofencing system to operate on certain frequencies.  A VLP 
client device operates only under the control of a VLP access point.
443 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(8)(i)-(ii).  Devices must also re-register with the database if they are moved after initial 
registration.  Id. § 15.407(k)(8)(ii).
444 Id. § 15.407(k)(8)(i).
445 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(8)(iv).  “If the standard power access point or fixed client device fails to successfully contact 
the AFC system during any given day, the standard power access point or fixed client device may continue to 
operate until 11:59 p.m. of the following day at which time it must cease operations until it re-establishes contact 
with the AFC system and re-verifies its list of available frequencies and associated power levels.”  Id.
446 We note that device manufacturers could opt to use a system that requires very low power devices to report their 
position to a centralized source.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
59MHz portion of this band when it granted Higher Ground a blanket earth station license to operate 
SatPaqs on a non-interference basis through an automated frequency coordination system basis to enable 
cellphones to communicate with FSS space stations.447  Additionally, the Commission permits unlicensed 
white space devices to operate in certain bands subject to their use of a geofencing system to protect 
licensed incumbent services.448
115. We propose to protect licensed services in the 6 GHz band by prohibiting geofenced VLP 
access points with power levels greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD from operating on certain channels 
within defined exclusion zones around the sites where licensed incumbent services operate.  The 
geofencing system would prevent a VLP access point from operating on the frequencies within these 
exclusion zones where there may be a higher risk of causing harmful interference.  We propose that the 
exclusion zones be determined based on the operational frequency being used by the incumbent service 
licensee as well as the power of the geofenced VLP access point.  A geofenced VLP access point located 
within an exclusion zone would be prohibited from operating only on the specific frequencies excluded 
within that zone and would be permitted to operate on any other frequencies that are available at its 
location at the maximum power level permitted.  Depending on the number of incumbent licensees in an 
area and the size of the exclusion zones, a geofenced VLP access point could fall within multiple 
overlapping exclusion zones at a particular location.  In such cases, the device would have to avoid all 
excluded frequencies for all the overlapping zones in which it is located.  To provide manufacturers 
flexibility in developing geofencing systems, we propose that geofencing systems may also determine 
areas where particular frequencies are available throughout the entire area based on the same protection 
criteria used to calculate exclusion zones.  Each approach may have advantages in terms of spectrum 
availability or device complexity, so permitting either approach would provide manufacturers with the 
ability to determine the most suitable implementation for a specific use case.449  The proposed 
methodology for calculating exclusion zones is described below.
116. We seek comment on these proposals.  Is a geofencing system necessary to minimize the 
likelihood of harmful interference from VLP devices with a PSD greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP to 
licensed incumbent services in the 6 GHz band?  Is the proposed method of using exclusion zones around 
licensed incumbent receive sites an appropriate way to protect these sites?  Would the proposed 
alternative method allowing geofencing operators to calculate zones in which a channel is available over 
an entire zone provide the same protection to incumbent services as determining exclusion zones in which 
447 See Higher Ground LLC; Application for Blanket Earth Station License, IBFS File No.: SES-LIC-20150616-
00357, Call Sign: E150095, Order and Authorization, 32 FCC Rcd 728, 739-741, paras. 38-40 (2017).  In that Order 
and Authorization, the Commission permitted Higher Ground to operate up to 50,000 SatPaq earth stations subject 
to using an automated frequency coordination system with a maximum 9 dBW EIRP/Carrier and a maximum 
-24 dBW/4 kHz EIRP density/Carrier (this equates to 0 dBW/MHz/Carrier or 30 dBm/MHz/Carrier) over any 
8 megahertz band with a limit of no more than 100 SatPaqs operating concurrently and with a maximum 9 dBW 
EIRP/Carrier and a maximum -21 dBW/4 kHz EIRP density/Carrier (this equates to 3 dBW/MHz/Carrier or 33 
dBm/MHz/Carrier) over any 4 megahertz band with a limit of no more than 50 SatPaqs operating concurrently.  
Note that these power levels are substantially higher than the power levels we are permitting for VLP devices here.
448 See 47 CFR § 15.711(d)(5) (permitting a Mode II personal/portable white space device to operate within a 
bounded area in which channel availability information has been calculated at all locations within the area); 47 CFR 
§ 15.711(k)(1) (permitting mobile white space devices to operate within geo-fenced areas over which the white 
space database has determined channel availability).
449 Determining exclusion zones would make the most spectrum available for a device since it would be prohibited 
from operating only on specific frequencies in limited areas close to licensed incumbent receive sites, but the device 
would have to be capable of storing information on all exclusion zones and prohibited frequencies in the area where 
it will operate.  Determining frequencies that are available at every point within a bounded area could be simpler to 
implement in a device since the device would only need to store information on the boundaries of the zone where 
operation is permitted and the available frequencies within that zone.  However, this approach could result in less 
available spectrum for a device since a frequency that is excluded at any point within the device’s operating area 
would have to be excluded everywhere in that area.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
60one or more channels are unavailable?  Should we permit use of either method, or is one method 
preferable to the other, and if so, why?  How would the benefits of higher power VLP operations in the 6 
GHz band vary with differences in exclusion zone design?
117. We also seek comment on whether an approach other than geofencing, such as requiring 
the use of an AFC system for higher power VLP devices, would be more appropriate.  What are the 
advantages and disadvantages of requiring a geofencing approach for protecting licensed services as 
opposed to other approaches?  What are the benefits and costs of the various approaches for the public, 
unlicensed devices manufacturers, and incumbent users of the 6 GHz band?  Are there any other factors 
that the Commission should consider in determining whether to require use of a geofencing system for 
VLP devices with a PSD greater than -5 dBm EIRP?  Commenters advocating for the proposed approach 
or any alternatives should provide details explaining why their desired approach is most beneficial for 
enabling these higher powered geofenced VLP devices.
2. Geofencing Architecture
118.Definition of geofenced VLP devices.  We propose to define a geofenced VLP access 
point as an access point that operates in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, has an integrated antenna, and uses a 
geofencing system to determine channel availability at its location.  We propose that these devices could 
simultaneously operate as clients to other access points or telecommunications systems (e.g., low-power 
indoor access points, standard power access points, other U-NII band access points, commercial 
telecommunication carriers’ networks, etc.) and very low power access points.  We believe that this 
definition adequately describes the types of VLP devices that could operate under a geofencing system, 
and the proposed requirement for an integrated antenna, which is consistent with the current rules for 
indoor access points and subordinate devices, will help ensure that geofenced VLP devices cannot be 
easily modified to increase their EIRP.450
119. We propose to require that geofenced VLP access points obtain or calculate the exclusion 
zones—where some operational restrictions are required—that will protect licensed services, have the 
capability to determine their location, and intelligently choose their operating channel to avoid operating 
on a prohibited frequency within an exclusion zone.  We further propose to require that client devices 
operating under the control of a geofenced VLP access point operate only on channels as determined by 
its connected geofenced VLP access point.  Under these proposals, client devices would not be required to 
directly obtain or calculate exclusion zone information as they would only be operating on channels 
already cleared through the geofenced VLP access point.  The same client devices may also be capable of 
operating under the control of LPI access points and standard power access points, in which case the 
client devices must adjust their power levels depending on which type of access point they are connected 
to.  That is, when connected to an LPI access point or standard power access point, the client device 
would have to follow the client device rules for those operations, which require those client devices to 
reduce their power at least 6 dB below the access point power level.451  Because geofenced VLP access 
points and client devices would operate at lower power levels than standard power and LPI devices, thus 
reducing the distance at which harmful interference may possibly occur, we do not propose to require 
client devices to reduce their power below that of the access point and propose to limit both geofenced 
VLP access points and client devices operating under the control of a geofenced VLP access point to the 
same power levels.
120. We seek comment on these proposals.  Is the proposed geofenced VLP two-tier model 
based on access points and client devices in which a geofenced VLP access point is required to obtain 
450 47 CFR § 15.407(a)(9).
451 This is consistent with existing policy as articulated in the KDB guidance for 6 GHz devices, which provides for 
approval of composite devices where devices may require approval under multiple rule parts or sections.  See KDB 
Pub. No. 987594 D01, U-NII 6GHz General Requirements v01r03, section V available at: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=277034&switch=P#:~:text=987594-
,D01%20U%2DNII%206GHz%20General%20Requirements%20v01r03,-provides%20general%20requirements.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
61geofencing information, but the client device is not, appropriate?  Is the proposed definition of VLP 
access point appropriate, or are different or additional definitions that better describe the types of 
permissible geofenced VLP devices necessary?  Should all geofenced VLP devices be required to 
incorporate an integrated antenna?  Should client devices be permitted to operate at a different power 
level than geofenced access points?  Is there any need for a 6 dB power reduction for a client to a 
geofenced VLP device?
121.System architecture.  We propose to allow geofencing systems for VLP devices operating 
at greater than -5 dBm/MHz flexibility in their design by permitting the use of either a distributed 
architecture or a centralized model.  One possible architecture would have a centralized geofencing 
system calculate exclusion zones based on information obtained from Commission databases, e.g., the 
Universal Licensing System (ULS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) databases, as 
well the Commission’s rules.452  A VLP access point would contact this centralized geofencing system to 
download the exclusion zones and then manage its use of spectrum based on these areas.  Another 
possible architecture would be for a VLP access point to regularly send its location to a centralized 
geofencing system, which would then inform the access point as to the channels it may use.  Yet another 
possible architecture would be for the geofencing system to be integrated within a VLP access point.  A 
VLP access point would download information about the licensed services to be protected from an 
external source.  It would contain the data and software necessary to independently determine exclusion 
zones and manage its use of spectrum.  We are not proposing specific details for the geofencing system 
architecture for VLP devices because we want to provide manufacturers with the flexibility to design 
appropriate geofencing systems for different equipment use cases, many of which may not be known at 
this time.
122. We seek comment on these proposals.  How much flexibility should the Commission 
provide in geofencing system architecture?  Should the Commission provide flexibility for different 
geofencing system implementations or should a single approach be specified?  What are the benefits and 
drawbacks of each approach?  How would costs for users of a geofencing system vary between different 
approaches?  Is there a need to specify the overall framework of geofencing systems in more detail, e.g., 
whether they are centralized or decentralized?  Do we need to provide more specific requirements for 
geofencing system architecture and if so, what requirements should be specified?  Do we need to provide 
further details on the process that the Commission will use to approve geofencing systems, and if so, what 
additional details are necessary?
3. Protection of Incumbent Services
123. We propose requirements for geofenced VLP devices operating at greater than 
-5 dBm/MHz EIRP to protect licensed incumbent services in the 6 GHz band, specifically, fixed 
microwave services, BAS and CARS receive sites, as well as radio astronomy and FSS receive sites.  
Consistent with the requirements for standard power access points and fixed client devices, we propose 
that geofencing systems use data from Commission databases to protect fixed microwave services.453  We 
propose that BAS and CARS receive sites be protected using data provided by licensees, as described 
below.  We further propose that geofenced VLP devices protect certain radio astronomy sites and FSS 
452 AFC systems are designed to provide lists of available channels and power levels to standard power access points 
and fixed client devices in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands at the single set of geographic coordinates where a device 
is registered.  47 CFR § 15.407(k)(4).  Additional functionality would have to be added to an AFC system to enable 
it to provide information to very low power access points on the boundaries of the geofenced exclusion zones where 
they are prohibited from operating on certain frequencies, and to include the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands to protect 
BAS receive sites when determining these exclusion zones.  It is important to note that the relevant data to calculate 
the exclusion zones is currently in multiple Commission databases (i.e., ULS database is for fixed microwave and 
BAS, and COALS database is used for CARS).  The requirements for protecting radio astronomy and fixed satellite 
receive sites are in section 15.407(q)-(r) of the amended rules and the coordinates of the radio astronomy sites are in 
section 2.106(c)(131), (c)(385) (United States footnotes US131 and US385).
453 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3864, para. 30; see 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
62receive sites as provided in the Commission’s rules.454  Geofenced VLP operations, like all other 
unlicensed 6 GHz band operations, would have to comply with international agreements with Canada and 
Mexico.455
124.Fixed microwave services protection.  We propose to require geofencing systems to 
follow the same criteria for protecting fixed and temporary fixed microwave receive sites used for 
standard power access points and fixed client devices.456  Specifically, we propose that geofenced VLP 
device exclusion zones be calculated based on the -6 dB I/N interference protection criterion used in the 6 
GHz Order, where N (noise) represents the background noise level at the fixed microwave receiver, and I 
(interference) represents the co-channel signal from the VLP device at the fixed microwave service 
receiver.457  The Commission noted in the 6 GHz Order that use of this metric is a conservative approach 
that will ensure that the potential for harmful interference to the fixed microwave services is minimized 
and that the important fixed microwave services in the 6 GHz band are protected.458
125. We also propose to allow an assumption of 4 dB for body loss in the exclusion zone 
calculations because of our finding, discussed in the Second Report and Order, that due to the nature of 
VLP devices and how they will be used, an additional 4 dB attenuation for body loss is appropriate when 
analyzing the potential effect of their emissions.459  We do not propose to consider aggregate interference 
from geofenced VLP devices since they will operate at a significantly lower power level than standard 
power access points and fixed client devices for which the Commission previously determined that an 
aggregate interference limit is not necessary.460
126. We seek comment on these proposals.  Are the proposed interference metric and body 
loss assumption appropriate?  Would other values be more appropriate?  Are there other parameters in 
addition to body loss that should be accounted for when determining exclusion zones (e.g., transmit 
power control)?  Commenters who advocate for additional parameters should specify the parameters, 
appropriate values, and a detailed justification for why that parameter and value are appropriate.  We seek 
estimates of the benefits and costs of different parameter proposals.  We also seek comment on whether 
there is a need for an aggregate interference limit.  If so, what is the appropriate limit and why?  How 
could we enforce an aggregate interference limit using a geofencing system?  Would a centralized system 
be required and if so, who would build and run such a system?
454 47 CFR §§ 15.407(m), 2.106(c)(131), (c)(385) (United States footnotes US131 and US385).
455 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(14).
456 VLP devices will be required to accommodate temporary fixed microwave stations similar to the requirement for 
standard power devices.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3865, para. 32.  The term “fixed microwave services” in this 
Second Report and Order includes temporary fixed stations.  See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces 
that Temporary Fixed Stations in the 6 GHz Band Can Now Be Registered, Public Notice, DA 23-814 (WTB Sep. 6, 
2023).
457 See 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(2).
458 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3878, para. 71.  The WinnForum created a consensus functional requirements 
document for 6 GHz band AFC systems which contains details for implementing the Commission’s rules for 
standard power devices operating under the control of an AFC system.  This document includes default input values 
as well as options for certain propagation model values depending on the amount of information known regarding 
the fixed service receiver.  Wireless Innovation Forum, Functional Requirements for the U.S. 6 GHz Band under the 
Control of an AFC System, WINNF-TS-1014 Version V1.3.0 (Mar. 9, 2023), 
https://winnf.memberclicks.net/assets/work_products/Specifications/WINNF-TS-1014.pdf.  We appreciate the work 
that industry stakeholders have done to implement the AFC systems and encourage them to continue this 
collaboration to implement geofencing systems for 6 GHz band very low power devices.
459 See supra para. 40.
460 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3879, para. 72.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
63127. We propose to require geofencing systems to use the same propagation models that are 
used for standard power access points and fixed client devices to determine the VLP device exclusion 
zones.461  Specifically, we propose to require geofencing systems to use the free space path-loss model at 
separation distances of up to 30 meters, the Wireless World Initiative New Radio phase II (WINNER II) 
model at separation distances greater than 30 meters and up to and including 1 kilometer, and the 
Irregular Terrain Model (ITM) combined with the appropriate clutter model at separation distances 
greater than 1 kilometer.462  Where such data are available, we propose that the exclusion zone calculation  
use site-specific information, including buildings and terrain data, for determining the line-of-sight/non-
line-of-sight path component in the WINNER II model.463  For evaluating paths where such data are not 
available, we propose that the calculation use a probabilistic model combining the line-of-sight path and 
non-line-of-sight path into a single path-loss as set forth in the requirements for AFC systems.464  We 
believe that these propagation models are appropriate for determining exclusion zones for geofenced VLP 
access points for the same reasons that they are appropriate for determining channel availability for 
standard power devices described in the 6 GHz Order.465  We propose that these propagation models be 
implemented to determine the exclusion zones consistent with the way that they are being used to 
determine standard power device exclusion zones and consistent with the consensus methodology 
WinnForum published for AFC systems, which permits certain allowances for feeder loss and antenna 
mismatch.466  Each of these models could be used at the antenna height above ground (1.5 meters) that we 
assumed for VLP operation in the Second Report and Order.467
128. We seek comment on these proposals.  Are the proposed propagation models appropriate 
for calculating geofenced VLP device exclusion zones?  Could we allow the use of different propagation 
models for calculating geofenced VLP device exclusion zones or simplify the methodology in some way?  
For example, could we require use of a single propagation model, such as ITM, for all distances?  If so, 
what is the appropriate propagation model?  If we specify a different propagation model for determining 
exclusion zones, should we make its use mandatory or should it be an optional alternative to the proposed 
propagation models?  Parties should address how a different propagation model would ensure that 
incumbent services in the 6 GHz band are adequately protected.  We also seek comment on the benefits 
and costs of requiring or allowing the use of different propagation models.  Could this approach reduce 
461 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(1).
462 Id.
463 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(1)(ii).
464 Id.
465 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3875-77, para. 64-66.  The free space path loss model is appropriate at short 
distances where the potential for a direct line-of-sight between an unlicensed device and a microwave receiver is 
greatest, and at greater distances (up to 1 kilometer) where the free space model may be overly conservative the 
WINNER II model is more appropriate because it accounts for obstructions by urban and suburban clutter which the 
free space model does not.  Id. at 3875-76, paras. 64-65.  The ITM model, which is defined at distances greater than 
1 kilometer, is a widely accepted model that has been successfully used by the Commission to model interference in 
other instances.  Id. at 3876-77, para. 66.
466 47 CFR § 15.407(l)(1); Functional Requirements for the U.S. 6 GHz Band under the Control of an AFC System, 
Document WINNF-TS-1014, available at 
https://winnf.memberclicks.net/assets/work_products/Specifications/WINNF-TS-1014.pdf.
467 NTIA Report 82-100, A Guide to the Use of the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode, at 7 
(1982), https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ntia_82-100_20121129145031_555510_0.pdf (showing 
that the ITM model can be used with an antenna height above ground as low as 0.5 meters); Information Society 
Technologies (IST), WINNER II Channel Models D1.1.2 V1.2, at 16-17 (2008), 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234055761_WINNER_II_channel_models (showing that the WINNER II 
model can be used with antenna heights of 1-2 meters above ground).  The free space path loss model does not 
directly consider the antenna height above ground but rather determines path loss based on the line-of-sight distance 
from the transmit antenna to a specific point and can be used when the antenna height above ground is 1.5 meters.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
64the size of the exclusion zones where geofenced VLP devices are prohibited from operating on certain 
frequencies?
129. We also seek comment on whether there are land-use databases that could account, for 
example, for actual buildings and other structures, especially in cities and suburbs, that could allow a 
more accurate determination of where VLP devices can operate without causing harmful interference?  If 
so, what databases are available for this purpose?  If this information is not available, would it be possible 
for parties to develop it, either nationwide or for specific areas?  Could we allow modifications to any 
parameters used in the specified propagation models, and if so, which ones?  If we allow modifications to 
the method of determining spectrum availability for VLP devices, what criteria would the Commission 
have to specify in the rules?  Would we need to develop a process for modifying the locations where VLP 
devices can and cannot operate?  Should a geofencing system operator be required to obtain prior 
permission from the Commission to use a modified methodology, or could the Commission adopt rules 
that do not require operators to obtain prior permission?
130.Electronic news gathering central receive site protection.  We propose to require that 
geofencing systems protect BAS and CARS operations in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands, including low 
power auxiliary devices.  Both U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands are used by mobile broadcast auxiliary 
services, including outdoor electronic news gathering (ENG) trucks and low power short range devices, 
such as portable cameras and microphones.  Low Power Auxiliary Stations, which are licensed in portions 
of the U-NII-8 band, operate on an itinerant basis and transmit over distances of approximately 100 
meters for uses such as wireless microphones, cue and control communications, and TV camera 
synchronization signals.468  ENG trucks transmit video programming, generally using telescoping 
directional antennas that are oriented toward a central receive site from remote sites, such as the location 
of news or sporting events, to a central receive site.469  According to the ITU, ENG collection sites are 
generally operated by TV networks in major city areas where the typical central collection site is located 
within the city center, on the roof of a high building (e.g., 150 m above the surrounding terrain) and that 
many TV networks also have alternative dedicated ENG collection sites mounted on their broadcast 
transmission towers.470  The ITU also states that these receive sites include both steerable antennas and 
fixed arrays that may have up to 360° of azimuthal coverage.471  The central receive sites, align with the 
locations of the ENG trucks.  Hence, the communication link between the ENG truck and central receive 
site shares many of the characteristics of a fixed microwave link—i.e., they use directional antennas to 
send signals between two fixed locations that are located mostly above the local clutter—and can be 
protected by the geofencing system by creating exclusion zones to protect the receiver at the central 
receive site.  Due to the steerable nature of the central receive antennas, would exclusion zones 
surrounding central receive sites  need to be circular to ensure protection in all directions, or could they be 
only part of a circle, i.e., less than 360 degrees, if they only receive from specific directions and the 
directional pattern and range of orientations of the receive antenna are known?472
131. Because links from ENG trucks to BAS and CARS receive sites are essentially temporary 
fixed point-to-point links, we propose the use of the same -6 dB I/N interference protection criterion and 
propagation models along with an additional 4 dB body loss consistent with our proposal for calculating 
geofenced VLP device exclusion zones for fixed microwave links.  Since BAS and CARS operations are 
468 47 CFR pt. 74, subpt. H.
469 These are referred to as “TV pickup stations” in the part 74 rules.  47 CFR § 74.601(a).
470 See Recommendation ITU-R F.1777-3 (02/2022), “System characteristic of television outside broadcast, 
electronic news gathering and electronic field production in the fixed service for use in sharing studies” at 3-4.  ITU 
Recommendation ITU-R F.1777-3 is available at https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/f/R-REC-F.1777-3-
202202-I!!PDF-E.pdf.
471 Id.
472 The Commission’s ULS database currently only has the capability to store receive antenna information as an 
attachment to an application and not in a machine readable format.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
65typically licensed for the entire band(s) in which they operate (i.e., U-NII-6, U-NII-8, or both), should 
geofenced VLP devices avoid operation across the entire band that a BAS/CARS site receives within the 
area where the interference protection criterion is calculated to be greater than -6 dB I/N unless more 
information about actual operations are known?  Should the exclusion zones be circular when the 
directivity of the BAS/CARS receive antenna is not known?
132. A full record of BAS and CARS central receive sites would be needed in the 
Commission’s licensing databases to calculate the geofencing exclusion zones.473  The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology could 
collect information from BAS and CARS licensees regarding locations and associated information for 
existing central receive sites to ensure that our databases are complete and up-to-date.474  We would not 
permit geofenced VLP unlicensed devices to operate in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands until after the 
Commission’s databases are updated.475
133. We seek comment on these proposals.  Although we are proposing to protect BAS/CARS 
using the -6 dB I/N ratio and 4 dB body loss assumption, we seek comment on whether a different metric 
or assumption is more appropriate?  Are the propagation models we propose above to protect fixed 
microwave links also appropriate for BAS/CARS?  Commenters should provide detailed technical 
justification and analysis.  We seek comment on whether there are ways that we could reduce the size of 
the exclusion zones to protect BAS and CARS receive sites, limit the number of frequencies excluded 
within those zones, or limit receive site protection to only the specific times when they are in use.  For 
example, should we require BAS and CARS users to notify a geofencing system of their ENG operations, 
and for the geofencing systems to incorporate a push notification feature or similar functionality to 
provide information (e.g., actual operating locations and frequency usage, on a near real-time basis) to 
VLP devices so that the exclusion zones in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands can be tailored to actual usage 
rather than all possible usage areas?476  What specific requirements would the Commission need to 
473 BAS licensee information is contained in ULS, and CARS licensing information is contained in the 
Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS).
474 This information may include location, antenna gain, antenna height, antenna make/model, antenna tilt, antenna 
azimuth and beamwidth (if applicable), and equipment make/model.
475 We seek comment below on whether non-geofenced VLP operations can be permitted at lower power levels (i.e., 
up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD) in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands.
476 The Commission previously adopted rules to enable spectrum sharing where spectrum users with higher priority 
may begin operation on short notice, thus requiring users with lower priority to change frequency or cease operation.  
In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, devices must operate under control of a SAS which is capable of rapidly 
managing spectrum use by three tiers of authorized users with different levels of priority.  Devices are required to 
cease transmission, move to a different frequency or change power level within 60 seconds of notification by the 
SAS.  47 CFR § 96.39(c)(2).  Unlicensed white space devices must operate only on frequencies that a database 
indicates are available at a device’s location to protect operations in the TV bands, including licensed wireless 
microphones which may register for protection at any time.  To ensure that newly registered licensed wireless 
microphones receive prompt protection, the Commission previously required the white space database to “push” 
changes in channel availability information to white space devices when a licensed wireless microphone registers to 
use a TV channel that is already in use by a white space device.  The white space device must then change to a 
different channel or cease operation if no other channel is available.  The Commission decided that requiring white 
space devices to re-check the database on a more frequent basis is simpler for manufacturers and database 
administrators to implement, so it replaced the push notification requirement with a requirement for more frequent 
database checks.  However, because a push notification system could potentially be more efficient when the number 
of unlicensed devices that must contact a database is large, the Commission retained an option for manufacturers 
and database administrators to develop a push notification system in the future.  Amendment of Part 15 of the 
Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz 
Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37; Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules for Low Power 
Auxiliary Stations in the Repurposed 600 MHz Band and the 600 MHz Duplex Gap, Expanding the Economic and 
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
66specify for a push notification system?  Would it be better for the Commission to simply require the 
geofencing system to provide updated exclusion zone information to devices within a defined time 
interval from the time it receives updated usage information, similar to the approach in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service, which requires devices to respond to instructions within a specific time limit,477 
and allow device manufacturers to determine the most appropriate way to comply with this requirement?
134. We seek comment on the benefits of obtaining more detailed information from 
BAS/CARS licensees and limiting protection to only the associated exclusion zones and times that these 
services actually operate.  We also seek comment on how much spectrum ENG operations typically use.  
The Policy Statement emphasized data-driven regulatory approaches to promote co-existence.478  In this 
regard, the Commission specifically noted that “[r]elevant information about services’ transmitter and 
receiver standards, guidelines, and operating characteristics is needed to promote effective spectrum 
management and efficient coexistence.”479  We therefore propose that BAS/CARS licensees be required to 
register their receive site information in Commission databases so that geofencing systems can use site-
specific data to create appropriate exclusion zones for these sites.  We seek comment on what information 
should be collected.  Should it be limited to information currently collected by Commission databases, 
such as location, antenna height, antenna model, and azimuth, or are there other information fields that the 
Commission should collect?.  Is the current information in ULS and COALS appropriate for estimating 
the number of affected incumbents and their equipment?  Could we use past activity on ULS and COALs 
systems to extrapolate the future number of necessary updates?  We seek comment on this proposal and 
whether the Commission should conduct an information collection for these sites.  Assuming that the 
Commission does initiate an information collection, what is an appropriate time frame over which to 
require licensees to provide their information?
135. We also seek comment on whether multiple ENG operations at a location use the same or 
different receive sites.  What is the number of ENG operations that typically occur at a news event, 
sporting event, or other event where such operations may be used?  And what is the maximum that might 
be used at larger national events such as political conventions or large scale sporting events?  How much 
time do ENG operations typically need to transmit for these events?  Is continuous operation required 
before, during, and after an event or only within discrete timeframes?  Are there ways to predict when 
operation may be heaviest?  Looking across these dimensions of time, location, and spectrum occupancy, 
how much additional spectrum, operating area, and time could this approach make available for VLP 
devices, as compared to assuming that ENG might always be operating within a circular or part of a 
circular area around an ENG receive site?  How would this differ from a system where ENG operations 
simply preregistered their entire service areas and operating channels, but with no time limit to account 
for use at unscheduled breaking news events?  If the specific location, antenna pattern, and look angle of 
an ENG receive antenna are known, is it necessary for the exclusion zone to be circular, or could we 
consider non-circular exclusion zones, such as keyhole shaped zones or arcs, to protect ENG receive 
sites?  If we were to implement a registration requirement, should the ENG use be updated during in-use 
times or for non-real-time registration, or should the ENG use be updated on a regular basis?  What is a 
reasonable time period for such updates?  Can ENG operations be automated to inform a geofencing 
system when it is operating and on which channels and to which receive site it is broadcasting, or would 
registration have to be a manual process?  What up-front and ongoing costs would be involved with 
setting up and using such a system and who would incur them?
136. Although we propose to allow either a distributed or centralized architecture model for 
VLP device geofencing systems, if we were to adopt a push notification or similar approach to protect 
the Television Bands, Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket Nos. 14-165 and 20-36, GN 
Docket No. 12-268, 37 FCC Rcd 1384, 1393-97 (2022).
477 47 CFR § 96.39(c)(2).
478 Policy Statement at 3, 11-13, paras. 5, 36-47.
479 Id. at 3, 11 paras. 5, 37 (emphasis omitted).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
67BAS/CARS based on actual usage, it appears that there would be a need for one or more centralized 
systems to register BAS/CARS usage and provide the information to geofencing systems.480  We seek 
comment on whether this would be necessary.  If so, who would develop and operate these systems?  
How should any information be shared amongst geofencing systems?  For example, in the white space 
rules, white space device operators are required to share registration information with all other database 
administrators.481  Would such a requirement be necessary here?  If so, how would data sharing work to 
ensure that all geofencing systems, both centralized and decentralized, have up-to-date information to 
protect ENG operations at scheduled and unscheduled events?  What information should licensees be 
required to file and what procedure would they use to get their information to the system?  Should 
licensees be required to file or update information within a specific timeframe?  What would be the 
burden on licensees for filing this information?  Could the filing process be automated?  We seek 
comment on any other options for transmitting channel utilization information to geofencing operators.  
Are there any other factors that should be considered in this process?  Finally, we seek comment on 
whether there should be any channels (e.g, one or two channels) set aside as a safe harbor for ENG 
operations in these bands where ENG could operate without risk of harmful interference from VLP 
devices at times when the operator could not register its parameters?  If so, how much spectrum would 
need to be set aside for such operation?  Would spectrum be needed in both U-NII-6 and U-NII-8?  Are 
there particular places in the band that would be most useful; e.g., the top of the band, bottom of the band, 
middle of the band, or on the same spectrum permitted for satellite downlink operations?482  Would such 
safe harbor be needed nationwide or only in certain areas (e.g., around large cities)?  Commenters 
advocating such an approach should provide detailed information regarding ENG requirements and fully 
support their position with technical information.
137. We seek comment, especially quantitative, on the benefits and costs of requiring a push 
notification system.  Should any particular protocol or security measures be required?  To what extent 
would a push notification system permit service continuity for geofenced VLP devices, as compared to 
how often such users would need to modify their channel usage to avoid exclusion zones when those 
areas are tailored to the specific situation rather than assuming that ENG might always be operating 
within a circular or part of a circular area around an ENG receive site?  How would data rates be affected?  
What would be the potential costs associated with establishing, maintaining, and operating the push 
notification system?  In particular, we seek comment on the costs for BAS and CARS licensees to report 
their location information to enable push notifications.
138. Low-power short range mobile device protection.  We propose that low power short 
range BAS and CARS devices, such as portable cameras and microphones, and Low Power Auxiliary 
stations be protected from harmful interference by a combination of a required contention-based protocol 
and low probability of a VLP device operating on the same channel in a nearby location.  This proposal is 
consistent with the 6 GHz Order in which the Commission required that all 6 GHz unlicensed LPI access 
points, subordinate devices, and client devices employ a contention-based protocol.483  Further, the 6 GHz 
480 The Commission’s ULS would not be suitable for this purpose since it is updated only once daily.
481 See 47 CFR § 15.715(l).
482 Limited satellite downlinks are permitted in the U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands.  See supra para. 8.
483 47 CFR §§ 15.403, 15.407(d)(6).  A contention-based protocol allows multiple users to share spectrum by 
providing a reasonable opportunity for the different users to transmit.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3889, para. 101.  
In IEEE 802.11 standards, a “listen-before-talk” medium access scheme based on the Carrier Sense Multiple Access 
with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) protocol functions as a contention-based algorithm to provide spectrum 
access to all traffic.  Id.  Under this scheme, before initiating any packet delivery, a station listens to the wireless 
medium and if the medium is idle, the station may transmit; otherwise, the station must wait until the current 
transmission is complete before transmitting.  Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
68Order showed that the probability of channel overlap between 6 GHz unlicensed devices and incumbent 
station operations is low due to unlicensed devices having a full 1200 megahertz over which to operate.484
139.We believe that a similar approach for geofenced VLP devices will adequately reduce the 
risk that mobile service incumbents in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands will be subjected to harmful 
interference and keep that risk to an insignificant level.  Our reasoning is consistent with the 6 GHz 
Order, i.e., the sensing function associated with the contention-based protocol, along with the low 
probability for co-channel operation, is sufficient to ensure that geofenced VLP devices detect nearby 
mobile BAS operations and avoid transmitting co-channel to protect those operations from harmful 
interference.485  While we are not proposing a specific technology protocol or contention method, we 
propose to require geofenced VLP devices to use a contention-based protocol as we require for LPI 
devices.486  We believe that this proposal has additional benefits as it provides multiple geofenced  VLP 
devices as well as LPI devices equal access to the spectrum, while protecting mobile incumbents’ 
services.  We also believe that the use of a contention-based protocol will limit the duty cycle of 
geofenced VLP devices as they will need to share the spectrum with other devices.  Additionally, 
geofenced VLP devices would transmit at lower power levels than LPI devices, further reducing the risk 
of harmful interference to mobile services.  Given all these reasons, we believe that requiring use of a 
contention-based protocol by geofenced VLP devices would protect mobile service incumbents.
140.We seek comment on this proposal.  Would requiring geofenced VLP devices to 
incorporate a contention-based protocol adequately protect mobile service incumbents?  If not, what other 
protection measures could be used by geofenced VLP devices to protect mobile services?  For example, 
could a registration system with a push notification provide near real-time information to geofenced VLP 
devices to avoid transmitting near mobile BAS operations?  Is there a need to provide greater specificity 
in the requirements for a contention-based protocol used by geofenced VLP devices?  If so, what 
particular requirements should be specified and why?  What are the costs and benefits of requiring the use 
of a contention-based protocol?
141.Radio astronomy and fixed satellite protection.  We propose to require that geofencing 
systems implement the same exclusion zone rules for protecting radio astronomy sites in the 6650-6675.2 
MHz band as standard power access points and fixed client devices, which are based on the distance to 
the radio horizon.487  The locations of the protected radio astronomy sites and the protection criteria for 
these sites are specified in the rules for standard power access points and fixed client devices.488  
Additionally, the entire 6 GHz band is home to an FSS allocation (Earth-to-space), while the U-NII-8 
band has a few space-to-Earth MSS feeder downlink earth stations operated by Globalstar.489  The only 
requirement the Commission adopted to protect the Fixed Satellite Service in the 6 GHz Order was 
484 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3901-02, para. 131, tbl. 6.
485 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3915, para. 168.
486 See KDB Publication No. 987594.
487 47 CFR § 15.407(m).
488 Id.
489 47 CFR § 2.106(b)(458)(ii), (d)(172) (non-federal government footnote NG172 and international footnote 
5.458B).  The space-to-Earth allocation is limited to use by non-geostationary mobile-satellite service feeder links 
and earth stations receiving in this band are limited to locations within 300 m of coordinates in Brewster, WA, 
Clifton, TX, and Finca Pascual, PR.  Id.  Globalstar also operates earth station receive sites at Naalehu, HI; Wasilla, 
AK; and Sebring, FL.  These last two locations are authorized to operate on a co-primary basis for feeder downlinks 
for FSS, except for 7.025-7.055 GHz band, where they are authorized only on an unprotected basis. See GUSA 
Licensee LLC (Globalstar) license file numbers SES-MOD-20210303-00414 and SES-MOD-20210303-00415 for 
Wasilla, AK and license file numbers SES-MOD-20200728-00811, SES-RWL-20211102-01769, SES-RWL-
20211102-01770, and SES-RWL-20211102-01775 for Sebring, FL.  Each of these licenses is subject to the 
condition that operation in the 7.025-7.055 GHz band is on an unprotected basis.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
69restricting standard power access point EIRP to 21 dBm above a 30 degree elevation angle.490  Because 
we propose to limit geofenced VLP devices to 14 dBm EIRP and seek comment on a maximum EIRP of 
no greater than 21 dBm, we propose no additional restrictions to protect FSS Earth-to-space operations.  
We seek comment on these proposals.
142. Globalstar operates receiving earth stations for non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite 
Service feeder links at five locations.491  We propose to require that geofenced VLP access points protect 
Globalstar’s earth stations using the same exclusion zone calculation methodology used to protect radio 
astronomy sites.  We propose to require the geofencing system to implement these exclusion zones over 
6875-7055 MHz at each of Globalstar’s five feeder link earth station locations.  As these exclusion zones 
are designed to protect extremely sensitive radio astronomy facilities, we believe that they will provide 
more than adequate protection for Globalstar’s earth stations.
143. We seek comment on this proposal.  If different criteria are appropriate, what are the key 
parameters that must be considered to protect these earth stations?  Are parameters such as minimum 
elevation angle from the earth station to the satellite, gain of earth station antenna, and earth station 
receiver characteristics readily available?  Are Commission databases, such as the International 
Communications Filing System (ICFS),492 able to collect the necessary parameters for calculating 
exclusion zones?  If not, and given the limited number of these Earth stations in the U-NII-8 band, could 
exclusion zones around these Earth stations be determined based on generalized parameters?  What 
should those parameter values be?  Would earth station receivers require a different level of protection 
than the -6 dB I/N ratio used to protect other incumbents in the band?  If so, what is the protection 
criterion?  What would be the cost of implementing and maintaining necessary protections for space-to-
Earth stations from geofenced VLP devices?  We also seek information on the economic harm from 
interference that these protections would prevent.  Commenters should provide technical analysis to 
support their positions.
144.Adjacent channel protection.  We propose that exclusion zones for geofenced VLP access 
points account for only co-channel operations and not consider adjacent channel operations.  We believe 
that this proposal is appropriate due to the significantly lower power we propose for geofenced VLP 
devices as compared to standard power and fixed client devices.  The out-of-band emission rules for 6 
GHz unlicensed devices require such emissions to be suppressed by 20 dB at 1 megahertz outside of 
channel edge, by 28 dB at one channel bandwidth from the channel center, and by 40 dB at one- and one-
half times the channel bandwidth away from channel. center.493  When compared to standard power 
devices that may operate at EIRP levels up to 23 dBm/MHz and must meet the same OOBE mask, VLP 
adjacent channel emissions begin at least 22 dBm below those standard power device OOBE levels.  
Thus, VLP OOBE levels must begin at -19 dBm/MHz at 1 megahertz outside the channel edge and reduce 
from that level with spectral distance.494  Moreover, we note that adding 20 dB or more additional 
emission reduction represents at least a tenfold reduction (assuming free space propagation) in distance 
along any radial for determining adjacent channel protection as compared to standard power device 
adjacent channel geofenced distances.  In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission concluded that the risk of 
490 47 CFR § 15.407(n).
491 Globalstar indicates in its comments that it has earth stations located at Clifton, TX, Cabo Rojo, PR, Wasilla, AK, 
and Sebring, FL.  Globalstar Comments, ET Docket No. 18-295 at 5 (filed Feb. 15, 2019).  Globalstar subsequently 
received authorization for an additional earth station at Naalehu, HI.  See GUSA Licensee LLC (Globalstar) license 
file numbers SES-LIC-20201211-01364, SES-LIC-20201211-01365, SES-LIC-20201211-01366 (granted July 2, 
2021).
492 The ICFS was formerly known as the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS).  Only its name has changed; 
the ICFS functionality remains identical to what was available in IBFS.
493 47 CFR § 15.407(b)(7).
494 Because we are proposing to permit geofenced VLP devices to transmit at a 1 dBm/MHz maximum, a 20 dB 
reduction evaluates to -19 dBm/MHz.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
70adjacent channel interference to microwave receivers was low and stated that it expects these adjacent 
channel zones will be small and not significantly impact the amount of spectrum available to unlicensed 
devices at any given location, but included adjacent channel protection in the adopted rules for standard 
power devices as part of a conservative approach to protecting the incumbent receivers.495  Given the 
additional 22 dB in adjacent channel protection provided by geofenced VLP devices as compared to 
standard power devices, and the further reduction in protection areas size, we conclude that the risk of 
adjacent channel interference is so low as to not require geofencing systems to account for them.  We 
seek comment on this proposal.
145.Geofencing update interval.  We propose to require a geofencing system to obtain the 
most recent public access file data from Commission databases (e.g., ULS and COALS) for registered 
fixed microwave links and BAS/CARS central receive sites at least once per day and to recalculate the 
exclusion zones, as necessary, to account for any new or updated information.496  We believe that once per 
day would be an appropriate re-check interval because the ULS and COALS, which contain the data that 
will be used to determine the exclusion zones to protect fixed microwave services and BAS/CARS central 
receive sites, are generally updated on a daily basis, and a daily re-check requirement would also ensure 
that newly registered microwave receive sites and BAS/CARS central receive sites are promptly 
protected.497  We seek comment on this proposal.  Is a daily update necessary, or recognizing that not 
many new stations get licensed on a daily basis and that there is often a lag between licensing and 
operation, could a longer interval be specified?  If so, what update interval should be required?  
Conversely, as discussed above, could we or should we establish a process to update BAS/CARS 
information in a much shorter timeframe to enable more efficient use of spectrum in areas near BAS and 
CARS receive sites?  How would the benefits and costs change with differing interval lengths?
4. Other Geofencing Requirements
146. We propose additional requirements for geofencing systems and operators that are similar 
to certain requirements for 6 GHz AFC systems.498  Specifically, we propose that each geofencing system 
and operator thereof for centralized systems and the equipment certification responsible party for systems 
internal to the very low power device must:  (1) ensure that a regularly updated geofencing system 
database that contains the information required for geofencing systems by paragraphs (o) through (r) of 
proposed section 15.407, including incumbent’s information and very low power access points 
authorization parameters, is maintained;499 (2) respond in a timely manner to verify, correct, or remove, as 
appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party presents a claim of inaccuracies in the 
geofencing system;500 (3) establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement instructions from the 
Commission, including discontinuance of very low power access point operations on specified 
frequencies in designated geographic areas and predetermined exclusion zones;501 and (4) comply with 
instructions from the Commission to adjust exclusion zones to more accurately reflect the potential for 
harmful interference.502
147. We further propose that for centralized geofencing systems, geofencing system operators 
must provide continuous service to all VLP devices for which it has been designated to provide service, 
495 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3881, para. 77.
496 COALS does not currently support automated data access in the same manner as the ULS.  OET and Media 
Bureau would ensure that the information in COALS is readily accessible to geofencing system operators.
497 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3869-70, para. 46.
498 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k).
499 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(15)(i).
500 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(15)(v).
501 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(15)(vi).
502 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(15)(vi).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
71and that if a geofencing system ceases operation, the operator must provide at least 30-days’ notice to the 
Commission and a description of any arrangements made for those devices to continue to receive 
exclusion zone update information.503  In addition, we propose that a geofencing system operator may 
charge fees for providing service and that the Commission may, upon request, review the fees and can 
require changes to those fees if the Commission finds them to be unreasonable.504  We also propose that at 
the time that a VLP device receives equipment certification, the device must either have its geofencing 
system approved or specify an already approved geofencing system that it is using.505  We further propose 
that the Commission may specify criteria for such approval, which could require test results to be 
submitted.
148. We seek comment on these proposals.  Are all the proposed requirements appropriate and 
necessary?  Should we modify any of these proposed requirements or establish additional requirements 
for geofencing systems and operators?  If so, what requirements are necessary?  We seek quantitative 
analysis of the likely fee structure that would result under our proposal allowing fees.  What would be the 
initial cost of developing a geofencing system and the ongoing cost of providing daily information to it?  
We also seek comment on how any fees would relate to usage or other costs of operating the geofencing 
system.
149. Finally, in light of the proposals to base higher power VLP operation on using a 
geofencing system, we seek comment on whether there are alternative methods to achieve the same result.  
Are there other technical or operational approaches that would similarly permit more flexible VLP 
operation while protecting incumbent operations?  Commenters advocating for alternative approaches 
should provide specific detail regarding any alternative approach along with descriptions and analysis of 
how such an approach would protect incumbent operations.
C. Client-to-Client Device Communications
150. In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission prohibited unlicensed client devices from operating 
as “mobile hotspots” because “[p]ermitting a client device operating under the control of an access point 
to authorize the operation of additional client devices could potentially increase the distance between 
these additional client devices and the access point and increase the potential for harmful interference to 
fixed service receivers or electronic news gathering operations.”506  To avoid this situation, the 
Commission’s rules prohibit 6 GHz unlicensed client devices from directly communicating with one 
another.507  We propose two limited exceptions to this rule for VLP devices that operate above the -5 
dBm/MHz EIRP PSD level.508  First, we propose to permit higher powered VLP devices that are all 
operating under the control of the same LPI access point to directly communicate with each other.  We 
further propose that these communications be limited to the LPI client device power spectral density level 
(i.e., 6 dB below the LPI access point power level) and the VLP device 14 dBm EIRP limit.  Because 
both VLP devices under this approach would also meet the LPI requirements, we have assurance that 
their operations are indoors and thus that their emissions are subject to the same building entry loss as LPI 
devices.  With their lower power limit, these client devices will have even lower potential to cause 
503 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(10).
504 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(16).
505 See KDB Publication No. 987594.  An applicant for certification of a standard power or fixed client device must 
indicate that its device will operate with an approved AFC system.
506 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3927, para. 202.
507 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(5) (stating that “[c]lient devices are prohibited from connecting directly to another client 
device”).
508 Under the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order, non-geofenced VLP devices are already permitted to 
communicate directly with each other.  See para. 100, supra.  In addition, we seek comment below on whether we 
could permit client-to-client device communications more broadly, including for LPI devices.  See paras. 191-194, 
infra.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
72harmful interference to incumbent operations than the insignificant level the Commission already 
determined exists for LPI devices.  This proposed exception could provide increased flexibility to a 
limited class of devices, such as laptop computers, that generally do not incorporate GPS or other 
geolocation technologies while protecting incumbent operations beyond levels that similar devices (i.e., 
LPI devices) already provide.  
151. Second, we propose to permit direct client-to-client communications between VLP client 
devices when they are both under the control of the same VLP access point and the geofencing system 
determines that they are operating outside of any geofencing restrictions; i.e., there are channels available 
for VLP use that are not subject to geofencing requirements in the location where these devices are being 
used.  The rules we propose for geofenced VLP devices would permit up to 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 
up to 14 dBm EIRP when operating on channels that are not within an exclusion zone.509  Thus, because 
each client device in this scenario would be permitted to operate at the maximum power permitted for 
VLP devices, there would be no increase in the potential for causing harmful interference to incumbent 
operations if the client devices being used are also able to communicate directly with each other.  
However, all VLP access points would still be subject to the applicable geofencing requirements 
including location and geofencing recheck intervals and switching channels or ceasing communications 
should they enter an exclusion zone and are currently using a channel that is prohibited within that area.  
In that case, client devices operating under the control of a VLP access point that switches channels 
would also be required to switch channels as directed by the VLP access point.  This proposed limited 
exception, as with the first, could provide additional flexibility to implement novel VLP use cases without 
increasing the risk of harmful interference to incumbent operations.
152. We seek comment on these proposals.  Are these proposed limited exceptions to the 
prohibition on client-to-client device communications appropriate?  Would any other exceptions with 
respect to VLP devices be appropriate?  Do we need to need to specify any additional requirements or 
limitations on client-to-client device communications?  How much and what kinds of additional usage 
would these proposals create in client-to-client operations?  Would these proposals impose any additional 
costs to users of the associated spectrum?
D. Very Low Power Device Requirements
153. In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission established that an AFC system require a device’s 
geographic coordinates—along with the accuracy of those coordinates—and the device’s antenna height 
above ground to determine which channels are available for use at the device’s location.510  Standard 
power access points (APs) are required to contact an AFC system at least once per day, consistent with 
the frequency of the update to the ULS public access file, to obtain the latest lists of available channels at 
their locations.511  The daily update ensures that stationary unlicensed devices do not operate on a channel 
in proximity of a newly licensed fixed service receiver.  Although VLP devices may be mobile or 
stationary, mobile VLP devices may move to different locations, potentially resulting in a changing 
available channel list.  In lieu of an AFC system, we propose to require that geofenced VLP devices 
access a simpler geofencing system to prevent them from operating where there may be an elevated risk 
of causing harmful interference to licensed incumbent services in the 6 GHz band.512  Under this proposed 
geofencing system, geofenced VLP devices would have to incorporate provisions to ensure that they 
avoid transmitting on certain channels within certain geographic areas.
154. A mobile geofenced VLP device operating at a power level greater than -5 dBm/MHz 
509 See supra para. 106.
510 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3867, para. 38.  In the event the ULS is down or a public access file is not created 
on a given day, the geofencing system may continue to use the most recently downloaded data until update data 
becomes available.
511 Id. at 3870, para. 46.
512 See supra para. 114.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
73EIRP PSD would have to consider exclusion zone(s) not only at its present location, but also at all areas 
that may be traversed by a mobile VLP device between the present time and a future location update.  
Naturally, the area traversed by the mobile VLP device is a function of the VLP device’s speed and 
direction.  For example, a mobile VLP device located in a vehicle traveling 35 miles per hour could cover 
approximately one kilometer within one minute.513  However, there are other mobile use cases in which a 
pedestrian using a VLP device will cover well under a hundred meters in the same one-minute time 
period.  Accordingly, rather than proposing a set time period within which a mobile VLP device must 
update its location to check if it is in an area with different geofencing requirements than the previous 
area in which it checked, we propose a flexible approach with varying recheck times based on speed to 
better meet device usage requirements.  Thus, the recheck interval can be tailored to require fewer 
rechecks when moving at slow speeds and thus ease processing requirements and save battery power.
155.Incorporated geo-location.  Consistent with the requirements for standard power access 
points, we propose to require that geofenced VLP access points generally include a geo-location 
capability to determine their geographic coordinates.514  We propose to require a geofenced VLP device’s 
geo-location capability to determine its location uncertainty in meters, with a 95% confidence level, and 
that the applicant for certification of a VLP access point demonstrate the accuracy of the geo-location 
method used and the location uncertainty.515  We further propose to require that a geofenced VLP access 
point, using its geographic coordinates, take this location uncertainty into account when it determines 
whether the VLP access point is within an exclusion zone.  We seek comment on this proposal.  We also 
seek quantitative information on the benefits and costs of this proposal to VLP device users, 
manufacturers and the wider public.
156.Location Update.  We propose to require that geofenced VLP access points have the 
capability to timely adjust their operating frequencies when moving into, out of, or between exclusion 
zones.  We propose flexible requirements to enable device designers to optimize efficiency while still 
meeting the requirement to avoid operating on channels where -6 dB I/N interference protection criterion 
is not met.  Specifically, we propose that the time interval for a geofenced device to re-check its location 
and adjust its frequency usage must decrease proportionally based on an increase in the mobile device’s 
speed.  Under this proposal, a geofenced VLP access point that is in a powered state must regularly re-
check its location and speed and identify its position with respect to any exclusion zones that may exist 
within the vicinity of its current location.  We further propose that this geolocation update be done 
frequently enough that, based on the geofenced VLP access point’s position and speed, the device will not 
transmit on a channel that is unavailable within an exclusion zone.  We believe that this proposal provides 
flexibility to device designers to adjust how often the VLP access point must obtain geolocation 
information based on how fast the VLP access point is moving and how far it is from an exclusion zone 
where it would have to change its operating channel.  As an additional safeguard, we propose to require 
the VLP access point to determine its location and speed at least once a minute.  This one-minute update 
proposal is designed to provide additional assurance that the VLP access point avoids transmitting on 
frequencies that are not permitted by the geofencing system.  We further propose to require applicants for 
geofenced VLP access point certification to submit an attestation describing their algorithm for updating 
the device’s location with an explanation describing how these requirements are met.
157. We seek comment on these proposals.  Do they provide sufficient flexibility for mobile 
geofenced VLP devices?  Is it necessary for us to specify more detailed requirements on how often a 
513 Speed limits in urban and residential areas generally range between 30 to 40 miles per hour.  Interstate highway 
speeds are generally permitted at rates up to 70 miles per hour.  See 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction.
514 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(9)(i); 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3868, para. 40.  As noted above, we propose a limited 
exception from the geo-location requirement when both a VLP access point and client are both also connected to the 
same LPI access point.
515 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(9)(i).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
74geofenced device must re-check its speed and its position with respect to exclusion zones?  If so, what 
additional requirements should be specified and why?  Is a requirement for devices to re-check their 
location and speed at least once per minute necessary?  Is the proposed information that applicants for 
certification of geofenced VLP access points must submit appropriate, or should any additional 
information be required?  If so, what information?  We seek quantitative information on the benefits and 
costs to VLP device users, manufacturers and the wider public of our proposal and any proposed 
alternatives.
158.Antenna Height.  We propose to require geofencing systems to use an assumed antenna 
height above ground level of 1.5 meters for geofenced VLP access points similar to the approach used in 
the Second Report and Order for interference modeling of VLP devices.516  We seek comment on this 
proposal.  Is an assumed 1.5 meter antenna height appropriate, or should we specify a different value?  If 
so, what height should we require for the exclusion zone calculations?  We also seek quantitative 
information on the benefits and costs to VLP device users, manufacturers and the wider public of our 
proposed antennas height.  Commenters proposing alternative values should quantify the benefits and 
costs of alternatives.
159.Fixed Infrastructure.  Consistent with our actions in the Second Report and Order, we 
propose to prohibit geofenced VLP devices from operating as part of a fixed outdoor infrastructure as an 
additional measure to reduce the likelihood of interference to licensed incumbent services.  We seek 
comment on this proposal.  Is a prohibition on fixed outdoor infrastructure necessary when a geofencing 
system is used?  We seek quantitative information on the benefits and costs to VLP device users, 
manufacturers and the wider public of our proposal versus allowing operations as part of fixed outdoor 
infrastructure.
160.Updates to exclusion zones.  The 6 GHz Order established a requirement that standard 
power access points must recheck the frequency availability with an AFC system once per day.517  
Similarly, we propose to require geofencing systems to update the exclusion zones at least once per day 
using the data from Commission databases on the licensed microwave links and BAS/CARS central 
receive sites.  We also propose to require geofenced VLP access points to obtain or calculate the updated 
exclusion zones from the geofencing system at least once per day.518  This proposal is designed to ensure 
that newly registered microwave receive sites and BAS/CARS central receive sites are promptly 
protected.519  Consistent with the rules for standard power access points and fixed client devices, we also 
propose that if a VLP device is unable to obtain the latest ULS or COALS data on a given day, it may 
continue operating until 11:59 p.m. of the following day at which time it must cease operation until it is 
able to obtain the latest geofencing data.520  We seek comment on these proposals.  We also seek 
quantitative information on the benefits and costs to VLP device users, manufacturers and the wider 
public of our proposal and alternative update schedules and requirements.
161.Security Issues.  Consistent with our requirements for standard power devices and AFC 
systems in the 6 GHz Order, we propose to require that geofenced VLP access points incorporate 
adequate security measures to: 1) prevent them from accessing geofencing systems and geofencing 
methods not approved by the Commission, 2) ensure that unauthorized parties cannot modify devices to 
516 The Second Report and Order noted that the computer simulations used to model potential interference 
independent VLP devices assumed 90% of devices were used at a height above ground of 1.5 meters, but also noted 
that assuming 10% of devices are used at greater heights is a conservative assumption.
517 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3869-3870, para.46.
518 As stated in paragraph 121, supra, the geofencing system may be integrated into the VLP access point.  In that 
case the requirement that the geofencing system update the exclusion zones daily and the VLP device obtain updated 
exclusion zones daily are synonymous.
519 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3870, para. 46.
520 See 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(8)(iv).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
75operate in a manner inconsistent with the rules and licensed incumbent protection criteria, and 3) ensure 
that communications between VLP access points and geofencing systems are secure to prevent corruption 
or unauthorized interception of data.  We also propose to require that geofencing systems, whether 
centralized or internal to a VLP device, must ensure that all communications and interactions between the 
geofencing system and VLP access points and/or all communications between the geofencing system and 
Commission databases are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot access or alter the 
database, the exclusion zones, or the list of excluded or available frequencies.  We further propose to 
require that a geofencing system incorporate security measures to protect against unauthorized data input 
or alteration of stored data, including establishing communications authentication procedures between 
client devices and VLP access points.521  These proposed requirements are intended to prevent a VLP 
device from using geofencing methods not approved by the Commission and to ensure that unauthorized 
parties cannot modify a device to operate in a manner inconsistent with the rules.  We seek comment on 
these proposals.  What would be the cost of implementing our security proposals versus alternatives?  We 
seek quantitative information on the costs of geofenced VLP device security requirements.
162.Device testing and approval.  As indicated above, we propose to require that VLP 
devices operating with greater than -5 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP incorporate a geofencing capability that 
prevents them from operating where there may be an elevated risk of causing harmful interference to 
licensed incumbents in the 6 GHz band.  Under this proposal, geofenced systems in the 6 GHz band 
would determine exclusion zones within which specific channels are prohibited from use by geofenced 
VLP access points when 6 dB I/N interference protection criterion is not met (e.g., areas around fixed 
microwave and BAS/CARS central receive sites), and each geofenced VLP access point would have to be 
able to connect to a geofencing system or have an integrated geofencing system capability.
163. Applicants seeking VLP device certifications would have to show in their applications 
how their device will comply with any geofencing requirements adopted in this proceeding.  For example, 
applicants for geofenced VLP access point certification would have to demonstrate that the device 
operates only pursuant to a geofencing system and that the geofencing system prevents operation in areas 
where the -6 dB I/N metric is not met when calculated in accordance with the proposed methodology.  
They would also have to demonstrate that their devices could not operate on any channel that the 
geofencing system determines is prohibited at its location at a power level greater than 5 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD.  Applicants would also be required to demonstrate that their VLP access points comply with the 
proposed requirements to periodically check their location and comply with the database recheck intervals 
proposed above as well as adjust their operating channel if they move into an exclusion zone where that 
channel is not available.  They would further have to demonstrate how geofenced VLP access points 
obtain exclusion zone data either from a geofencing system or through calculations based on data 
downloaded from Commission databases.
164. We seek comment on testing and certification issues for geofenced VLP access points 
and client devices.  Are there any specific testing or certification issues that the Commission will need to 
address, either in a subsequent item in this proceeding or subsequent to adopting rules, e.g., through the 
KDB process?  If so, what issues would need to be addressed?  Would industry groups such as the Wi-Fi 
Alliance or WinnForum be likely to develop procedures for testing geofencing systems?  We seek 
quantitative information on the benefits and costs to VLP device users, manufacturers and the wider 
public of geofenced VLP testing and certification requirements.
E. Spectrum Availability for Very Low Power Devices
165. We seek comment on any changes that we could make that would allow for increased 
spectrum availability for geofenced VLP devices without increasing the likelihood of harmful interference 
to incumbent services, i.e., more efficient spectrum use.  Consistent with the Commission’s recent Policy 
Statement, we seek additional data that can be used to assess geofenced VLP device operation and the 
521 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3881-82,paras. 79-80; 47 CFR § 15.407(k)(8)(v), (k)(13), (k)(15)(iii).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
76potential impact on incumbent services.522  Are there any particular characteristics of geofenced VLP 
devices, e.g., size, operating location, specific applications, operating bandwidth, modulation types, data 
rates, duty cycle/activity factor, or mobility or lack thereof, that could be considered in enabling increased 
spectrum availability for these devices?  Is there currently any operational or other data that would be 
helpful in this regard?  How much additional spectrum could be made available for geofenced VLP 
devices?  Would there be any significant increase in the areas where they could operate as compared to 
the rules proposed above?  We recognize that actual operational data that may help us reach a decision on 
these issues may not yet be available.  In this regard, we encourage parties with additional data to 
approach the Commission in the future when such data becomes available.  We also seek information 
from incumbents regarding their systems, particularly with respect to the amount of fade margin 
incorporated into system design, statistics on when fades occur, their severity, and how long they last, and 
how systems are designed to cope with fading events using techniques such as adaptive modulation or 
adjusting their data streams to focus on more time-sensitive critical data over less critical data.
F. Restrictions on Very Low Power Device Mobile Operations
166. We also seek comment on whether to relax the restrictions on VLP device mobile 
operations (e.g., on aircraft, boats on the ocean, oil platforms, and terrestrial vehicles).523  In the 6 GHz 
Order, the Commission prohibited standard power and LPI access points from operating on board aircraft, 
with the exception of LPI use in the U-NII-5 band on large passenger aircraft while flying above 10,000 
feet.524  In the Second Report and Order, we are largely adopting the same operational restriction for VLP 
devices, except we are permitting them to operate on boats.525  Similar to the rules for standard power and 
LPI access points, the Commission is prohibiting VLP devices from operating on oil platforms.526  The 
restrictions on oil platforms is being put in place to protect incumbent EESS remote sensing operations, 
which, in this band are used inter alia for monitoring ocean temperature.527
167. As noted, these decisions were made largely to provide consistency with the 
Commission’s prior decision regarding standard power and LPI devices.  However, given the inherent 
differences between those devices and VLP devices, we seek comment on whether these restrictions on 
mobile operations on aircraft and oil platforms can be relaxed for non-geofenced VLP devices, geofenced 
VLP devices, or both.  First, emissions from both types of VLP devices will be lower than standard power 
and LPI devices; geofenced VLP access points and associated client devices are permitted to operate with 
no more than 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP while standard power and LPI devices may 
operate at 23 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 36 dBm EIRP and 5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 30 dBm EIRP, 
respectively.  VLP devices operate at an even lower -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.  Second, both types of VLP 
devices are mobile, generally operate close to the ground and in proximity to the body or other objects, 
522 In its recent Policy Statement, the Commission stated that, “[q]uantitative analyses of interactions between 
services that are fact- and evidence-based, sufficiently robust, transparent, and reproducible are needed to better 
inform spectrum management decision-making.”  Policy Statement at 3, 12, paras. 5, 41 (emphasis omitted).  The 
Commission added that “[t]ransparent and reproducible quantitative analyses best inform the Commission’s 
decision-making.  Transparency—particularly about transmitters, receivers, and degradation metrics—gives 
stakeholders and the Commission the ability to validate the fidelity of interference models and ensure that they 
represent realistic operating conditions and scenarios, with balanced protection criteria.”  Id. at 12, para. 42; see also 
id. at 1-2, 2-3, 12-13, paras. 3, 5, 41-44.
523 In para. 186 infra, we seek additional information on the OOBE limits of VLP devices operating inside motor 
vehicles
524 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3929, para. 207; see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4).
525 See supra para. 96.
526 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3931, para. 212; see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(1), (4).
527 CORF comments at 3 (filed Feb. 14, 2019) (“Instruments operating in the EESS bands provide data that are 
important … for scientific research … Examples are measurement of parameters—such as ocean surface 
temperature …").Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
77are likely to be battery powered, and either operate pursuant to a geo-location system or at or below 
5dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.
168. Considering expected use cases and the minimal potential for VLP and geofenced VLP 
devices to cause harmful interference, we propose to permit mobile operation on commercial and general 
aviation aircraft more generally, but not on UAS.  We can speculate that several prominent use cases will 
occur on aircraft.  We seek comment on permitting more general use of VLP and geofenced VLP devices 
onboard commercial and general aviation aircraft.  For example, because FAA guidance specifies that 
aircraft operators, when operating aircraft that have been certified to meet portable electronic device 
tolerance standards, may permit certain portable electronic devices to operate in all phases of flight (i.e., 
from gate-to-gate), body-worn VLP and geofenced VLP devices could be used to monitor a person’s 
health metrics or to stream a movie (e.g., from a smartphone to smart glasses).528  In such cases, operation 
is not likely to be near a fixed microwave, BAS, or CARS receive site and is likely to be low power, 
given the short transmission distance and the fact that emissions will be shielded by the aircraft fuselage 
and will be subject to clutter loses from nearby seats and passengers.  In addition, we note that the worst 
case for harmful interference potential is likely to be on take-off or landing when the aircraft is lower to 
the ground and thus, potentially closer to an incumbent receiver.  However, good engineering practice 
should prevent microwave links in locations where aircraft are likely to fly as their mere presence could 
cause link degradation.  And even if an aircraft were to fly in an area where it may be seen by a 
microwave receive antenna main beam, the aircraft will be moving at significant speed529 and the time a 
VLP or geofenced VLP device’s emission could be within an incumbent’s receiver main beam will be 
fleeting and handled by forward error correction or other techniques.  In addition, when operated on the 
ground, geofenced VLP access points and associated clients would operate under the control of a 
geofencing system, while non-geofenced VLP devices would operate at even lower power.  As an initial 
matter, considering operation on aircraft, should we consider permitting all VLP devices to operate across 
all phases of flight or just VLP devices that are not geofenced?  Or should geofenced VLP devices be 
limited to only operating when above 10,000 feet or not permitted to operate on aircraft at all?  We are 
already permitting non-geofenced VLP devices to operate on large aircraft above 10,000 feet and ask if 
there is a different metric that could be used for the specific case of aircraft.  For example, noting the very 
fast take-off and landing speeds, could we implement a rule stating that if a geofenced VLP access point 
is moving at an average speed over 100 mph, it would no longer need to check the geofencing system?  
Moving at or above this speed would imply operation on a very fast moving vehicle, such as an aircraft.  
If we allow a minimum average speed metric for this purpose, should it apply only to devices operated on 
aircraft, or could it apply to other modes of transportation such as rail?  Is there a different speed or metric 
that would work better in providing a demarcation between when the geofencing system must be used and 
when it is not necessary when considering use on aircraft?  What other considerations need to be taken 
into account?  For example, could there be issues that affect radio astronomy sites?  If so, should certain 
channels be prohibited from use until an aircraft exceeds 10,000 feet?  We seek comment on our proposal 
528 See FAA Advisory Circular 91.21-1D, “Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft.”  That Advisory 
Circular, in Section 7.2.1, states that, “[i]f an aircraft model has demonstrated tolerance for both transmitting and 
non-transmitting PEDs, the operator may allow PED use during all phases of flight on this aircraft model.”
529 Aircraft take-off and landing speeds vary based on aircraft size, wing shape and size, aircraft weight, as well as 
other factors, including weather conditions.  See How Fast Do Airplanes Take Off?, Flying Magazine (July 12, 
2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-fast-do-airplanes-take-off/; How Fast Do Commercial Planes Fly, 
Flying Magazine (June 24, 2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-fast-do-commerical-planes-fly/.  Take-
off speed for a Cessna 172 is about 55 knots (63 mph), while the take-off speed for a Boeing 747 is around 160 
knots (184 mph).  See How Fast Do Airplanes Take Off?, Flying Magazine (July 12, 2022), 
https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-fast-do-airplanes-take-off/; How Fast Do Commercial Planes Fly, Flying 
Magazine (June 24, 2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-fast-do-commerical-planes-fly/.  Commercial 
aircraft typically land between 112 to 156 knots (130-160 mph).  See How Fast Do Airplanes Take Off?, Flying 
(July 12, 2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-fast-do-airplanes-take-off/; How Fast Do Commercial 
Planes Fly, Flying (June 24, 2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-fast-do-commerical-planes-fly/.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
78to permit any or all VLP devices to operate gate-to-gate while on aircraft.
169. We continue to believe that any VLP operation when such devices are mounted on a 
UAS could pose more than an insignificant harmful interference risk, given the potential of UAS to fly 
almost anywhere and to have clear line of sight to an incumbent’s receiver.  In addition, because the 
geofencing system determines exclusion zones based on an assumed 1.5 meter antenna height, any 
exclusion zone associated with a UAS would be much larger than for general VLP device usage.  
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether there are operational limitations or guidelines we could adopt 
that could permit VLP devices to operate when mounted on a UAS.  Are there applications that are 
specifically well-suited for use on a UAS?  Are there methods using the geofencing system or otherwise 
that could be implemented to ensure that incumbent receivers are protected from harmful interference?  If 
so, how complex and feasible would these methods be to implement?  Would the costs associated with 
additional complexity outweigh any benefits that might be gained from permitting such operation?
170. In the Second Report and Order, we maintained our prohibition on all types of 6 GHz 
device usage on oil platforms to protect EESS operations but did not prohibit the use of VLP devices on 
boats.  We now seek comment on whether the prohibition on all types of 6 GHz device usage on oil 
platforms can be scaled back or lifted.  For example, given the differences between VLP devices (both 
geofenced and non-geofenced) and standard power and LPI devices, does the use of VLP devices on oil 
platforms pose the same risk of harmful interference to EESS operations?  Could standard power, LPI or 
either type of VLP devices be used on oil platforms without causing a risk to EESS ocean temperature 
monitoring operations?  We can foresee applications where a 6 GHz device could provide utility through 
augmented reality to a worker on an oil platform to provide relevant information, such as for safety, 
maintenance tasks, or general operating instructions.  Is any restriction of VLP device use on boats 
appropriate to protect EESS operations?  If such a restriction were adopted, could it be limited to boats 
located in the ocean, given that EESS is used for sensing over the ocean?  How could the prohibition on 
use of VLP devices on oil platforms or a prohibition on use on boats, if adopted, be implemented for non-
geofenced VLP devices?
171. Finally, we seek comment on whether there is additional flexibility that can be provided 
for terrestrial in-vehicle use (e.g., cars, buses, and trucks).  For example, are there devices that are 
designed to be used solely in vehicles, such as an in-car hotspot, that can only be used in a vehicle where 
due to the nature of use - within a vehicle cabin, generally in motion at high speeds – different 
requirements regarding power or exclusion zones could apply?  If so, are there requirements that could 
provide assurance that a VLP device (geofenced or non-geofenced) is, in fact, in a vehicle, such as having 
a connection to Carplay or Android Auto?  
172. We invite commenters to address these issues and provide detailed information regarding 
whether we can provide more flexibility to VLP devices, both geofenced and non-geofenced, for 
expanded use in aircraft, on boats, in vehicles, and in more places while still ensuring that incumbent 
operators’ facilities are protected from harmful interference.  We seek quantitative estimates of benefits or 
costs of our proposals for relaxing the VLP prohibition in these locations and potential alternatives.  How 
much and what kinds of additional VLP operations might occur?  How much and what kind of costs 
would be incurred to accommodate these increased operations?
G. Expanding Very Low Power Operations to U-NII-6 and U-NII-8
173. In the Second Report and Order, we adopted rules to permit VLP devices to operate in 
the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands at power levels up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP.  We 
determined that the risk of harmful interference to incumbent services in those bands, e.g., fixed 
microwave links and radio astronomy, was insignificant for VLP devices operating at that power level.  In 
this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to permit VLP devices to also operate in the U-
NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands without geofencing.  Given that fixed microwave links in the U-NII-8 band have 
the same characteristics as those in U-NII-5 and U-NII-7, we conclude that any risk of harmful 
interference from VLP devices to these microwave links is insignificant.  We seek comment on whether 
allowing VLP devices on U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 band devices will yield comparable benefits to those that Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
79stem from allowing VLP devices in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands in the Second Report and Order.  We 
tentatively conclude that at a minimum the benefits would be in proportion to the amount of spectrum in 
U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands relative to the amount of spectrum in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands.530  We 
anticipate that these benefit estimates are conservative, as making available the full 1200 MHz in the 6 
GHz band could lead to larger channel sizes that could increase speed and decrease latency.  We seek 
comment on this and alternate methods of estimating these benefits.
1. Protection of Mobile Services
174. As discussed above, both the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands are used by mobile BAS and 
CARS, including outdoor electronic news gathering (ENG) trucks and low power short range devices, 
such as portable cameras and microphones.  Low Power Auxiliary Stations, which are licensed in portions 
of the U-NII-8 band, operate on an itinerant basis and transmit over distances of approximately 100 
meters for uses such as wireless microphones, cue and control communications, and TV camera 
synchronization signals.  There are also BAS and CARS fixed microwave links in these bands, which are 
used for such purposes as video links between studios and transmitters and to relay video signals between 
cities.
175.Outdoor electronic news gathering central receive sites.  As described above, the 
communications link between ENG trucks and a central receive site shares many of the characteristics of 
a fixed microwave link—i.e., they use directional antennas to send signals between two fixed locations 
that are mostly above the local clutter.531  We propose to permit VLP devices to also operate in the U-NII-
6 and U-NII-8 bands and seek comment on whether VLP devices could operate at up to -5 dBm/MHz 
EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP while keeping the risk of harmful interference to ENG central receive sites 
to an insignificant level.  Would the same type of analysis discussed in the Second Report and Order 
showing an insignificant risk of harmful interference to fixed microwave receive sites be appropriate with 
respect to ENG receive sites?  Are there inherent differences between BAS/CARS operations as 
compared to fixed point-to-point operations that must be considered when analyzing the harmful 
interference risk?  For example, are there differences in antenna types, e.g., beamwidth and gain, or in 
typical antenna heights or the locations of receive antennas?  Commenters noting differences should 
provide detailed descriptions and information regarding how any difference could affect the potential for 
VLP devices to cause harmful interference?  Are there specific VLP device characteristics that need to be 
considered in analyzing their interference potential to ENG operations and if so, what are they?  We seek 
to provide uniform rules for operations across the full 6 GHz band, but recognizing that there could be 
differences in how VLP emissions may interact with different incumbent systems, we also seek comment 
on what effect a lower power limit for VLP devices might have regarding protecting ENG operations in 
the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands.  Commenters advocating for a lower power level should provide detailed 
analysis regarding their preferred power level and the incremental effect such a power level would have 
on the ability for VLP devices to access spectrum as well as to what extent ENG operations would have 
additional protection from harmful interference.  Are there any other requirements that we could adopt for 
VLP devices to protect ENG operations?
176. Apple, Broadcom, and Meta submitted a Monte Carlo simulation addressing the potential 
for VLP devices operating at -5 dBm/MHz to exceed -6 dB I/N for two specific ENG receive sites.532  For 
the ENG receivers, the simulation used the same two ENG receive sites and technical parameters that 
were used in a Monte Carlo simulation previously submitted by NAB that examined the potential for 6 
GHz band unlicensed access points to interfere with ENG receivers.533  As the ENG receive antennas are 
530 See para. 102 supra.
531 See para. 130 supra.
532 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 11, 2023 Ex Parte 2; Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 21, 2023 Ex Parte at 
3-4.
533 Id.; Alion Study, NAB Dec. 5, 2019 Ex Parte at 3-8, 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
80directional but generally are able to provide 360o azimuthal coverage, it is not practical to simulate every 
azimuth.  Thus, Apple, Broadcom, and Meta limited their simulation to the same three antenna 
orientations that NAB simulated for the two ENG receive sites.534  For the VLP devices, the simulation 
used similar assumptions for body loss, transmit power control, and propagation models as the Apple, 
Broadcom et al. and Apple simulations that assessed the potential for VLP devices to exceed -6 dB I/N 
for microwave links in San Franscisco and Houston.535  The Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Monte Carlo 
analysis found no instances where the VLP devices caused the signal received at the ENG receive sites to 
exceed -6 dB I/N.536  We note that NAB previously expressed skepticism about the accuracy of a similar 
Monte Carlo simulation provided by Apple, Broadcom, et al. that likewise found that the -6 dB I/N 
threshold was never exceeded for one of these ENG receive sites.537  We seek comment on the Apple, 
Broadcom, and Meta simulation.  We seek comment on its conclusions that -6 dB I/N will not be 
exceeded or will only be exceeded in so few instances at ENG central receive sites that we can conclude 
that the risk of harmful interference from VLP devices operating at -5 dB/MHz EIRP PSD is 
insignificant.  Given that this simulation used two ENG receive sites that were chosen by NAB, can we 
assume that they are representative of BAS and CARS receive sites in general?  Are there particular 
scenarios that need further study?
177.Outdoor electronic news gathering ENG trucks.  ENG trucks are generally situated near 
news or sporting events and receive signals from hand-held cameras or other portable news gathering 
devices.  Based on a study previously submitted by NAB, the ENG truck receive antenna may be omni-
directional or sectoral with adjustable height and location.  Additionally, the ENG truck signals may use 
various bandwidths between 3 to 20 megahertz.538  For its study, NAB evaluated harmful interference 
based on free space path loss and on whether an unlicensed device would cause the I/N to exceed 
-10 dB.539
178. Broadcom submitted a simulation showing a low probability (< 0.001%) that a VLP 
device operating at -5 dBm/MHz will cause the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) at the ENG 
truck receiver to fall below 1 dB.540  Broadcom’s 1 dB SINR threshold is based on a previously submitted 
Broadcom study showing that a 10 megahertz ENG channel with a 7/8 coding rate can maintain a signal 
with a bit-error-rate (BER) less than 1e-8 in the presence of an RLAN signal operating with a 2% duty 
cycle.541  Charter, Comcast, Cox and CableLabs also previously submitted studies of the ENG truck signal 
SINR requirements in the presence of RLANs operating at various duty cycles.542  While these studies 
examined the impact of LPI transmissions, which operate at a higher power than is proposed for VLP, 
their findings with respect to SINR are also applicable to assessing VLP impact to BAS operations.  
CableLabs finds that a 10 dB SINR “provides an accurate view of system requirements for high-quality 
534 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 21, 2023 Ex Parte at 4; Alion Study, NAB Dec. 5, 2019 Ex Parte at 43, 47-70.
535 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 3; Apple Feb. 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 10,11; Apple, 
Broadcom, et al. Feb. 28, 2023 Ex Parte at 8; Apple, Broadcom, Google, Meta Aug. 31, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
536 Apple, Broadcom, and Meta Sept. 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.
537 NAB claimed that they expected an interference level tens of decibels above the receiver’s noise floor.  NAB 
Reply Comments at 7 (filed July 27, 2020) (discussing Apple, Broadcom et al. Comments Attachs. A (filed June 29, 
2020)).
538 Alion Study, NAB Dec. 5, 2019 Ex Parte at 5.
539 Id. Also, note that in the 6 GHz Order, the Commission disagreed with NAB’s use of free space path loss and a 
-10 dB I/N metric as being overly conservative.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3914, para. 154.
540 Broadcom Study, Sep 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
541 Broadcom Letter, Feb 28, 2020 Ex Parte at 2.
542 Comcast Communications, Inc. CableLabs, Feb 21, 2020 Ex Parte at 1; CableLabs, Charter Communications, 
Comcast Corporation, Cox Communication, Mar 9, 2020 Ex Parte attachment at 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
81BAS video delivery”.543
179. We propose to permit non-geofenced VLP devices operate in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 
bands and seek comment on whether those devices could operate at up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 
dBm EIRP while minimizing the risk of harmful interference to ENG truck receive sites.  What is the 
appropriate metric for evaluating the harmful interference risk to a ENG truck receiver, which is fixed 
during operation but otherwise transportable, from a mobile or transient VLP transmission?  Regarding 
potentially using SINR, because actual signal levels are not known prior to any transmission, what value 
or range of values should be used for the ENG signal level for any analysis?  Commenters should provide 
insight and data regarding how any assumed signal level is consistent with the signal levels used for ENG 
operations.  Previously submitted studies show that the required SINR will vary according to channel 
bandwidth and coding rate.  What are the typical bandwidths and coding rates used by ENG truck 
receivers?  If the Commission were to rely on evaluating SINR, what SINR threshold should be assumed 
to be necessary at the ENG truck receive site to maintain a high quality signal?  Broadcom’s study 
predicted an impact when the VLP device was within 5 meters of the receiver.544  Under normal operating 
conditions, how close could a random user’s VLP device actually come to an ENG truck receiver?  Is 
assuming at least a 5 meter separation distance realistic?  Or is that distance too short or too long?  Will 
the itinerant nature of VLP devices help reduce the likelihood of a VLP device causing harmful 
interference?  Are there any particular connections we should make between our reliance on an I/N metric 
when evaluating ENG trucks connecting to a central receive site and potentially evaluating the harmful 
interference risk from portable devices to an ENG truck based on SINR?  In evaluating analysis 
methodology and protection metrics, commenters should detail how such an approach supports permitting 
non-geofenced VLP operations at power levels up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD or indicates that a different 
power level may be appropriate.
180.Low-power short range mobile devices.  We propose that low power short range BAS 
and CARS devices, such as portable cameras and microphones, and Low Power Auxiliary stations be 
protected from harmful interference by a combination of a required contention-based protocol and the low 
probability of a VLP device operating on the same channel in a nearby location.  This proposal is 
consistent with the 6 GHz Order in which the Commission required that all 6 GHz unlicensed LPI access 
points, subordinate devices, and client devices employ a contention-based protocol as well as our proposal 
above with respect to geofenced VLP devices.545  Further, the 6 GHz Order showed that the probability of 
channel overlap between 6 GHz unlicensed devices and incumbent station operations is low due to 
unlicensed devices having a full 1200 megahertz over which to operate.546
181. We believe that a similar approach for VLP devices will adequately reduce the risk that 
mobile service incumbents in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands would be subjected to harmful interference 
and keep that risk to an insignificant level.  Our reasoning is consistent with the 6 GHz Order, i.e., the 
sensing function associated with the contention-based protocol, along with the low probability for co-
channel operation, is sufficient to ensure that VLP devices detect nearby mobile BAS operations and 
avoid transmitting co-channel to protect those operations from harmful interference.547  While we are not 
543 Comcast Communications, Inc. CableLabs, Feb 21, 2020 Ex Parte at 3.
544 Broadcom Study, Sep 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.
545 47 CFR §§ 15.403, 15.407(d)(6).  A contention-based protocol allows multiple users to share spectrum by 
providing a reasonable opportunity for the different users to transmit.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3889, para. 101.  
In IEEE 802.11 standards, a “listen-before-talk” medium access scheme based on the Carrier Sense Multiple Access 
with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) protocol functions as a contention-based algorithm to provide spectrum 
access to all traffic.  Id.  Under this scheme, before initiating any packet delivery, a station listens to the wireless 
medium and if the medium is idle, the station may transmit; otherwise, the station must wait until the current 
transmission is complete before transmitting.  Id.
546 See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3901-02, para. 131, tbl. 6.
547 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3915, para. 168.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
82proposing a specific technology protocol or contention method, we propose to require VLP devices to use 
a contention-based protocol as we require for LPI devices.548  We believe that this proposal has additional 
benefits as it provides multiple VLP devices as well as LPI devices equal access to the spectrum, while 
protecting mobile incumbents’ services.  We also believe that the use of a contention-based protocol will 
limit the duty cycle of VLP devices as they will need to share the spectrum with other devices.  
Additionally, VLP devices would transmit at lower power levels than LPI devices, further reducing the 
risk of harmful interference to mobile services.  Given all these reasons, we believe that requiring use of a 
contention-based protocol by VLP devices would protect mobile service incumbents.
182. We seek comment on this proposal.  Would requiring VLP devices to incorporate a 
contention-based protocol adequately protect mobile service incumbents in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 
bands?  If not, are there any other protection measures that could be used by VLP devices to protect 
mobile services?  Is there a need to provide greater specificity in the requirements for a contention-based 
protocol used by VLP devices?  If so, what particular requirements should be specified and why?  What 
are the costs and benefits of requiring the use of a contention-based protocol?
2. Fixed Satellite Services
183. The U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands contain Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) space-to-Earth 
allocations and are restricted to feeder links for Mobile-Satellite Service non-geostationary satellite 
systems.  No such earth stations are currently licensed in the U-NII-7 band.549  The U-NII-8 space-to-
Earth allocation is limited to use by Globalstar’s non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service feeder links 
and earth stations receiving at locations within 300 m of coordinates in Brewster, WA, Clifton, TX, and 
Finca Pascual, PR.550  Globalstar also operates earth station receive sites at Naalehu, HI, Wasilla, AK, and 
Sebring, FL.  These last two locations are authorized to operate on a co-primary basis for FSS feeder 
downlinks, except for the 7.025-7.055 GHz band, where they are authorized only on an unprotected 
basis.551  In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission determined that the probability of harmful interference to 
FSS space-to-Earth stations from LPI device operations in U-NII-8 is low, primarily due to the restriction 
that LPI devices operate indoors and at EIRP power levels no greater than 30 dBm.552 
184. We seek comment on whether any restrictions on VLP device operation is necessary to 
protect space-to-Earth stations.  Because VLP devices would operate at significantly lower PSD levels 
than geofenced VLP access points and associated client devices, how does this impact the analysis of the 
potential for harmful interference occurring?  As VLP devices operate without the supervision of a 
geofencing system, how could such restrictions, if needed, be implemented?  Would there be differences 
in the cost of protection for VLP devices compared to geofenced VLP access point and associated client 
devices?  We also seek comment on how the earth station antenna sites themselves provide interference 
protection by creating a physical barrier (e.g., fencing) or using geographic features to keep members of 
the public that could be using a VLP device beyond some minimum distance from those earth stations.  
Commenters should provide technical analysis to support their positions.  
548 See KDB Publication No. 987594.
549 47 CFR § 2.106(b)(458)(ii) (international footnote 5.458B).  In the 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission stated that there is an allocation for space-to-Earth satellite use of the 6.7-6.875 GHz portion of the U-
NII-7 band for feeder links for non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service systems.  Notice, 33 FCC Rcd at 10518, 
para. 58.  As the Commission noted, however, no earth stations are currently licensed to use this allocation in the 
space-to-Earth direction.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3885, para. 89 n.224.
550 47 CFR § 2.106(b)(458)(ii), (d)(172) (international footnote 5.458B and non-governmental footnote NG172).  
The space-to-Earth allocation is limited to non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service feeder links and earth stations 
receiving in this band are limited to locations within 300 meters of coordinates in Brewster, WA, Clifton, TX, and 
Finca Pascual, PR.  Id.
551 See supra footnote 489.
552 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3916-17, para. 171.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
83H. Emission Limits Below the U-NII-5 Band
185. The 5.895-5.925 GHz band immediately below the U-NII-5 band is used by the 
Intelligent Transportation Service (ITS) which the Commission is requiring to transition to C-V2X-based 
technology.553  In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted the same -27 dBm/MHz out-of-
band emission (OOBE) limit for VLP devices for emissions below the U-NII-5 band and above the U-
NII-8 band as it had already required for standard power and low-power indoor 6 GHz devices.554  NTIA 
filed a technical exhibit into the record that includes a Department of Transportation study (DoT Exhibit) 
addressing C-V2X protection requirements in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band from 6 GHz VLP devices’ and 
mobile access points’ out-of-band emissions.555  Deployers plan to transmit basic safety messages for 
crash-avoidance applications that require low-latency, free-from-harmful-interference in the 5.895-5.925 
band.  According to the DoT Exhibit, testing shows that VLP devices operating within a motor vehicle 
and that comply with the 27 dBm/MHz OOBE limit will decrease the operational range of C-V2X 
receivers in the same vehicle by more than 50%.556  While these tests are based on U-NII-4 (5.850-5.895 
GHz) devices in the band immediately below the 5.895-5.925 GHz ITS band, the DoT Exhibit contends 
that the results can be translated to assess the impact of VLP devices in the U-NII-5 band.  The DoT 
Exhibit claims that implementing both parts of a two-part compromise submitted by several VLP 
proponents is necessary to protect C-V2X receivers.557  This compromise proposal would require VLP 
devices to prioritize their operations to frequencies above 6.105 GHz and limit VLP OOBE below 5.925 
GHz to -37 dBm/MHz.558  The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 5GAA, and ITS America similarly 
point to the compromise proposal and advocate that we modify the VLP OOBE limits.559  While the rules 
we adopted for VLP devices implement the former requirement, we adopted the same -27 dBm/MHz 
OOBE limit.560
186. We seek additional information on the potential impact that VLP devices operating in 
motor vehicles could have on C-V2X performance when a VLP device is operating within the same motor 
vehicle as the C-V2X receiver.  In seeking comment on this issue, we note that the DoT Exhibit is 
narrowly limited to VLP operation as an access point or as a client connected to a 6 GHz enabled mobile 
access point within motor vehicles and does not address any other 6 GHz device or VLP device operation 
outside of motor vehicles.  In particular, we seek technical information, including studies, analyses, and 
measurements detailing the interaction between VLP devices operating under our rules and C-V2X 
receivers in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band when these devices are in close proximity such as in the same 
motor vehicle.  What affect, if any, do VLP devices’ OOBE have on C-V2X devices’ ability to 
communicate at distances and with timing necessary to ensure a vehicle has sufficient reaction time to 
keep passengers safe in various situations?  In undertaking studies to submit to the record, commenters 
should assess realistic scenarios for VLP device deployment, whether VLP devices are installed inside the 
vehicle or carried by a passenger from outside of the vehicle, as well as realistic scenarios for C-V2X 
devices as they pertain to device location within the vehicle, power level, OOBE level, antenna 
directivity, and activity factor.  For example, are VLP devices expected to be mounted on dashboards, in 
headrests, etc. and are C-V2X antennas expected to be mounted inside or outside the vehicle, on the roof, 
in the grille, etc.?  How do the various relative placements between VLP and C-V2X devices affect 
553 5.9 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 13483-84, para. 107-110.
554 See supra para. 87.  See also 47 CFR §15.407(b)(6).
555 U.S. DoT Technical Exhibit on Protection of the V2X 30 MHz (5.895-5.925 GHz) Band, ET Docket No. 18-295 
(filed Oct. 10, 2023).
556 Id. at 2.
557 Id. at 3.
558 Broadcom, Cisco, Facebook, Intel, Qualcomm Mar. 1, 2021 Ex Parte at 1.
559 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 5GAA, and ITS America, Oct. 10, 2023 Ex Parte at 2.
560 See supra paras. 87, 94.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
84performance?  We seek comment on whether any adjustments are needed to our VLP device rules to 
adequately protect C-V2X operation in vehicles.  Commenters advocating for adjustments should address 
whether they believe prioritization and a more stringent emission limit, such as -37 dBm/MHz below 
5.925 GHz for VLP devices, is necessary as the DoT Exhibit advocates.  Or whether either acting on its 
own provides the protection level being claimed as needed.  Similarly, commenters advocating for 
prioritizing spectrum should address whether a single limit is needed, such as above 6.105 GHz, or 
whether a variable limit based on channel bandwidth can be implemented to provide more flexibility for 
VLP devices.  For example, would one bandwidth buffer suffice such that 20-megahertz channels would 
not transmit on the lowest 20 megahertz of the band, 40-megahertz channels would not transmit on the 
lowest 40 megahertz of the band, etc.?  Are there other alternative measures that VLP devices could use 
to safeguard C-V2X operations?  Although, we seek comment on the narrow issue of in-vehicle VLP 
device use, we ask how any change to the OOBE limit might affect the entire VLP device market.  
Commenters should address whether permanently installed in-vehicle VLP devices should be treated 
differently than other VLP devices, such as those used as mobile access points or “hotspots,” or would all 
VLP devices need to comply with a more stringent OOBE limit should the record indicate some 
adjustments to our rules are necessary for in-vehicle VLP operation?  Finally, we seek comment on 
whether or how any changes to our rules would affect device harmonization regarding the global VLP 
device market.  The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 5GAA, and ITS America state that dozens of 
countries have adopted a -37 dBm/MHz OOBE level to protect ITS services.561  They claim that the 
European Union (EU) as well as many non-EU member countries in the CEPT region, adopted a more 
stringent OOBE level of -45 dBm/MHz below 5935 MHz, which may be adjusted to -37 dBm/MHz in 
2025 following additional protection studies.562  We note, however, that the EU OOBE limit is designed 
to protect urban rail intelligent transport systems, including communication based train control systems, 
not C-V2X operations.  Thus, we seek comment on the applicability of the EU adopted rule to C-V2X 
operations.  Do equipment manufacturers seeking to supply a global market plan to do so with a single 
device that meets the most stringent OOBE level or would they provide variants for different regions 
based on local rules?  What are the costs and benefits of various approaches?  
I. LPI Client-to-client Communications
187. In this section, we seek comment on whether the Commission should permit direct 
communications between clients to LPI devices.  We also seek comment on the requirements that we 
would have to specify to enable client-to-client communications without causing harmful interference to 
licensed incumbent operations in the 6 GHz band.
188.Background.  Standard-power access points can operate in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 
bands and require use of an AFC system for providing access to spectrum in the band.563  LPI access 
points can operate across the entire 6 GHz band but at lower power levels than standard power devices.564  
Client devices operate under the control of either a standard-power or LPI access point and communicate 
using power levels that depend on the type of access point to which they are connected.565  To ensure that 
client devices not associated with standard power access points transmit indoors, the Commission 
561 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 5GAA, and ITS America, Oct. 10, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.  They also claim that 
Japan adopted a -37 dBm/MHz level below 5925 MHz.  Id.
562 Id. citing Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision on the harmonized use of radio spectrum in the 
5945-6425 MHz frequency band for the implementation of wireless access systems including radio local area 
networks, European Commission, at Table 2, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/6ghz-harmonisation-
decision-more-spectrum-available-better-and-faster-wi-fi; ECC Decision On the harmonized use of the frequency 
band 5945-6425 MHz for Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks, at Table 2, 
https://docdb.cept.org/download/50365191-a99d/ECC%20Decision%20(20)01.pdf.
563 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, paras. 17-18.
564 Id.
565 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
85required that these devices operate under the control of an indoor access point and prohibited 6 GHz U-
NII client devices from directly communicating with one another.566  The Commission prohibited 
unlicensed client devices from acting as “mobile hotspots” because “[p]ermitting a client device operating 
under the control of an access point to authorize the operation of additional client devices could 
potentially increase the distance between these additional client devices and the access point and increase 
the potential for harmful interference to fixed service receivers or electronic news gathering 
operations.”567  To avoid this situation, the Commission’s rules prohibit 6 GHz U-NII client devices from 
directly communicating with one another.568  The Commission did not, however, consider whether a more 
limited approach to indoor client-to-client communications should be permissible, such as when a client is 
not acting as a mobile hotspot.
189. In response to suggestions by Apple, Broadcom et al. that client devices could be 
permitted to directly communicate with each under certain conditions,569 OET released a public notice on 
January 11, 2021 seeking information regarding client-to-client device communications in the 6 GHz 
band.570  The conditions that Apple, Broadcom et al. suggest for permitting client-to-client 
communications include requiring client devices to decode an enabling signal transmitted by an LPI 
device within the last four seconds, and requiring that an enabling signal be received at a signal strength 
of at least -99 dBm/MHz.571  These parties assert that these requirements would ensure each individual 
client participating in client-to-client communications is safely inside the area where a client device is 
authorized to communicate with an access point.572
190. Fourteen parties filed comments and 12 parties filed reply comments in response to the 
OET public notice.  Advocates of unlicensed operation support permitting client-to-client 
communications by LPI devices, arguing that they will enable new applications that benefit the public, 
such as AR/VR and digital education and training.573  Incumbent operators in the 6 GHz band (e.g., fixed 
microwave and broadcast) and in adjacent bands express concern about permitting client-to-client 
operations; specifically the potential for harmful interference and a lack of interference testing with 
566 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3926, para. 199; 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(5).
567 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3927, para. 202.
568 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(5) (stating that “[c]lient devices are prohibited from connecting directly to another client 
device”).
569 Apple, Broadcom et al. Nov. 6, 2020 Ex Parte at 1-2.  Other submissions by unlicensed proponents also support 
permitting client-to-client communications.  See, e.g., Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Microsoft Comments at 13-
14; Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 19-20; Qualcomm Comments at 7; Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Comments at 19-
20; Broadcom, Microsoft Reply at 3-4; Apple, Intel, and Microsoft Oct. 22, 2020 Ex Parte at 1-2.
570 The Office of Engineering & Technology Seeks Additional Information Regarding Client-to-Client Device 
Communications in the 6 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 18-295, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 36 (2021).
571 See supra footnote 569.
572 Id. at 2.
573 Wireless Broadband Alliance Comments at 1 (client-to-client technology will support a range of innovative use 
cases without impacting incumbents); Nokia Comments at 1 (supports client-to-client communications so long as 
technical rules are established to ensure no potential disruption to incumbent fixed services); Wi-Fi Alliance 
Comments at 1-3 (client-to-client communications can facilitate important technologies in fields such as 
industrial/healthcare AR/VR, immersive learning applications for students, and training applications for workers in 
offices); DSA Comments at 3 (client-to-client technology can allow devices unable to connect to infrastructure to 
transfer files and enhance immersive indoor applications, e.g., VR/AR/MR, 4K QAM); OTI Comments at 3 (client-
to-client technology offers improved capacity and low-latency that will benefit user experiences such as AirDrop, 
communication with smartphone accessories, and emerging digital educational applications).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
86devices operating under the current rules.574
191.Discussion.  We invite comment on whether and under what circumstances LPI client 
devices could be permitted to directly communicate with each other in a limited manner while protecting 
incumbent licensed services.  We recognize that OET previously sought comment on these issues.  
However, more than two years have passed since the we received responses to OET’s public notice.  
During that time, many LPI devices have been certified and put into operation.  In addition, the approval 
process for AFC systems for standard power devices has advanced, and as discussed in the Second Report 
and Order, several parties have provided detailed analyses on the potential for interference from 6 GHz 
devices to incumbent services such as fixed microwave and broadcast services.  Given that there is now 
more information available or that could become available in the near future concerning the interference 
potential of 6 GHz devices, we believe it is now appropriate to refresh and further build the record on 
whether we could permit LPI client-to-client operations.
192. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Commission should permit 6 GHz client 
devices to directly communicate when they are under the control of or have received an enabling signal 
from a LPI access point.  Commenters should explain how to define an enabling signal (e.g., power level, 
modulation type, how often it should be broadcast if it is discrete from the regular data stream, etc.), what 
characteristics it should have, how it would be similar or different from signals, such as beacons, that 
access points already use to connect with client devices, and the degree to which an enabling signal would 
tether a client device not under the direct control of an access point to that access point.  Commenters 
should also provide information on the types of applications that direct client-to-client communications 
would enable that cannot be accomplished by communications through an access point.  In addition, 
commenters advocating for rule changes should address whether direct client-to-client communications 
should be under the current power limits or restricted to lower power limits to reduce the potential for 
harmful interference to incumbent operations.575
193. The requirement that 6 GHz client devices operate under the control of either a standard-
power or low-power indoor access point is intended to prevent client devices from causing harmful 
interference by limiting their operation either to outdoors in areas where an AFC system has determined 
that interference is unlikely to occur, or in the case of LPI devices to indoor locations where other factors 
such as building entry loss prevent harmful interference.576  It may be possible for a client device to 
receive an enabling signal from an access point even when the enabling signal is too weak to enable the 
client device to conduct communications with the access point.  In such situations, the weak received 
signal level makes it more likely that the client device could be outdoors.  By requiring that the enabling 
signal have a specific signal strength, this problem could be potentially avoided.  If the Commission were 
to adopt rules permitting client-to-client communications, should it require the enabling signal from the 
574 NAB Comments at 1-2 (the proposal to allow client-to-client communications will fail to protect licensed 
operations, therefore the Commission should not allow such communications in the band); Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation Comments at 1-2 (the extended range of client-to-client communications would put V2X technologies, 
and other licensees in the 5.9 GHz band, at increased risk of harmful interference); Southern Company Comments at 
1-2 (urges the Commission to wait until sufficient testing between incumbent and unlicensed operations is 
undertaken to evaluate the effect the current rules may have on incumbent operations); FWCC Comments at 1-3 
(opposes permitting any client-to-client operation before current unlicensed operations are rigorously tested and 
demonstrate no harmful interference); Incumbent Stakeholders of 6 GHz Comments at 1 (oppose client-to-client 
communications because of the increased risk of interference for licensed microwave systems); AT&T Comments at 
1-3 (the Commission should not authorize client-to-client communications unless such devices operate with AFC or 
other adequate protections in the band); Association of American Railroads Comments at 1-2 (opposes the 
authorization of client-to-client communications because this technology would extend the transmission range of 
unlicensed devices closer to fixed microwave links).
575 Client devices under the control of a LPI access point are permitted to operate up to 24 dBm EIRP over 320-
megahertz channels (or -1 dBm/MHz).  47 CFR § 15.407(a)(8).
576 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3926, para. 199.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
87low-power indoor access point to be received by the client device with a particular signal level, such as -
99 dBm/MHz as suggested by Apple, Broadcom et al.?577  If not, what signal level would be appropriate?  
How can a specific signal level be correlated with the requirement that the client device be under the 
control of an access point?  Should the enabling signal level be of sufficient strength to effectively require 
that the signal levels between the access point and client device be sufficiently strong to permit bi-
directional communications between the client devices and the access point, thereby ensuring that both 
client devices are close to the access point?  How frequently should a client device be required to receive 
an enabling signal to continue transmitting to another client device?
194. We also seek comment on whether client devices should be limited to receiving an 
enabling signal from the same access point or whether client-to-client communications could be permitted 
so long as each client device receives an enabling signal from any authorized access point.  Apple, 
Broadcom et al.’s suggestion would potentially permit two client devices to communicate even if they 
receive enabling signals from two different access points.  For example, client devices in two different 
buildings receiving enabling signals from different low-power indoor access points could attempt to 
communicate with each other.  Would permitting this situation to occur increase the potential for the 
client devices to cause harmful interference to licensed services?  Should other configurations be 
permitted?  For example, could a client device controlled by a standard power access point be permitted 
to communicate with a client device controlled by a low-power indoor access point?  In such a case, 
should the client device power level be restricted to the standard power client device power level?  Could 
client-to-client communications be permitted between devices when both clients are controlled by a 
standard power access point?  If so, are any changes needed to the AFC systems?  Must an enabling 
signal be received on the same channel for each device under any of the scenarios contemplated?  Under 
any envisioned client-to-client communication scenario, commenters should provide detailed descriptions 
of how such communications can be enabled including how such communications fit under the current 
rules that limit client devices to operating only under the control of a standard power access point or a 
low-power indoor access point or whether, and which, rules would need to be modified.  Commenters 
should provide detailed analysis of how any client-to-client communication configurations they prefer 
would protect incumbent operations from harmful interference.  Finally, commenters should provide any 
other information relevant to evaluating whether direct client-to-client communications should be 
permitted, including any alternative methods or necessary rule changes not directly discussed above.
V. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REMAND
A. Introduction
195. In this order, we address a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit concerning the rules that govern the use of unlicensed devices in the 6 GHz 
band.578  After rejecting a number of challenges to the rules, the court of appeals remanded a single 
narrow issue for further consideration.  Specifically, the court directed us to consider whether, in light of 
broadcasters’ claims that they have experienced interference from unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz 
band, a portion of the 6 GHz band should be reserved for mobile broadcast operations.579  For the reasons 
set forth below, we conclude that broadcasters’ unsubstantiated claims of interference in the 2.4 GHz 
band do not warrant any modification of our 6 GHz rules.
B. Background
196. In the spring of 2020, the Commission adopted rules to make 1200 megahertz of 
spectrum available for use by unlicensed devices in the 6 GHz band (5.925-7.125 GHz).580  Those rules 
577 Apple, Broadcom et al. Nov. 6, 2020 Ex Parte at 1-2.
578 See AT&T Servs., Inc. v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
579 Id. at 853-54.
580 6 GHz Order.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
88imposed certain restrictions on unlicensed use of the spectrum in order to protect incumbent licensed 
operations in the 6 GHz band from harmful interference.581  In particular, the Commission required that 
unlicensed low power indoor access points:  (1) “operate only indoors,” so that “[t]he signals transmitted 
by these unlicensed devices will be significantly attenuated when passing through the walls of 
buildings”;582 (2) “employ a contention-based protocol,” such as “a listen-before-talk . . . scheme”;583 and 
(3) operate at “lower power levels than . . .standard-power access points,” with “a maximum radiated 
power spectral density of 5 dBm per 1 megahertz”584  The Commission concluded that “the[se] 
restrictions and requirements . . . for low-power indoor access points eliminate[] any significant risk of 
causing harmful interference” to incumbent licensed services.585
197. Several parties, including NAB, filed petitions for review of the rules in the D.C. 
Circuit.586  They asserted that the Commission erred in concluding that its restrictions on unlicensed use 
of the 6 GHz band would protect incumbent licensed services from a significant risk of harmful 
interference.587  In an opinion issued on December 28, 2021, the D.C. Circuit largely upheld the 6 GHz 
rules.  It held that for the most part, petitioners “failed to provide a basis for questioning the 
Commission’s conclusion” that the rules “will protect against a significant risk of harmful 
interference.”588  The court denied the petitions for review “in all respects save one.”589  The sole issue 
that the court remanded concerned NAB’s assertion that “after the Commission allowed unlicensed access 
in the 2.4 GHz band, ‘a contention-based protocol . . . failed to protect . . . licensed users[,] . . .rendering 
that band partially unusable.’”590  Based on broadcasters’ concern that unlicensed devices could create 
similar problems in the 6 GHz band, NAB had asked the Commission to “reserve a sliver of [the] 6 GHz 
band for licensed mobile [broadcast] operation.”591  In the court’s view, “the Commission failed 
adequately to respond to [this] request”592 because it “never responded” to NAB’s concerns about 
interference in the 2.4 GHz band.593  “Given the Commission’s failure to respond” to these concerns, the 
court concluded that “further explanation is called for.”594  Accordingly, the court “remand[ed] to the 
581 See id. at 3861-88, paras. 20-95 (describing restrictions on standard power unlicensed operations); id. at 3888-
917, paras. 96-173 (describing restrictions on low-power indoor unlicensed operations).
582 Id. at 3889, para. 100; see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(3).
583  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3889, para. 101 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 47 CFR § 15.407(d)(6).
584  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3889, para. 103; see 47 CFR § 15.407(a)(5).
585 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3907, para. 146.
586 In addition to NAB, the other parties seeking review of the rules were AT&T Services, Inc., Lumen 
Technologies, Inc., APCO International, Edison Electric Institute, the Utilities Technology Council, the National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Public Power Association.
587 See Joint Brief of Petitioners, AT&T Servs., Inc. v. FCC, D.C. Cir. No. 20-1190 (and consolidated cases) 
(Petitioners’ Brief).
588 AT&T Services, 21 F.4th at 843.
589 Id.
590 Id. at 853 (quoting Petitioners’ Brief at 71).
591 Id.; see Letter from Patrick McFadden, Associate General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 
ET Docket No. 18-295 & GN Docket No. 17-183, at 1-2 (filed Apr. 15, 2020) (NAB April 15, 2020 Letter).
592 AT&T Services, 21 F.4th at 843.
593 Id. at 853.
594 Id. at 854.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
89Commission for it to respond to [NAB’s] concerns about interference in the 2.4 GHz band.”595
198. After the court issued its mandate, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) 
issued a Public Notice inviting comments regarding the court’s remand.596  OET sought comment “on 
NAB’s arguments in the Commission’s proceeding regarding broadcasters’ experience in the 2.4 GHz 
band, how that experience relates to the kinds of contention-based protocol operations prescribed for 
indoor use in the 6 GHz rules, and whether the 2.4 GHz experience warrants reservation of a portion of 
the 6 GHz band for mobile indoor operations or any other modification to the Commission’s 6 GHz 
rules.”597  Noting “the limited scope of the court’s remand,” OET emphasized that it did not “seek 
comment on any other aspects of the 6 GHz Report and Order.”598
199. A number of parties submitted comments in response to the Public Notice.599  In its 
comments, NAB reiterated its assertion that “[b]roadcasters’ prior experience in the 2.4 GHz band 
confirms that the use of a [contention-based protocol] . . . has repeatedly failed to prevent harmful 
interference to licensed users.”600  Based on that claim, NAB argued that a contention-based protocol 
would not protect mobile broadcast operations in the 6 GHz band from interference caused by unlicensed 
devices.601  NAB proposed that the Commission reserve 55 MHz of the 6 GHz band (at 7070-7125 MHz) 
for the exclusive use of licensed mobile broadcast operations, including electronic news gathering (ENG) 
systems.602  In separate submissions, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) and Engineers for the 
Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS) also expressed concern about interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band and supported NAB’s proposal to reserve a portion of the 6 GHz band for licensed 
mobile broadcast operations.603
200. All of the other parties that filed comments in response to the Public Notice urged the 
Commission to reject NAB’s argument that allegations of interference in the 2.4 GHz band warranted 
additional measures to protect broadcasters from interference in the 6 GHz band.604  Those parties 
maintained that the record contained insufficient evidence to substantiate NAB’s claims that unlicensed 
595 Id. at 853.  The court declined NAB’s request for vacatur of the 6 GHz Order.  Id. at 853-54.  It concluded that 
vacatur would be “disruptive,” and that “the Commission may be able to explain” on remand “why its experience in 
the 2.4 GHz band supports its ability to protect licensed mobile [broadcast] operators from harmful interference.”  
Id. at 854.
596 Office of Engineering and Technology Seeks Comment Following Court Remand of 6 GHz Band Order, Public 
Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 3182, 3182 (OET 2022).
597 Id. at 3183-84.
598 Id. at 3184.
599 To the extent that any parties have raised issues in their comments that go beyond the scope of the narrow issue 
presented by the remand, we decline to consider those issues in this order.
600 NAB Remand Comments, May 25, 2022, at 3.
601 Id. at 2-4.
602 Id. at 4-6; see also NAB Remand Reply, June 9, 2022, at 6-8.  NAB had previously proposed that the 
Commission reserve “at least 80 MHz” of the 6 GHz band for use by licensed broadcasters.  NAB April 15, 2020 
Letter at 2.
603 SBE Remand Comments, May 25, 2022, at 7-10; EIBASS Remand Comments, May 25, 2022, at 1-3; EIBASS 
Remand Reply, June 9, 2022, at 1.
604 See App Association Remand Comments, May 25, 2022; Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Comments, May 25, 
2022; NCTA Remand Comments, May 25, 2022; Public Knowledge/Open Technology Institute (PK/OTI) Remand 
Comments, May 25, 2022; Wi-Fi Alliance Remand Comments, May 25, 2022; WISPA Remand Comments, May 
25, 2022; Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply, June 9, 2022; NCTA Remand Reply, June 9, 2022; Wi-Fi Alliance 
Remand Reply, June 9, 2022.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
90devices have caused harmful interference to broadcast operations in the 2.4 GHz band.605  They also 
argued that even if there were evidence of interference in the 2.4 GHz band, it would not justify any 
changes to the rules governing unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band because there are material differences 
between these two spectrum bands.606
C. Discussion
201. When NAB challenged the 6 GHz rules in the D.C. Circuit, it argued that broadcasters 
were particularly vulnerable to interference in the 6 GHz band “because mobile 6 GHz facilities often 
operate indoors.”607  In the 6 GHz Report and Order, the Commission concluded that a contention-based 
protocol requirement would ensure that “the risk of harmful interference” to indoor broadcast operations 
from indoor unlicensed devices in the 6 GHz band would be “insignificant.”608  NAB argued before the 
court that the Commission reached this conclusion without considering NAB’s claims that “a contention-
based protocol . . . failed to protect” broadcasters from interference in the 2.4 GHz band, “rendering that 
band partially unusable.”609  In response to the court’s remand, we have further examined NAB’s claims 
concerning the 2.4 GHz band, and we find that those claims lack merit.  The record in this proceeding 
contains no concrete evidence that unlicensed Wi-Fi devices have caused harmful interference to mobile 
broadcast operations in the 2.4 GHz band.  By contrast, the record contains concrete evidence that 
contention-based protocols would be effective in the 6 GHz band.610  Consequently, we find that NAB’s 
claims of interference in the 2.4 GHz band do not warrant any modifications to our 6 GHz rules.
202. In a series of letters filed before the 6 GHz rules were adopted, NAB told the 
Commission that a contention-based protocol requirement for unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz band had 
not protected broadcasters and that this experience should lead the Commission to conclude that a 
contention-based protocol likewise would not protect broadcasters from harmful interference in the 6 
GHz band.611  NAB claimed that “the penetration of Wi-Fi has so polluted the shared portion of the 2.4 
GHz band as to render it unusable for” ENG operations.612  But NAB offered no specific evidence to 
605 See App Association Remand Comments at 4-5; Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Comments at 4-7; NCTA 
Remand Comments at 5-8; PK/OTI Remand Comments at 4-6; Wi-Fi Alliance Remand Comments at 5-7; Apple, 
Broadcom et al. Remand Reply Comments at 3-5; NCTA Remand Reply Comments at 4-5; Wi-Fi Alliance Remand 
Reply at 5-6.
606 See App Association Remand Comments at 5; Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Comments at 7-10; NCTA 
Remand Comments at 11-16; PK/OTI Remand Comments at 6-11; Wi-Fi Alliance Remand Comments at 7-8; 
WISPA Remand Comments at 2-5; Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply at 5-6; NCTA Remand Reply at 6-7.
607 Petitioners’ Brief at 71; see also AT&T Services, 21 F.4th at 853.  In its brief filed with the D.C. Circuit, NAB did 
not complain about interference with outdoor broadcast operations.  Thus, consideration of outdoor operations is not 
at issue in this remand.
608 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3915, para. 168.
609 Petitioners’ Brief at 71 (quoted in AT&T Services, 21 F.4th at 853).
610 See discussion infra para. 207.
611 See Letter from Patrick McFadden, Associate General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET 
Docket No. 18-295 & GN Docket No. 17-183, at 2-3 (filed Mar. 23, 2020) (NAB March 23, 2020 Letter); Letter 
from Patrick McFadden, Associate General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 
18-295 & GN Docket No. 17-183, at 1-2 (filed Mar. 27, 2020) (NAB March 27, 2020 Letter); Letter from Patrick 
McFadden, Associate General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 18-295 & GN 
Docket No. 17-183, at 3-4 (filed Apr. 10, 2020) (NAB April 10, 2020 Letter).  Although the Commission’s rules do 
not require the use of a contention-based protocol by unlicensed devices operating in the 2.4 GHz band, all Wi-Fi 
devices are required by IEEE Standard 802.11 (the industry technical standard for Wi-Fi) to use a contention-based 
protocol.
612 See NAB March 23, 2020 Letter at 2-3; NAB March 27, 2020 Letter at 1-2; see also NAB April 10, 2020 Letter 
at 4 (claiming that a contention-based protocol “has demonstrably failed to control interference in the 2.4 GHz 
spectrum that is also shared with ENG”).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
91support this broad claim.  Instead, NAB cited comments filed in this proceeding by EIBASS in February 
2019.613
203. Although EIBASS asserted in its February 2019 comments that “Part 15 devices have a 
long history of causing chronic interference to TV BAS [Broadcast Auxiliary Service] operations” on 
certain channels in the 2.4 GHz band,614  it offered only two very specific pieces of evidence regarding 
this claim:  an unsubstantiated account of an incident that allegedly occurred in a single market more than 
a decade ago and a spectrum analyzer screenshot from a specific location purporting to show that Wi-Fi 
caused an increase in the 2.4 GHz band noise floor.615  EIBASS described a presentation made by the 
BAS frequency coordinator for Phoenix, Arizona, during a conference of broadcast engineers in April 
2004.616  But EIBASS did not submit either a transcript of the presentation or a sworn declaration from 
the Phoenix coordinator (whom EIBASS did not identify).  Instead, EIBASS simply offered its 
undocumented recollection of the presentation, which had been made 15 years earlier.617  According to 
EIBASS, the Phoenix coordinator stated during the April 2004 presentation that “about every six months 
or so,” one of the four ENG receive-only sites in the Phoenix area “becomes unusable” for certain 
channels in the 2.4 GHz band “because of the proliferation of 2.4 GHz WiFi devices at the site.”618  As 
EIBASS recounted the presentation, the Phoenix coordinator said that the interference issue was 
temporarily cured when “the operators of the offending Part 15 devices [were] instructed to cease and 
desist their interference-causing operations,” but those devices resumed operation after a while, and “the 
process [had] to be repeated.”619
204. Even if we were persuaded that broadcasters in the Phoenix area had experienced 
interference in the 2.4 GHz band nearly two decades ago, as EIBASS claimed, this isolated incident 
would not convince us that we need to take additional measures that would affect the entirety of the U.S. 
to protect broadcasters from harmful interference in the 6 GHz band.  But we have serious questions 
concerning the details of EIBASS’s second-hand account of the alleged Phoenix interference episode.  
According to EIBASS, the Phoenix frequency coordinator in the early 2000s (whom EIBASS did not 
identify) traced the alleged interference in Phoenix to Wi-Fi devices.620  Even assuming that harmful 
613 See NAB March 23, 2020 Letter at 3 n.5; NAB March 27, 2020 Letter at 2 n.1.
614 Comments of EIBASS, ET Docket No. 18-295 & GN Docket No. 17-283, at 8 (rec. Feb. 15, 2019) (EIBASS 
Comments).  The Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) operates in the U-NII-6 band on a mobile basis and in the U-
NII-8 band on both a fixed and mobile basis.  6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3855, para. 8 (citing 47 CFR § 
74.602(a), (i)).  Licensees use BAS stations to transmit programming material from special events or remote 
locations, including electronic news gathering, back to the studio or other central receive locations.  Id. (emphasis 
added) (citing 47 CFR § 74.631).
615 EIBASS Comments at 8-9, 17.
616 Id.
617 Id.
618 Id.
619 Id.  Although EIBASS claimed that the users of the interfering devices resumed operations after they were told to 
stop using the devices, our records contain no evidence (and neither EIBASS nor NAB provides any) that any of the 
affected broadcasters filed a complaint with our Enforcement Bureau.  If the Bureau had received such a complaint, 
it could have taken steps to identify the nature of the use (whether Wi-Fi or otherwise) and directed any users of the 
offending devices to cease operations until the interference issue was resolved.  The Bureau also could have warned 
any such users of the devices that if they resumed operation before the interference issue was addressed, they would 
be violating federal law and could face “severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines, in 
rem arrest action to seize the offending . . . equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.”  See, e.g., 
Notification of Harmful Interference, Victor Rosario, Case No. EB-FIELDNER-17-00025658, 2018 WL 923275, at 
*1 (EB Feb. 15, 2018) (citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501, 503, and 510).
620 EIBASS Comments at 8.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
92interference did in fact occur, we have no way of verifying that Wi-Fi devices caused the problem.621  If 
the alleged interference did, in fact, occur, we note that many unlicensed part 15 non-Wi-Fi devices also 
operate in the 2.4 GHz band, including baby monitors, cordless phones, wireless microphones, speakers 
and earbuds, and computer peripherals;—and those devices do not use a contention-based protocol.622  
Similarly, industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) devices operate on a primary basis623 in the 2.4 GHz 
band with unlimited power under the Commission’s part 18 rules, and they also do not use a contention-
based protocol.624  ISM devices use RF energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic, or similar 
purposes625 and are found in many locations such as factories, medical facilities, and even residences 
(microwave ovens).  Because EIBASS does not attribute any alleged harmful interference to any specific 
Wi-Fi device(s) and does not appear to consider any of the other numerous devices operating in the band 
without using a contention-based protocol, the Phoenix incident does not support NAB’s assertion that a 
contention-based protocol failed to prevent interference in the 2.4 GHz band.
205. The other evidence that EIBASS provided was a spectrum analyzer screenshot that was 
captured at an ENG receive-only site in Phoenix in 2013.626  According to EIBASS, this screenshot shows 
that the noise floor increases by 11 dB in 2.450-2.467 GHz and 5 dB in 2.467-2.483.5 GHz compared to 
ENG channel A10 at the upper end of the 2.4 GHz band.627  While this screenshot shows that some type 
of signal could have been present in the 2.4 GHz band at that time, it does not provide evidence of what 
devices may be causing any noise floor increase nor that a contention-based protocol would have failed to 
protect BAS receivers in the band.  In fact, any noise floor increase could be attributable to any of the 
non-Wi-Fi devices or ISM devices that operate in the 2.4 GHz band and do not employ a contention-
based protocol.  Moreover, as this screenshot is merely an indication of the spectrum at a single point in 
time, it offers no indication as to the behavior of a device employing a contention-based protocol when in 
the vicinity of a BAS transmitter in the band.  Given the limited information this screenshot conveys, it 
provides no grounds to support NAB’s assertion that a contention-based protocol had failed to prevent 
interference in the 2.4 GHz band.
206. Furthermore, even if the devices that EIBASS alleged were causing interference in 
Phoenix used a contention-based protocol, we cannot determine from the sparse evidence in the record 
whether those devices were operating in compliance with the Commission’s part 15 rules.628  Notably, the 
contention based protocol used by Wi-Fi devices is part of the IEEE 802.11 standard and not required by 
the Commission’s rules nor do the Commission’s rules limit such devices to indoor locations.  In contrast, 
the Commission adopted a requirement that low-power indoor (LPI) 6 GHz unlicensed devices use a 
contention-based protocol to work in tandem with other restrictions these unlicensed devices—including 
indoor-only operation and power limits on LPI access points—to guard against harmful interference to 
621 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Comments at 5 (noting “the absence of any meaningful detail” in the 
account of the Phoenix incident that would allow the Commission “to assess the conclusory interference claims”).
622 See id. at 7; NCTA Remand Comments at 6-7; PK/OTI Remand Comments at 9; Wi-Fi Alliance Remand 
Comments at 6; WISPA Remand Comments at 4-5; Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply at 4-5; NCTA Remand 
Reply at 4-5.
623 47 CFR § 2.106(b)(150) (noting, in international footnote 5.150, that the 2400-2500 MHz band is designated for 
ISM applications and that radiocommunication services operating in that band must accept harmful interference 
which may be caused by these applications).
624 Id. §§ 18.301, 18.305(a).
625 Id. § 18.107(c).
626 EIBASS Comments at 8.
627 Id. at 8-9, 17.
628 See NCTA Remand Comments at 6; NCTA Remand Reply at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
93incumbent operations in the 6 GHz band.629  Because of the lack of a Commission-mandated requirement 
for a contention-based protocol or indoor operation on 2.4 GHz devices, and no insight into whether 
devices in the Phoenix area at the time of the alleged interference were actually using such a protocol or 
operating indoors, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from those operations and the operations 
anticipated in the 6 GHz band.  Thus, the alleged Phoenix incidents shed no light on the relevant question 
raised by NAB:  that is, whether the purported experience regarding potential harmful interference to 
BAS devices in the 2.4 GHz band has any relevance to the potential for such interference from LPI 
devices in the 6 GHz band.  Additionally, as an added safeguard and as several commenters note, the 6 
GHz rules impose much lower power limits on unlicensed LPI devices than the 2.4 GHz rules do.630
207. In contrast to NAB’s unsubstantiated claims of harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz band, 
the record persuades us that “the risk of harmful interference to indoor electronic news gathering 
receivers from indoor unlicensed devices” in the 6 GHz band “is insignificant.”631  A study by Apple, 
Broadcom et al. “simulated the receive power level from electronic news gathering transmitters at 20 
unlicensed access points operating within the US House of Representatives chamber.  The results of this 
simulation demonstrate[d] that, even at the lowest electronic news gathering transmit power level, all 
unlicensed access points would detect the electronic news gathering signal at greater than -62 dBm and 
therefore not transmit co-channel.”632  This study “confirm[ed]” that contention-based protocols “could be 
used to mitigate interference to indoor electronic news gathering receivers” in the 6 GHz band.633
208. Because the record contains no substantial evidence of harmful interference to broadcast 
operations in the 2.4 GHz band, we find no basis for NAB’s assertion that a contention-based protocol 
failed to protect broadcasters from interference in that band, much less under the parameters established 
for operation in the 6 GHz band.  As the Commission noted in the 6 GHz Report and Order, “Wi-Fi 
devices have been deployed” in the 2.4 GHz band “in abundance for well over 20 years.”634  For most of 
that time, the 2.4 GHz band was the primary band used by Wi-Fi devices.  If (as NAB and others have 
claimed) interference from Wi-Fi devices prevented broadcasters from using portions of the 2.4 GHz 
band, we would expect the record to reflect evidence of numerous instances of such interference.  Yet 
apart from an unsubstantiated account of an alleged incident in Phoenix almost two decades ago and a 
spectrum analyzer screenshot captured in Phoenix more than a decade ago, the record contains no specific 
evidence that any broadcaster has experienced harmful interference from unlicensed Wi-Fi devices in the 
2.4 GHz band.  Moreover, neither NAB nor any other party has cited a single complaint filed with our 
Enforcement Bureau by any broadcaster alleging interference by unlicensed Wi-Fi devices in the 2.4 GHz 
band.  The absence of any such complaints undermines NAB’s contention that interference from 
unlicensed Wi-Fi devices is a serious problem for broadcasters in the 2.4 GHz band.
209. Following the remand, SBE and EIBASS attempted to supplement the record by 
629 The Commission adopted three restrictions designed to prevent harmful interference from devices using low-
power indoor access points.  Such devices are (1) limited to indoor operation; (2) required to use a contention-based 
protocol; and (3) subject to low-power operation.  See 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3888-90, paras. 99-103.  The 
Commission concluded that these restrictions “eliminate[d] any significant risk” that the devices would cause 
“harmful interference.”  Id. at 3907, para. 146; see also AT&T Services, 21 F.4th at 845, 850-51.
630 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply at 6 (“[T]he 6 GHz rules require [low-power indoor unlicensed] 
devices to operate at far lower power (e.g., at a power spectral density ’63 times’ less powerful in a 20-megahertz 
channel) than the 2.4 GHz rules permit.”) (quoting NCTA Remand Comments at 13); see also App Association 
Remand Comments at 5; PK/OTI Remand Comments at 9-10; WISPA Comments at 2-3.
631 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3915, para. 168.
632 Id. (citing Apple, Broadcom et al. Feb. 28, 2020, Ex Parte at 13).
633 Id.
634 Id. at 3908, para. 147.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
94presenting new evidence of harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz band.635  Such evidence falls outside the 
scope of this remand proceeding.  The narrow question presented by the court’s remand is whether the 
Commission adequately considered NAB’s concerns about interference in the 2.4 GHz band when it 
adopted the 6 GHz rules.  That is the only question on which OET sought further comment.  In this 
context, the relevant record is “the record before the agency at the time of its decision.”636
210. In any event, even assuming that the new evidence proffered by SBE and EIBASS were 
properly before us, this evidence does not persuade us that Wi-Fi devices have caused harmful 
interference to broadcast operations in the 2.4 GHz band, much less at the far lower power at which Wi-Fi 
operations are required to operate in the 6 GHz band.  SBE asserts that it conducted an “informal survey” 
in which local frequency coordinators reported “harmful interference from Wi-Fi systems [in the 2.4 GHz 
band] . . . in at least 13 markets.”637  But as Apple, Broadcom et al. point out, SBE’s “informal survey” 
was “backed in most cases by no supporting evidence or incident descriptions.”638  The only evidence 
offered by SBE to support its “informal survey” is a spectrum plot that purports to show interference in 
Milwaukee.639  We agree with Apple, Broadcom et al. that this spectrum plot does not constitute 
“meaningful technical evidence” because it contains “no supporting detail” concerning how the 
measurement of interference in Milwaukee was made.640  In particular, we note that SBE offers “no 
explanation why” it attributes the alleged interference in Milwaukee “to Wi-Fi, rather than to the many 
other technologies operating in the 2.4 GHz band that do not use a contention-based protocol.”641  The 
same is true of EIBASS’s comparison of the noise floors for mobile broadcast operations at 2 GHz and 
2.5 GHz.642  Although EIBASS claims that part 15 Wi-Fi devices are responsible for the higher noise 
floor at 2.5 GHz,643 the higher noise floor could also be attributable to “the many other technologies 
operating in the 2.4 GHz band that do not use a contention-based protocol.”644
211. The post-remand submissions by SBE and EIBASS also fail to cite any complaints filed 
with our Enforcement Bureau claiming that Wi-Fi devices caused harmful interference to mobile 
broadcast operations in the 2.4 GHz band.  The absence of any such complaints casts further doubt on the 
assertions made by NAB and its supporters that broadcasters have routinely experienced such 
interference.
212. In sum, despite NAB’s claims that interference issues in the 2.4 GHz band are pervasive 
and longstanding, the record contains no credible evidence of such interference.  The specific incident of 
635 See SBE Remand Comments at 5 (citing “an informal survey” in which frequency coordinators reported “harmful 
interference from Wi-Fi systems” in the 2.4 GHz band “in at least 13 markets”); EIBASS Remand Comments at 2, 
Figure 1 (attributing the high “noise floor” at 2.5 GHz to the proliferation of unlicensed Wi-Fi devices operating at 
2.4 GHz).
636 See Northstar Wireless, LLC v. FCC, 38 F.4th 190, 212 (D.C. Cir. 2022); see also NCTA Remand Reply at 11-
12.
637 SBE Remand Comments at 5.
638 Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply at 8.
639 See SBE Remand Comments at 5-6.
640 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply at 8.
641 Id.
642 See EIBASS Remand Comments at 2, Figure 1.  In this context, the noise floor is the sum of all signals emitted 
by other noise sources in the same part of the spectrum as a broadcast signal.  The higher the noise floor, the more 
likely the broadcast signal will experience harmful interference.
643 Id. at 2.
644 See Apple, Broadcom et al. Remand Reply at 8; see also NCTA Remand Reply at 4-5 (stating that “non-Wi-Fi 
devices” using the 2.4 GHz band “could have caused the alleged harmful interference, and many of those devices do 
not use a contention-based protocol”).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
95alleged interference cited in the record occurred about two decades ago in Phoenix, and it was never 
reported to our Enforcement Bureau.  EIBASS’s sketchy description of the details of that incident does 
not provide us with enough information to draw any firm conclusions about how—or even whether—
interference occurred.  The spectrum analyzer screenshot showing an increase in the noise floor in 
Phoenix more than a decade ago also lacks the details needed to reach a conclusion about whether 
harmful interference was occurring.  Given the absence of any concrete evidence that broadcasters have 
experienced harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz band or in the 6 GHz band, where LPI devices have been 
operating since December 2020,645 and in light of the substantial record evidence demonstrating that there 
is no significant risk of harmful interference given the constraints under which Wi-Fi devices are required 
to operate in the 6 GHz band, we reject NAB’s contention that broadcasters’ experience with interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band justifies the reservation of a portion of the 6 GHz band for mobile broadcast 
operations.
D. Conclusion
213. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that NAB’s unsubstantiated claims of 
interference in the 2.4 GHz band do not justify any modifications to our 6 GHz rules to provide 
broadcasters with further protections from harmful interference.  We reaffirm that the rules the 
Commission adopted in the 6 GHz Order eliminate any significant risk of harmful interference to mobile 
broadcast operations and other incumbent licensed services in the 6 GHz band.  Therefore, we decline to 
adopt NAB’s proposal to reserve part of the 6 GHz band for the exclusive use of mobile broadcast 
operations.
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
214.Ex Parte Presentations.  The proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.646  Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the 
presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments 
already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the 
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or 
other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be 
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given to Commission 
staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed 
consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing 
oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment 
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf).  Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex 
parte rules.
215.Filing of Comments and Reply Comments.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments 
on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the 
Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
645 Grant of Equipment Authorization, ASUSTek Computer Inc., FCC ID MSQ-RTAXJF00 (granted Dec. 30, 2020).
646 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
96▪Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
▪Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
▪Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office 
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
▪Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
▪U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L 
Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20554.
▪Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any 
hand or messenger delivered filings.  This is a temporary measure taken to help protect 
the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.  See 
FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-
delivery-policy.
216.Paperwork Reduction Act.  The Second Report and Order does not contain new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13.  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).
217. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new information 
collection requirements.  The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 
invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
218.Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),647 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”648  Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in 
this Second Report and Order on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.
219. We have also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the 
potential impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix D.  Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.  
647 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612.  The RFA has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
648 See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
97Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
220.Congressional Review Act.  The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this 
rule is major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).  The Commission will send a copy 
of this Second Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
221. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act:  The Providing Accountability 
Through Transparency Act requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule.649  Accordingly, the Commission will publish the 
required summary of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
222.People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
223.Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Nicholas 
Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-0636 or 
Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov.
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
224. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 2, 4(i), 302, and 303 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 152, 154(i), 302a, and 303, this Second Report 
and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, is hereby ADOPTED.
225. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 302, and 303 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 201, 302a, 303, that this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand is hereby ADOPTED.
226. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments of the Commission’s rules as set forth 
in Appendix A ARE ADOPTED, effective 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
227. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand 
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register.
228. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of the Secretary, Reference Information 
Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
229. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Managing Director, Performance 
Program Management SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Report and Order in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 
§ 801(a)(1)(A).
649 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(4).  The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Pub. L. No. 118-9 (2023), 
amended section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
98FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
SecretaryFederal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
99APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the document, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR 
part 15 as follows:
PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
2. Section 15.403 is amended by adding the definition of “Very low power device” in 
alphabetical order, to read as follows:
§ 15.403 Definitions.
* * * * * 
Very Low Power Device.  For the purpose of this subpart, a device that operates in the 5.925-6.425 GHz 
and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands and has an integrated antenna.  These devices do not need to operate under 
the control of an access point.
* * * * * 
3. Section 15.407 is amended by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(12) as paragraphs (a)(10) through (a)(13) and 
adding new paragraph (a)(9);
b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (c);
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2);
e. Adding new paragraphs (d)(8) through (10);
f. Revising paragraph (l)(2)(ii).
The revisions and additions read as follows.
§ 15.407 General technical requirements.
(a) * * *
(9) For very low power devices operating in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands, the 
maximum power spectral density must not exceed -5 dBm e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz band and the 
maximum e.i.r.p must not exceed 14 dBm. 
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
100(b) Undesirable emission limits. Except as shown in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, the maximum 
emissions outside of the frequency bands of operation shall be attenuated in accordance with the 
following limits:
* * * * *
(c) Transmission discontinuation requirement.  The device shall automatically discontinue 
transmission in case of either absence of information to transmit or operational failure.  These 
provisions are not intended to preclude the transmission of control or signaling information or the use 
of repetitive codes used by certain digital technologies to complete frame or burst intervals.  
Applicants shall include in their application for equipment authorization a description of how this 
requirement is met.
(d) * * *
(1) Operational restrictions:
(i) Oil platforms: Operation of standard power access points, fixed client devices, very low power 
devices, and indoor access points in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band is prohibited on oil platforms.
(ii) Land vehicles: Operation of standard power access points, fixed client devices, and indoor 
access points in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band is prohibited on vehicles (e.g., cars, trains).
(iii) Boats: Operation of standard power access points, fixed client devices, and indoor access 
points in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band is prohibited on boats.
(iv) Aircraft: Standard power access points, fixed client devices, very low power devices, and 
indoor access points in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band are prohibited from operating on aircraft, 
except that very low power devices and indoor access points are permitted to operate in the 
5.925–6.425 GHz bands in large aircraft while flying above 10,000 feet.
(v) Operation of transmitters in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band is prohibited for control of or 
communications with unmanned aircraft systems.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
6) All U-NII transmitters, except for standard power access points and fixed client devices, operating 
in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band must employ a contention-based protocol.
* * * * *
(8) Very low power devices may not employ a fixed outdoor infrastructure.  Such devices may not be 
mounted on outdoor structures, such as buildings or poles.
(9) Very low power devices must prioritize operations on frequencies above 6.105 GHz prior to 
operating on frequencies between 5.925 GHz and 6.105 GHz.
(10) Transmit power control (TPC).  Very low power devices operating in the 5.925–6.425 and 
6.525-6.875 GHz bands shall employ a TPC mechanism.  A very low power device is required to 
have the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the maximum EIRP PSD value of -5 dBm/ 
MHz.
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
101(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The AFC system must use −6 dB I/N as the interference protection criteria in determining the 
size of the adjacent channel exclusion zone, where I (interference) is the signal from the 
standard power access point or fixed client device's out of channel emissions at the fixed 
microwave service receiver and N (noise) is background noise level at the fixed microwave 
service receiver.  The adjacent channel exclusion zone must be calculated based on the 
emissions requirements of paragraph (b)(7) of this section. 
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
102APPENDIX B
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the document, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 
47 CFR part 15 as follows:
PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
2. Section 15.403 is amended by adding the definitions of "Geofenced very low power 
access point” and “Geofencing” in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
§ 15.403 Definitions.
* * * * * 
Geofenced Very Low Power Access Point.  For the purpose of this subpart, an access point that operates in 
the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, has an integrated antenna, and uses a geofencing system to determine channel 
availability at its location.
Geofencing.  For the purposes of this subpart, a method of establishing exclusion zones within which very 
low power devices are not permitted to operate on frequencies specified by the geofencing system.
* * * * * 
3. Section 15.407 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)(7) and (8) as paragraphs 
(a)(8)(i) and (ii); adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8)(iii); revising paragraphs (a)(10), (d)(3), (d)(5) 
and (6), redesignating paragraph (d)(7) as paragraph (d)(5)(ii); adding and reserving new paragraph 
(d)(7); revising paragraphs (d)(8) through (10); and adding paragraphs (o) through (r) to read as follows:
§ 15.407 General technical requirements.
(a) * * *
(7) For a geofenced very low power access point operating in the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, the 
maximum power spectral density must not exceed 1 dBm e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz band.  In 
addition, the maximum e.i.r.p over the frequency band of operation must not exceed 14 dBm.
(8) Client device operation:
(i) For client devices, except for fixed client devices as defined in this subpart, operating under 
the control of a standard power access point in 5.925–6.425 GHz and 6.525–6.875 GHz 
bands, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed 17 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-
megahertz band, and the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation must not 
exceed 30 dBm and the device must limit its power to no more than 6 dB below its associated 
standard power access point's authorized transmit power.
(ii) For client devices operating under the control of an indoor access point in the 5.925–7.125 
GHz bands, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed −1 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
103megahertz band, and the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation must not 
exceed 24 dBm.
(iii) For client devices operating under the control of a geofenced very low power access point in 
the 5.925–7.125 GHz bands, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed 1 dBm 
e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz band, and the maximum e.i.r.p over the frequency band of 
operation must not exceed 14 dBm.
* * * * *
(10) Access points operating under the provisions of paragraphs (a)(5), (6), and (7) of this section 
must employ a permanently attached integrated antenna.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Transmitters operating under the provisions of paragraphs (a)(5), (6), and (8)(ii) of this section are 
limited to indoor locations.
* * * * *
(5) Client Devices:
(i) In the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, client devices must operate under the control of a standard 
power access point, low-power indoor access point, subordinate device, or geofenced very 
low power access point; Subordinate devices must operate under the control of a low-power 
indoor access point.
(ii) Fixed client devices may only connect to a standard power access point.
(iii) In all cases, an exception exists such that a client device may transmit brief messages to an 
access point when attempting to join its network after detecting a signal that confirms that an 
access point is operating on a particular channel.
(iv) Client-to-client communications: Client devices are prohibited from connecting directly to 
another client device, except that client devices under the control of the same indoor access point or 
geofenced very low power access point may communicate directly with each other.
(v) Client devices under the control of indoor access point, that directly connect to another client, 
transmit power must not exceed -1 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-meghertz band, and the maximum e.i.r.p. over 
the frequency band of operation must not exceed 14 dBm.
* * * * *
(7) [Reserved]
(8) Geofenced very low power and very low power devices may not employ a fixed outdoor 
infrastructure.  Such devices may not be mounted on outdoor structures, such as buildings or 
poles.  Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
104(9) Geofenced very low power and very low power devices must prioritize operations on frequencies 
above 6.105 GHz prior to operating on frequencies between 5.925 GHz and 6.105 GHz.
(10) Transmit power control (TPC).  Geofenced very low power devices operating in the 5.925-7.125 
GHz bands shall employ a TPC mechanism.  A very low power device is required to have the 
capability to operate at least 6 dB below the maximum EIRP PSD value of -5 dBm/ MHz.
* * * * *
(o) Geofencing system.
(1) A geofencing system must obtain information on protected services within the 5.925–7.125 GHz 
band from Commission databases and use that information to determine frequency-specific 
exclusion zones where very low power access points and associated client devices may not 
operate on specified frequencies based on the propagation models and protection criteria specified 
in paragraph (p) of this section.  The geofencing system must access the Commission’s licensing 
databases and update the frequency-specific exclusion zones at least once per day to ensure that 
they are based on the most recent information in the Commission’s databases.
(2) Geofencing systems may be implemented using a centralized database or may be integrated into 
geofenced very low power access point devices.
(3) A geofenced very low power access point operating under paragraph (a)(7) of this section must 
access a geofencing system to obtain frequency-specific exclusion zones for the area in which it 
is operating or intends to operate (e.g., within a specific point radius or within specific 
geopolitical boundaries) prior to transmitting.  If the geofenced very low power access point 
moves outside this area, it must obtain additional frequency-specific exclusion zones for the area 
and adjust its operating frequency, if necessary, prior to operating in this new area.  The 
geofenced very low power access point must obtain updated frequency-specific exclusion zones 
from the geofencing system at least once per day.  If the geofenced very low power access point 
fails to obtain the updated frequency specific exclusion zones on any given day, the geofenced 
very low power access point may continue to operate until 11:59 p.m. of the following day at 
which time it must cease operations until it can obtain updated frequency-specific exclusion 
zones.
(4) A geofenced very low power access point must determine its location and avoid transmitting on 
frequencies that are not available in accordance with the frequency specific exclusion zones.  The 
geofenced very low power access point may not permit a client device operating under its control 
to transmit on frequencies that are not available in accordance with the frequency specific 
exclusion zones.  The geofenced very low power access point must determine its location 
frequently enough that, based on its position and speed, it will not transmit on an unavailable 
frequency.  The geofenced very low power access point must determine its location and speed at 
least once a minute.
(5) A geofenced very low power access point must incorporate adequate security measures to prevent 
it from accessing geofencing systems and geofencing methods not approved by the FCC and to 
ensure that unauthorized parties cannot modify the device to operate in a manner inconsistent 
with the rules and protection criteria set forth in this section and to ensure that communications 
between geofenced very low power access points and geofencing systems are secure to prevent 
corruption or unauthorized interception of data.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
105(6) Geofenced very low power access point device geo-location capability:
(i) A geofenced very low power access point must include an internal geo-location capability to 
automatically determine the geofenced very low power access point's geographic coordinates 
and location uncertainty (in meters), with a confidence level of 95%.  The geofenced very 
low power access point must use such coordinates and location uncertainty when comparing 
the devices specific location to the exclusion zone boundaries.
(ii) The applicant for certification of a geofenced very low power access point must demonstrate 
the accuracy of the geo-location method used and the location uncertainty.
(7) Service requirements:
(i) For centralized geofencing systems, geofencing system operators must provide continuous 
service to all very low power devices for which it has been designated to provide service.  If a 
geofencing system ceases operation, the operator must provide at least 30-days’ notice to the 
Commission and a description of any arrangements made for those devices to continue to 
receive exclusion zone update information.
(ii) For geofencing systems internal to the geofenced very low power device, the equipment 
certification responsible party must ensure that the device continues to be capable of 
receiving Commission database updates as required by this section.
(iii) As required by paragraph (o)(3) of this section, devices that do not receive timely geofencing 
update information or timely Commission database updates necessary to calculate up-to-date 
exclusion zones must cease operating.
(8) The geofencing system whether centralized or internal to the geofenced very low power device 
must ensure that all communications and interactions between the geofencing system and the 
geofenced very low power access point and/or all communications between the geofencing 
system and Commission databases are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot 
access or alter the database, the exclusion zones, or the list of excluded or available frequencies.  
Additionally, the geofencing system must incorporate security measures to protect against 
unauthorized data input or alteration of stored data, including establishing communications 
authentication procedures between client devices and geofenced very low power access points.
(9) A geofencing system must implement the terms of international agreements with Mexico and 
Canada.
(10) At the time that the geofenced very low power device receives equipment certification, the 
device must either have its geofencing system approved or specify an already approved 
geofencing system that it is using.  The Commission may specify criteria for such approval, 
which could require test results to be submitted.
(11) Each geofencing system and operator thereof for centralized systems and the equipment 
certification responsible party for systems internal to the geofenced very low power device must:
(i) Ensure that a regularly updated geofencing system database that contains the information 
described in this section, including incumbent's information and geofenced very low power 
access points authorization parameters, is maintained.
(ii) Respond in a timely manner to verify, correct, or remove, as appropriate, data in the event that 
the Commission or a party presents a claim of inaccuracies in the geofencing system.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
106(iii) Establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement instructions from the 
Commission, including discontinuance of geofenced very low power access point operations 
on specified frequencies in designated geographic areas and predetermined exclusion zones.
(iv) Comply with instructions from the Commission to adjust exclusion zones to more accurately 
reflect the potential for harmful interference.
(12) A geofencing system operator may charge fees for providing service.  The Commission may, 
upon request, review the fees and can require changes to those fees if the Commission finds them to be 
unreasonable.
(p) Incumbent Protection by Geofencing system:  A very low power access point or very low 
power client device must not cause harmful interference to fixed microwave services and Broadcast 
Auxiliary Service and Cable Television Relay Service receive sites authorized to operate in the 5.925–
7.125 GHz bands.  Based on the criteria set forth below, a geofencing system must establish location and 
frequency-based exclusion zones around fixed microwave receivers, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service 
receive sites, and fixed Cable Television Relay Service receive sites operating in the 5.925–7.125 GHz 
bands.  Individual very low power access points and their associated client devices must not operate co-
channel to the frequencies licensed for fixed microwave systems, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service 
receive sites, and fixed Cable Television Relay Service sites within an exclusion zone.
(1) Propagation Models:  Geofencing systems must use the following propagation models to 
determine exclusion zones for very low power access points.  For a separation distance between 
geofenced very low power devices and fixed microwave receive sites , fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service 
receive sites, or fixed Cable Television Relay Service receive sites 
(i) Up to 30 meters, the geofencing system must use the free space path-loss model.
(ii) More than 30 meters and up to and including one kilometer, the geofencing system must use 
the Wireless World Initiative New Radio phase II (WINNER II) model.  The geofencing system must use 
site-specific information, including buildings and terrain data, for determining the line-of-sight/non-line-
of-sight path component in the WINNER II model, where such data are available.  For evaluating paths 
where such data are not available, the geofencing system must use a probabilistic model combining the 
line-of-sight path and non-line-of-sight path into a single path-loss as follows:
Path-loss (L) = ∑ i P(i) * L i = P LOS * L LOS + P NLOS * L NLOS;
Where:
PLOS is the probability of line-of-sight;
LLOS is the line-of-sight path loss;
PNLOS is the probability of non-line-of sight;
LNLOS is the non-line-of-sight path loss; and 
L is the combined path loss.
The WINNER II path loss models include a formula to determine P LOS as a function of antenna 
heights and distance.  P NLOS is equal to (1-P LOS).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
107In all cases, the geofencing system will use the correct WINNER II parameters to match the 
morphology of the path between a very low power access point and a fixed microwave receiver,fixed 
Broadcast Auxiliary Service receiver, or fixed Cable Television Relay Service receiver (i.e., Urban, 
Suburban, or Rural).
(iii) More than one kilometer, the geofencing system must use Irregular Terrain Model (ITM) 
combined with the appropriate clutter model.  To account for the effects of clutter, such as buildings and 
foliage, the geofencing system must combine the ITM with the ITU–R P.2108–0 (06/2017) clutter model 
for urban and suburban environments and the ITU–R P.452–16 (07/2015) clutter model for rural 
environments.  The geofencing system should use the most appropriate clutter category for the local 
morphology when using ITU–R P.452–16.  However, if detailed local information is not available, the 
“Village Centre” clutter category should be used.  The geofencing system must use 1 arc-second digital 
elevation terrain data and, for locations where such data are not available, the most granular available 
digital elevation terrain data.
(iv) Geofencing systems may include up to 4 dB additional loss to account for losses due to 
scattering and absorption from a nearby body or object.
(v) Geofencing systems may calculate exclusion zones based on a 1.5 meter very low power 
access point antenna height above ground level, regardless of the actual antenna height above ground 
level.
(2) Interference Protection Criteria:  The geofencing system must use −6 dB I/N as the 
interference protection criteria when calculating the exclusion zones where I (interference) is the co-
channel signal from the very low power access point at the fixed microwave service receiver, fixed 
Broadcast Auxiliary Service receiver, or fixed Cable Television Relay Service receiver and N (noise) is 
background noise level at the fixed microwave service receiver, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service 
receiver, or fixed Cable Television Relay Service receiver.
(q) Incumbent Protection by Geofencing System: Radio Astronomy Services.
(1) The geofencing system must enforce exclusion zones to the following radio observatories that 
observe between 6650-6675.2 MHz: Arecibo Observatory, the Green Bank Observatory, the Very Large 
Array (VLA), the 10 Stations of the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the Owens Valley Radio 
Observatory, and the Allen Telescope Array.
(2) The exclusion zone sizes are based on the radio line-of-sight and determined using 4/3 earth 
curvature and the following formula:
dkm_los = 4.12*(sqrt(Htx) + sqrt(Hrx))
Where:
Htx is the height of the very low power access point and is set at 1.5 meters above ground level; 
and
Hrx is the height of the radio astronomy antenna in meters above ground level.  Coordinate 
locations of the radio observatories are listed in section 2.106(c)(131), (c)(385) of this part.
(r) Incumbent Protection by Geofencing System: FSS (space-to-Earth) Earth Stations.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
108(1) The geofencing system must enforce exclusion zones to protect FSS earth stations that receive in 
the 6875-7055 MHz band at Clifton, TX, Cabo Rojo, PR, Wasilla, AK, Sebring, FL, and Naalehu, 
HI.
(2) The exclusion zone sizes are based on the radio line-of-sight and determined using 4/3 earth 
curvature and the following formula:
dkm_los = 4.12*(sqrt(Htx) + sqrt(Hrx))
Where:
Htx is the height of the very low power access point and is set at 1.5 meters above ground level; 
and
Hrx is the height of the FSS antenna in meters above ground level.  Coordinate locations of the 
FSS sites are listed in the following table
Location Coordinates
Clifton, Texas 31° 47' 59.22" N, 97° 36' 46.71" W
Clifton, Texas 31° 48' 2.149" N, 97° 36' 44.37" W
Clifton, Texas 31° 47' 57.4" N, 97° 36' 47.9" W
Clifton, Texas 31° 48' 0.1" N, 97° 36' 48.9" W
Clifton, Texas 31° 48' 3" N, 97° 36' 49.2" W
Clifton, Texas 31° 47' 57.5" N, 97° 36' 44.7" W
Clifton, Texas 31° 48' 0.2" N, 97° 36' 44.3" W
Sebring, Florida 27° 27' 34.3" N, 81° 21' 26.6" W
Sebring, Florida 27° 27' 35.6" N, 81° 21' 26.8" W
Sebring, Florida 27° 27' 35.6" N, 81° 21' 28.4" W
Sebring, Florida 27° 27' 34.3" N, 81° 21' 28.3" W
Wasilla, Alaska 61° 35' 24.9" N, 149° 29' 9.6" W
Wasilla, Alaska 61° 35' 24.1" N, 149° 29' 6" W
Wasilla, Alaska 61° 35' 24.6" N, 149° 29' 2.4" W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico 17° 58' 48" N, 67° 8' 15" WFederal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
109Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico 17° 58' 50" N, 67° 8' 13" W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico 17° 58' 49" N, 67° 8' 14" W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico 17° 58' 48" N, 67° 8' 12" W
Naalehu, Hawaii 19° 0' 51.99" N, 155° 39' 47" W
Naalehu, Hawaii 19° 0' 52.99" N, 155° 39' 48.99" W
Naalehu, Hawaii 19° 0' 51" N, 155° 39' 48.9" WFederal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
110APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Further Notice) released in April 2020.2  The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA.  
No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.  This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order
2. In the Second Report & Order, the Commission builds upon existing part 15 rules by 
permitting the operation of both standard power devices under the control of an Automated Frequency 
Coordination (AFC) system and of indoor low-power unlicensed devices in the 5.925-7.125 GHz band (6 
GHz band) by adding a new class of very low power (VLP) unlicensed devices.  Through its Second 
Report & Order, the Commission also adopts rules to permit VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 
(5.925-6.425 GHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 GHz) sub-bands of the 6 GHz band.  Further, the rules will 
permit VLP devices to operate anywhere with a power level up to -5 dBm./MHz EIRP power spectral 
density (PSD) in order to permit maximum flexibility for such devices.  In addition, this action makes 850 
megahertz of spectrum available for new and innovative high-speed, short-range devices.  The rules 
adopted in the Second Report & Order are designed to balance the need to develop and introduce exciting 
new applications in the 6 GHz band while protecting the incumbent licensed services currently operating 
in the 6 GHz band from harmful interference.  Specifically, the rules adopted in the Second Report & 
Order will permit VLP devices to operate anywhere in the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 GHz) and U-NII-7 
(6.525-6.875 GHz) sub-bands of the 6 GHz band at power levels up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD without 
using a geofencing system or having a geo-location capability.
3. Through the Second Report & Order, the Commission meets two primary objectives.  
First, the adopted rules meet the demand for new services utilizing the 6 GHz band without sacrificing the 
quality of existing services.  Second, the adopted rules maximize the benefits of growth in the band for 
small entities, whether they are unlicensed or incumbent operators, without incurring additional costs.  
Opening usage of the band to VLP unlicensed devices while ensuring there are no cost implications for 
either unlicensed devices or incumbent operators successfully accomplish these objectives. 
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
4. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies 
presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
5. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 
3852,  Appendix C, 3968-3975, paras. 1-20 (2020) (6 GHz Order).
3 5 U.S.C. § 604.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
111Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.4
6. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will 
Apply
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.5  The RFA generally defines 
the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” 
and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6  In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as 
the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7  A “small business concern” is one that: 
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the SBA.8 
8.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.9  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a 
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.10  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million 
businesses.11
9. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”12  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.13  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
4 Id. § 604 (a)(3).
5 Id. § 604(a)(4).
6 Id. § 601(6).
7 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.
9 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?,” https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf. (Mar. 2023)
11 Id.
12 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
13 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number of 
small organizations in this small entity description.  See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-
electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard.  We note that the IRS data 
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
112were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.14 
10. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”15  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census 
of Governments16 indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.17  Of this number, there were 
36,931 general purpose governments (county,18 municipal, and town or township19) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts20 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.21  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”22
14 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
16 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html.
17 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).  See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.
18 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05],  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.
19 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000.
20 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017.
21 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.
22 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments - 
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
11311.Fixed Microwave Services.  Fixed microwave services include common carrier,23 private-
operational fixed,24 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.25  They also include the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),26 Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz),27 Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),28 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),29 24 GHz Service,30 
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),31 and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),32 
where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.33  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)34 is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.35  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.36  Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.37  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
12. The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave 
services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the 
various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services.  When bidding credits are adopted for the 
auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to 
the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in Part 101 of the Commission’s rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency 
bands.38
23 See 47 CFR pt. 101, Subt. C and I.
24 See id. Subt. C and H.
25 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR Part 74.  
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
26 See 47 CFR pt. 30.
27 See 47 CFR pt. 101, Subt. Q.
28 See id. Subt. L.
29 See id. Subt. G.
30 See id.
31 See id. Subt. O.
32 See id. Subt. P.
33 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
34 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
35 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
36 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
37 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
38 See 47 CFR §§ 101.538(a)(1)-(3), 101.1112(b)-(d), 101.1319(a)(1)-(2), and 101.1429(a)(1)-(3). Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
11413. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.
14.Public Safety Radio Licensees.  As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees 
include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency 
medical services.39  Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees.  Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)40 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size 
standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.41  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.42  Of this number, 2,837 firms 
employed fewer than 250 employees.43  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that 
a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
15.Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”44  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.45  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
39 See subparts. A and B of pt. 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 90.1-90.22.  Police licensees serve state, 
county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed 
material).  Fire licensees are comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units under 
governmental control.  Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include state, county, or municipal entities that use 
radio for official purposes.  State departments of conservation and private forest organizations comprise forestry 
service licensees that set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews.  State and local 
governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid other 
public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic.  Emergency medical licensees use these channels 
for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment.  Additional 
licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief 
organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and 
emergency repair of public communications facilities.
40 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
41 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
42 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
43 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
44 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
45 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
115firms in this industry operated for the entire year.46  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.47  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.48  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.49  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.
16.Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.50  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and 
wireless video services.51  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.52  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.53  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.54  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless services.55  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.56  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.
17. The Commission’s own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, 
as of May 17, 2018, there are 264 Cellular licensees.57  The Commission does not know how many of 
these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. 
46 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
47 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
48 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 
49 Id.
50 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
51 Id.
52 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
53 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
54 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. 
55 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
56 Id.
57 See http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls.  For the purposes of this IRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless 
services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration 
Numbers.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
116Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications 
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.58  Of this total, an estimated 
261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.59  Thus, using available 
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
18.Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services.  This service 
involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through 
translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering 
unit back to the station).  Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size 
standard applicable to broadcast auxiliary licensees.  The closest applicable industries with a SBA small 
business size standard fall within two industries - Radio Stations60 and Television Broadcasting.61  The 
SBA small business size standard for Radio Stations classifies firms having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small.62  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in this 
industry during that year.63  Of that number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million 
per year.64   For Television Broadcasting, the SBA small business size standard also classifies firms 
having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.65  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year.66  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less 
than $25 million per year.67  Accordingly, based on the U.S. Census Bureau data for Radio Stations and 
Television Broadcasting, the Commission estimates that the majority of Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and 
58 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology 
Division, Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service), 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
59 See id.
60 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515112&year=2017&details=515112.
61 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
62 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516110).
63 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515112,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  We note that the US Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that operated for the 
entire year.
64 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that 
operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in the individual categories for less than $100,000, and $100,000 to 
$249,999 to avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for the sales/value of shipments/revenue 
in these categories).  Therefore, the number of firms with revenue that meet the SBA size standard would be higher 
that noted herein.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues 
are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
65 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516120).
66 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
67 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
117Other Program Distribution Services firms are small under the SBA size standard.
19.Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the 
Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite 
Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations.  Satellite Telecommunications68 is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard.  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small 
if it has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.69  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there was a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year.70  Of this total, 242 firms had 
revenue of less than $25 million.71  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services.72  Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.73  Consequently, using the 
SBA’s small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
20. The rules adopted in the Second Report & Order will impose new or modified reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on small and other entities.  The Commission is not in a 
position to determine whether these new rules will require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals, however the adopted rules will provide opportunities for small entities 
to grow their businesses by allowing the expansion of VLP devices to operate across the entire 6 GHz 
band.
21. The adopted rules will permit VLP devices to operate across the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 
GHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 GHz) sub-bands of the 6 GHz band and will also permit 
VLP devices to operate at a power level no greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD to avoid causing harmful 
interference to fixed microwave, Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), Cable Television Relay Service 
(CARS), and radio astronomy receive sites.
22. We will require applicants for certification of VLP devices to show in their application 
for device certification how their devices will comply with all technical requirements set in this 
proceeding.  This new requirement will not increase the cost of applying for certification.
23. The Commission estimates the economic value to service providers operating in the 6 
GHz band will vastly exceed their cost.  By opening access to the 6 GHz band, the adopted rules will 
foster extensive growth in the market for VLP devices, with one report estimating that VLP devices 
68 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
69 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.
70 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
71 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
72 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
73 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
118would product over $39 billion in economic value over five years.74  Lastly, the adopted rules will permit 
unlicensed small entities to operate VLP devices in the 6 GHz band without the additional complications 
or costs incurred to obtain a license.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
24. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken 
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities…including a statement of the factual, 
policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the 
other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities 
was rejected.”75
25. The rules adopted by the Commission in the Second Report and Order should benefit 
small entities by giving them more options for gaining access to valuable spectrum while creating little to 
no harmful interference to licensed incumbents sharing the 6 GHz band.  Through comments provided 
during the rulemaking proceeding, the Commission considered various proposals from small and other 
entities.  The adopted rules reflect the Commission’s efforts to balance the desire of unlicensed VLP 
devices to utilize as much power as possible to maximize the benefits provided to their customers while 
protecting incumbent operators in the 6 GHz band from harmful interference.  Additionally, the 
Commission considered alternative proposals and weighed their benefits against their potential costs to 
small businesses and other entities.  For example, in determining the maximum power level rules for VLP 
devices, the Commission considered proposals from various commenters representing incumbents, but 
ultimately used the Monte Carlo computer simulation analysis submitted by VLP proponents to determine 
VLP devices should operate at a power level up to -5 dBm/MHz without requiring geofencing or 
exclusion zones.  This decision minimizes the economic impact of small and other entities seeking to 
operate in the 6 GHz band.  Further, it also allows for operations at a higher power level with only 
insignificant potential for harmful interference to incumbent operators. 76
26. Many of the entities holding licenses for use of the 6 GHz band qualify as small entities.  
The adopted rules for unlicensed operation in this band are designed to prevent the unlicensed VLP 
devices from causing harmful interference to the licensed services operating in the band.  Consequently, 
we do not expect that the current and future licensees in the band, including small entities, would 
experience a significant economic impact from permitting VLP unlicensed devices to operate in the 6 
GHz band.  As an alternative, the Commission considered comments by microwave incumbents 
recommending the adoption of rules requiring the use of Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) 
systems to control spectrum access by VLP devices operating at -5 dBm/MHz as a means of preventing 
interference.  However, the Commission concluded that adopting this approach would be both 
unnecessary and burdensome, as the risk of harmful interference from VLP devices operating at that 
power level is insignificant and would create an unnecessary cost to VLP device operators.
27. Users of devices operating under our part 15 rules do not need to obtain a Commission 
license.  Therefore, we expect that small entities would make use of 6 GHz VLP devices under the 
adopted rules and would also provide small entities with access to valuable spectrum without the expense 
and inconvenience of having to obtain a license.
28. The Commission believes that this rulemaking, by permitting VLP devices to operate in 
the 6 GHz band, will provide an advantage to small entities, as these entities would benefit from being 
74 Telecom Advisory Services, LLC, Assessing the Economic Value of Unlicensed Use in the 5.9 GHz & 6 GHz 
Bands at 49-56 (Apr. 2020), http://wififorward.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/5.9-6.0-FINAL-for-distribution.pdf.
75 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
76 A Monte Carlo simulation uses random sampling and statistical modeling to estimate mathematical functions and 
mimic the operations of complex systems.  Harrison RL., Introduction To Monte Carlo Simulation, AIP Conf Proc. 
2010;1204:17–21. doi:10.1063/1.3295638.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
119able to access this spectrum without the complication or cost of needing to obtain a license.  On balance, 
this would constitute a significant economic benefit for small businesses.
G. Report to Congress
29. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, 
in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.77  In addition, the Commission will 
send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the SBA.  A copy of the Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.78
77 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
78 See id. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
120APPENDIX D
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further 
Notice).  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in the Second Further Notice.  
The Commission will send a copy of the Second Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the Second Further 
Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposals
2. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on several proposals to 
expand the use of the 5.925-7.125 GHz band (6 GHz band) by unlicensed very low power (VLP) devices 
operating under the Commission’s part 15 rules.  These proposals are designed to provide increased 
flexibility for these unlicensed devices while preventing harmful interference from occurring to the 
licensed services currently operating in the 6 GHz band such as point-to-point microwave links, broadcast 
auxiliary service (BAS) operations, and satellite systems.  These proposals have evolved in response to 
the Commission’s previous efforts to address these longstanding issues.
3.In April 2020, the Commission adopted rules for two types of unlicensed operations in 
the 6 GHz band.4  First, unlicensed standard-power access points in the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 GHz) and 
U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 GHz) bands were now able to access spectrum through use of an Automated 
Frequency Coordination (AFC) system.5  Second, unlicensed low-power indoor (LPI) access points were 
now able to operate without an AFC system over the entire 6 GHz band.6  Further in the Second Report 
and Order, the Commission adopted rules to permit very low power (VLP) devices, an additional type of 
unlicensed device, to operate in the 6 GHz band.
4.Currently, the Commission’s rules permit VLP devices to operate at up to -5 dBm/MHz 
EIRP power spectral density (PSD) and a maximum EIRP of 14 dBm.  In the Second Further Notice, the 
Commission seeks comment on several proposals to enhance VLP operations and standard-power 
operations in the 6 GHz band.  One proposal is to permit VLP devices to operate at a power level higher 
than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD if they incorporate a geofencing system to avoid causing harmful 
interference to fixed microwave, Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), Cable Television Relay Service 
(CARS), and radio astronomy receive sites.  The geofencing system will ensure that these VLP access 
points operate only outside of defined exclusion zones designed to protect these services.  To achieve this, 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.
4 Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Report 
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852 (2020) (6 GHz Order), reversed in part, 
aff’d in part and remanded, AT&T Servs. Inc., v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841, 853-54 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (affirming 6 GHz 
Order and reversing and remanding to address issue of whether to “reserve a sliver of the 6 GHz band for licensed 
mobile operation”).  
5 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, para. 17.
6 6 GHz Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 3860, para. 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
121the proposed rules would adopt requirements for geofencing systems and specify the criteria that will be 
used to calculate the exclusion zones as well as the technical requirements that VLP devices must meet.  
Each VLP access point that operates at a power greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD should be able to 
connect to a valid geofencing system and applicants should be able to demonstrate such a capability 
during device certification and the geofencing system test and approval process.
5.Additional modifications to the current rules could be based on the characteristics of the 
VLP devices, the use geofencing systems to allow VLP devices to operate at higher power levels without 
causing harmful interference to licensed incumbents, the use of land use databases to more accurately 
determine where the devices may operate, the use of different propagation models by the geofencing 
systems to determine where VLP devices may operate, or the use of a different protection criteria by the 
geofencing systems for determining exclusion zones.
6. The Commission also seeks comment on proposals to relax several restrictions on the use 
of VLP devices in the current rules.  The current rules prohibit the devices from operating on aircraft, 
except for large passenger aircraft while flying over 10,000 feet in the U-NII-5 portion of the band.  The 
rules also prohibit the operation of VLP devices on oil platforms.  The Second Further Notice proposes to 
permit VLP devices to be used on commercial and general aviation aircraft except for unmanned aircraft.  
Additionally, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on removing or scaling back the prohibition on 
use of VLP devices on oil platforms, on boats on the ocean, and in terrestrial vehicles.
7. Another area in which the Commission seeks comment regards having the geofencing 
systems use a push notification method to more efficiently manage spectrum use of VLP devices in the U-
NII-6 and U-NII-8 portions of the 6 GHz band.  In the U-NII-6 (6.425-6.525 GHz) and U-NII-8 (6.875-
7.125 GHz) portions of the band BAS and CARS licensees use pick-up stations to transmit programming 
from news events or other special events at remote locations.  This involves transmitting from trucks 
which employ directional antennas to central receive sites that also use directional antennas typically 
located on towers or rooftops.  Because news events can occur anywhere at any time, the use of this 
spectrum by the BAS and CARS licensees changes frequently.  Under the current rules the geofencing 
systems have to protect the BAS and CARS central receive sites in all directions and across the entire U-
NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands because they do not know when and where the spectrum will actually be used.  
The proposal outlined in the Second Further Notice would require the BAS and CARS licensees to 
register the location and times they will use the pickup stations.  The geofencing systems will then send a 
“push” notification to the VLP access points to have them avoid transmitting on frequencies at locations 
where they could interfere with the BAS and CARS use of the band.
8. At present, the Commission’s rules do not permit standard power unlicensed devices to 
operate in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands.  In order to address this issue, the Second Further Notice 
proposes directing the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology to collect information on the 
location of receive sites used by BAS and CARS licensees in these bands to enable geofencing systems to 
create exclusion zones to protect these receivers.  Once this information has been collected, the AFC 
systems which control access to spectrum by standard power devices will be able to protect the BAS and 
CARS receive sites in these bands.  Consequently, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on 
permitting standard power devices to operate in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands.
9.Currently there are fixed satellite service (FSS) receive earth stations at five location in 
the 7.025-7.055 GHz band.  The Commission’s rules require geofencing systems to prohibit operation of 
VLP access points in this band for a large zone around these locations.  The Second Further Notice seeks 
comment on whether geofencing is necessary to protect the operation of these earth stations from harmful 
interference from VLP devices, the restriction of VLP device operation that may be necessary, and the 
technical parameters that could be needed for a geofencing system to determine exclusion zones around 
these earth station locations.  Lastly, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on whether any changes 
to the rules governing standard power devices are needed to protect these earth stations if the Commission 
permits standard power devices to operate in the U-NII-8 band.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
122B. Legal Basis
10. The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 2, 4(i), 302a, and 303 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 152, 154(i), 302a, and 303.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
11. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.7  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”8  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.9  A small business 
concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; 
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.10
12.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our 
actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.11  First, 
while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.12  
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 
33.2 million businesses.13
13. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”14  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.15  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
7 Id. § 603(b)(3).
8 Id. § 601(6).
9 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
10 15 U.S.C. § 632.
11 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
12 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?”.
https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf. (Mar. 2023)
13 Id.
14 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
15 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number of 
small organizations in this small entity description.  See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-
electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard.  We note that the IRS data 
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
123were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.16
14. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”17  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census 
of Governments18 indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.19  Of this number, there were 
36,931 general purpose governments (county,20 municipal, and town or township21) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts22 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.23  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”24
16 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.
17 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
18 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html.
19 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).  See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.
20 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05],  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.
21 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000.
22 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017.
23 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.
24 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments - 
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
12415.Fixed Microwave Services.  Fixed microwave services include common carrier,25 private-
operational fixed,26 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.27  They also include the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),28 Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz),29 Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),30 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),31 24 GHz Service,32 
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),33 and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),34 
where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.35  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)36 is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.37   U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.38  Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.39  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
16. The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave 
services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the 
various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services.  When bidding credits are adopted for the 
auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to 
the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in Part 101 of the Commission’s rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency 
bands.40
25 See 47 CFR pt. 101, Subts. C and I.
26 See id. Subts. C and H.
27 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR Part 74.  
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
28 See 47 CFR pt. 30.
29 See 47 CFR pt. 101, Subt. Q.
30 See id. Subt. L.
31 See id. Subt. G.
32 See id.
33 See id. Subpart O.
34 See id. Subpart P.
35 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
36 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
37 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
38 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
39 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
40 See 47 CFR §§ 101.538(a)(1)-(3), 101.1112(b)-(d), 101.1319(a)(1)-(2), and 101.1429(a)(1)-(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
12517. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.
18.Public Safety Radio Licensees.  As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees 
include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency 
medical services.41  Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees.  Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)42 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size 
standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.43  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.44  Of this number, 2,837 firms 
employed fewer than 250 employees.45  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that 
a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
19. With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities 
comprise the licensees for these services, we include under public safety services the number of 
government entities affected.  According to Commission records as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 127,019 active licenses within these services.46  Since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are therefore not 
41 See subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 90.1-90.22.  Police licensees serve state, 
county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed 
material).  Fire licensees are comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units under 
governmental control.  Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include state, county, or municipal entities that use 
radio for official purposes.  State departments of conservation and private forest organizations comprise forestry 
service licensees that set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews.  State and local 
governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid other 
public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic.  Emergency medical licensees use these channels 
for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment.  Additional 
licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief 
organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and 
emergency repair of public communications facilities.
42 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
43 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
44 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
45 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
46 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 13, 2021.  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = GE, GF, GP, PA, PW, YE, YF, YP, YW; Authorization Type 
= All; Status = Active.  We note that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
126able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s 
small business size standard.
20.Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”47  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.48  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.49  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.50  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.51  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.52  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.
21.Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.53  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and 
wireless video services.54  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.55  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.56  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.57  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
47 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
48 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.
49 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
50 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
51 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
52 Id.
53 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
54 Id.
55 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
57 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
127wireless services.58  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.59  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.
22. The Commission’s own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, 
as of May 17, 2018, there are 264 Cellular licensees.60  The Commission does not know how many of 
these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. 
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications 
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.61  Of this total, an estimated 
261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.62  Thus, using available 
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
23.Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services.  This service 
involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through 
translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering 
unit back to the station).  Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size 
standard applicable to broadcast auxiliary licensees.  The closest applicable industries with a SBA small 
business size standard fall within two industries - Radio Stations63 and Television Broadcasting.64  The 
SBA small business size standard for Radio Stations classifies firms having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small.65  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in this 
industry during that year.66  Of that number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million 
per year.67   For Television Broadcasting, the SBA small business size standard also classifies firms 
58 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
59 Id.
60 See http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls.  For the purposes of this IRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless 
services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration 
Numbers.
61 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology 
Division, Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service), 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
62 See id.
63 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515112&year=2017&details=515112.
64 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
65 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516110).
66 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515112,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  We note that the US Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that operated for the 
entire year.
67 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that 
operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in the individual categories for less than $100,000, and $100,000 to 
$249,999 to avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for the sales/value of shipments/revenue 
in these categories).  Therefore, the number of firms with revenue that meet the SBA size standard would be higher 
that noted herein.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues 
are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
128having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.68  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year.69  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less 
than $25 million per year.70  Accordingly, based on the U.S. Census Bureau data for Radio Stations and 
Television Broadcasting, the Commission estimates that the majority of Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and 
Other Program Distribution Services firms are small under the SBA size standard.
24.Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the 
Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite 
Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations.  Satellite Telecommunications71 is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard.  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small 
if it has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.72  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there was a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year.73  Of this total, 242 firms had 
revenue of less than $25 million.74  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services.75  Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.76  Consequently, using the 
SBA’s small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
25. We expect that the proposed rules set forth in the Second Further Notice will impose new 
or additional filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for small and other entities.  At this time, 
the Commission is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted, the proposals and matters upon 
which we seek comment in the Second Further Notice will require small entities to hire attorneys, 
engineers, consultants, or other professionals in order to comply and cannot quantify the cost of 
compliance with the potential rule changes discussed herein.  Under the proposals set forth in the Second 
Further Notice, and consistent with the Commission’s general approach, we expect that all the reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements associated with the proposals would remain the same 
68 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516120).
69 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
70 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
71 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
72 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.
73 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
74 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
75 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
76 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
129for small entities; however, we seek comment on any steps that could be taken to minimize any 
significant economic impact on small businesses.
26. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission proposes to allow VLP devices to operate 
across the entire 1200 megahertz of the 6 GHz band by utilizing a geofencing system to prevent operation 
at locations where they may cause harmful interference to licensed incumbents that share the 6 GHz band.  
The proposed rules will require: (1) VLP access points to obtain updated exclusion zones for particular 
frequencies from a geofencing system at least once per day; (2) VLP access points to have a geo-location 
capability and to avoid operating within the exclusion zones on the corresponding frequencies; (3) 
applicants for certification of these VLP access points to show in their applications how their VLP 
devices will comply with all geofencing requirements; and (4) VLP client devices to operate under the 
control of a VLP access point.
27. These proposed rules will require VLP access points operating at greater than -5 
dBm/MHz EIRP PSD to use a geofencing system to avoid causing harmful interference to fixed 
microwave, BAS, CARS, and radio astronomy receive sites.  The geofencing system will ensure that 
these VLP access points operate only outside of defined exclusion zones designed to protect these 
services.  Therefore the proposed rules would adopt requirements for geofencing systems and specify the 
criteria that will be used to calculate the exclusion zones as well as the technical requirements that VLP 
device must meet.  Each VLP access point that operates at a power greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD 
should be able to connect to a valid geofencing system and applicants should be able to demonstrate such 
a capability during device certification and the geofencing system test and approval process.  A VLP 
client device will operate only under the control of a VLP access point and will not need to have a 
geolocation capability or need to obtain geofencing data.  Independent VLP devices which operate at 
power levels up to -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD also do not need to have a geolocation capability or obtain 
geofencing data.  The proposed rules will require a VLP access point to obtain updated information from 
a geofencing system at least once per day and will provide this information based on the most recent data 
from the Commission’s databases.  Under the proposed rules, this daily communication would be 
required in order to keep the exclusion zones up to date and minimize the risk of harmful interference to 
incumbent operators within the 6 GHz band.
28. Additionally, the proposed rules will require applicants for certification of VLP access 
points to show in their application for device certification how their devices will comply with all 
geofencing requirements set in this proceeding.  Based on this approach, a fully certified VLP access 
point is a device that has an approved geo-location capability and that obtains exclusion zones from a 
geofencing system and a fully certified VLP client device would operate only when under the control of a 
VLP access point.  A geofencing system may be either integrated into the VLP access point or may be an 
external database from which the VLP access point obtains exclusion zones.
29. The only reporting requirement proposed in the Second Further Notice is that under the 
“push” notification proposal BAS and CARS licensees would be required to report their expected use of 
pickup stations in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands.  The push notification proposal would require the 
geofencing systems to have the ability to send notifications to VLP access points to modify exclusion 
zones based on information provided by BAS and CARS licensees on the locations and times they will 
use pickup stations.  This reported information would enable the geofencing systems to create exclusion 
zones that would protect BAS and CARS operations from potential harmful interference.  While many of 
these BAS and CARS licensees may be small businesses, we note that the compliance burden to those 
small entities would likely be minimal, as this would be a one-time reporting requirement of a small 
amount of information.  Reporting this information will provide a significant benefit to many small 
businesses as it will enable the Commission to make the 6.425-6.525 GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz portions 
of the 6 GHz band available for use by VLP unlicensed devices.  In considering this proposed 
requirement, we specifically seek comment from any small entities that would find this requirement to be 
onerous to them.
30. Lastly, the Second Further Notice makes a number of proposals which would change the Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
130operation of the geofencing systems used to manage spectrum access for VLP devices or the AFC 
systems used to manage spectrum access for standard power devices.  One proposal would modify the 
current rules for how the geofencing systems operate to take into account the characteristics of the VLP 
devices, the use of land use databases to more accurately determine where the devices may operate, the 
use of different propagation models by the geofencing systems to determine where VLP devices may 
operate, or the use of a different protection criteria by the geofencing system for determining exclusion 
zones.  Another proposal would modify the AFC systems to permit standard power devices to operate in 
the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands, while an additional proposal would modify how receiving earth stations 
in the 7.025-7.055 GHz band are protected by the geofencing and AFC systems.
31. The Commission acknowledges that some entities who design and manufacture VLP 
devices may in fact be small entities and welcome their input through their comments.  We note the 
proposed rules requiring VLP access points to use geofencing to prevent harmful interference would place 
a burden on device manufacturers by making the devices more complex than if there were no geofencing 
requirement.  However, because Part 15 unlicensed devices must not cause harmful interference to 
licensed services the Commission has concluded that geofencing requirements are necessary to allow 
operation of the devices at greater than -5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD.  Hence, not including the geofencing 
requirement would have reduced the utility of VLP devices, thus leading to a negative impact on small 
and other entities that are users of the devices.   As a result, we believe that having a geofencing 
requirement in the adopted rules is on the whole a significant economic benefit to small entities.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
32. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives for small businesses that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others):  “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 
small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”77
33. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission is taking steps to minimize the economic 
impact on small entities and is considering significant alternatives by proposing and seeking alternative 
proposals designed to increase the use of the 6 GHz band by unlicensed devices while protecting licensed 
incumbents from harmful interference.  The Commission considered alternatives that would provide 
greater protection to incumbent operators in the 6 GHz band but that would also create limitations for 
growth in the band by unlicensed devices.  For example, requiring geofencing at power spectral density 
(PSD) levels lower than -5 dBm/MHz or restricting unlicensed devices to operate at lower power levels.  
However, the steps the Commission has taken through its proposed rules will foster significant growth for 
unlicensed operators that are small entities, as they will provide them with more options for gaining 
access to valuable spectrum. Many BAS and CARS licensees who will need to report their expected use 
of pickup stations in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands under the “push” notification proposal may be small 
entities. The Commission considered alternatives to the use of a push notification system, such as the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service’s approach of requiring VLP devices to respond to instructions within 
a specific time limit, and allowing device manufacturers to determine the most appropriate way to comply 
with this requirement.  However, while the push notification requirement will be a burden on these 
licensees, it will also enable the geofencing systems to more efficiently manage use of the U-NII-6 and U-
NII-8 bands by users of unlicensed VLP devices, many of which will be small entities.  As a result of the 
increased use of the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8, we believe this reporting requirement overall provides a 
positive benefit for small entities that outweighs the potential economic burden.
34. Entities that operate geofencing systems and AFC systems may be small entities.  If the 
77 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
131Second Further Notice proposals which permit the operation of geofencing systems and change the 
operation of AFC systems are adopted, they may potentially experience a significant economic impact.  
The Commission considered alternatives such as developing a process for modifying the locations where 
VLP devices can and cannot operate or rejecting a geofencing approach and instead requiring VLP 
devices to access an AFC system instead.  However, a geofencing approach could help preserve the VLP 
device battery life of small entities by not requiring each device to re-check a database every time it 
moves, as is the case for standard power access points.  Additionally, the proposed rules will provide 
protection from harmful interference for small entities that are incumbent operators in the 6 GHz band.  
Further, these changes will also result in the more intensive use of the 6 GHz band by unlicensed devices.  
As many of the users of these unlicensed devices are small entities, we believe these proposals overall 
will have a positive economic benefit for small entities.
35. The Second Further Notice seeks comment from all interested parties.  Small entities are 
encouraged to bring to the Commission’s attention any specific concerns they may have with the 
proposals outlined herein.  The rules the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them 
more options for gaining access to valuable spectrum while still protecting incumbent licensed services 
that operate in the band from harmful interference.  The Commission expects to more fully consider the 
economic impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of comments filed in response to 
the Second Further Notice, prior to reaching its final conclusions and adopting final rules in this 
proceeding.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
36. None.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
132APPENDIX E
List of Commenters
Comments 
5G Automotive Association 
ACT | The App Association (App Association)
Alliance for Automotive Innovation 
Alliant Energy
American Petroleum Institute, Energy Telecommunications and Electrical Association 
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard 
Enterprise, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, NXP Semiconductors, Qualcomm Incorporated, 
Ruckcus Networks 
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation 
The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO)
Association of American Railroads 
AT&T Services, Inc. 
Broadcom Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Intel Corporation
CenturyLink Communications 
CORF – National Academy of Sciences 
Consumer Technology Association (CTA) 
CTIA
Dominion Energy Services Inc.
Duke Energy Corporation 
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance
Edison Electric Institute 
Environmental Health Trust
The Evergy Companies
Facebook Inc. 
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Kevin Mottus
Microsoft Corporation 
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
NCTA 
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council 
Nokia
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition
Qualcomm Inc. 
Sirius XM Radio Inc.
Sony Electronics Inc.
Southern Company Services Inc.
Ultra Wide Band Alliance (UWBA)
Utilities Technology Council, American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association, American Gas Association, American Water Works Association 
Wi-Fi Alliance 
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
Wireless Broadband Alliance Ltd. 
Zebra TechnologiesFederal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
133Reply Comments
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard 
Enterprise, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, NXP Semiconductors, Qualcomm Incorporated, 
Ruckcus Networks
Alliance for Automotive Innovation
American Trucking Associations 
Association of American railroads
AT&T Services Inc.
Broadcom Inc., Microsoft Corporation
CenturyLink Communications 
City of Los Angeles, California 
CTIA
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance 
Edison Electric Institute 
Facebook Inc. 
Globalstar Inc.
International Association of Fire Chiefs 
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
NCTA
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition
Sirius XM Radio Inc.
Southern Company Services Inc.
Tucson Electric Power Company 
Wi-Fi Alliance 
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
Ultra Wide Band Alliance (UWBA)
Utilities Technology Council, American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association, American Gas Association, American Water Works Association
Zebra Technologies
Ex Parte Comments
5G Automotive Association   
ACT | The App Association (App Association)
Amazon.com
Amazon.com, Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard 
Enterprise, Intel Corporation, Meta Platforms, Inc. Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated
Ameren
American Public Power Association, APCO International, Edison Electric Institute, Enterprise 
Wireless Alliance, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Southern Company Services, 
Utilities Technology Council
APCO International 
APCO International, AT&T Services Inc., Comsearch, Edison Electric Institute, Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition, Utilities Technology Council 
APCO International, AT&T Services Inc., Comsearch, Edison Electric Institute, Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition, Utilities Technology Council, Verizon 
APCO International, Edison Electric Institute, Enterprise Wireless Alliance, National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association, Southern Company Services, Utilities Technology Council
Apple Inc.
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc.
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard 
Enterprise, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, NXP Semiconductors, Qualcomm Incorporated, 
Ruckcus NetworksFederal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
134Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Intel Corporation, 
Microsoft Corporation, NXP Semiconductors, Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Intel Corporation, 
Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Facebook Inc., Google LLC, Microsoft 
Corporation, NXP Semiconductors, Qualcomm Incorporated, Ruckcus Networks
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Meta 
Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Meta 
Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel 
Corporation, Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Intel Corporation, Meta Platforms 
Inc.
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Intel Corporation, Meta Platforms 
Inc., Microsoft Corporation
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Facebook Inc., Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation 
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, 
Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, 
Qualcomm Incorporated, Salt Point Strategies
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc
Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., Meta Platforms Inc
Apple Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc.
Apple Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc, Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated
Amazon.com Services LLC
AT&T Services Inc.
Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Inc.
Broadcom Inc.
Broadcom Inc., Apple Inc.
Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Meta Platforms 
Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated
Broadcom Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Microsoft Corporation
Broadcom Inc., Facebook Inc., Cisco Systems Inc.
Broadcom Inc., Facebook Inc., Intel Corporation, Cisco Systems Inc., Qualcomm Corporation
Broadcom Inc., Kyrio, Wi-Fi Alliance
Broadcom Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Intel Corporation
Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Cisco Systems Inc., Extreme Networks, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Juniper
Citizens against government waste
Chairs of the 6 GHz Multi-Stakeholder Group
Charter Communications, Inc.
Competitive Carriers Association
Commscope, Inc. 
Consumer Technology Association 
CTIA 
Dominion Energy
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance 
Edison Electric Institute 
Edison Electric Institute, Evergy, Inc.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
135Edison Electric Institute, First Energy Corp.
Edison Electric Institute, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Edison Electric Institute, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Lockard & White Inc., Utilities 
Technology Council
EIBASS
Encina Communications 
Enterprise Wireless Alliance
Enterprise Wireless Alliance, Edison Electric Institute   
Environmental Health Trust
The Evergy Companies
Facebook Inc.
Facebook Inc., Qualcomm Inc. 
First Energy Corp.
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)  
Google LLC
Google LLC, Broadcom Inc., Comsearch, a ComScope Company, Federated Wireless, Inc., Key 
Bridge Wireless LLC, Nokia Innovations, Plume Design, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, RED 
Technologies, Sony Group Corporation, Wi-Fi Alliance
Hewlett Packard Enterprise 
Idaho Power
Intel Corporation
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Jon Peha
Kevin Mottus
Land Mobile Communications Council
Meta Platforms Inc.
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Marc-Anthony Signorino
Media Justice, Civil Rights, Public Interest, Labor, and Consumer Advocacy Organizations
Meta Platforms Inc.
Monisha Ghosh
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
National Spectrum Management Association
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
National Wireless Communications Council 
NCTA – The Internet & Television Association 
Netgear Inc.
Nevada Power
Next Energy
Nokia
North End Woodward Community Coalition
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge
Pacific Gas & Electric 
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition
Public Knowledge 
Public Knowledge, Open Technology Institute
Qualcomm Corporation, Cambrium Networks
Qualcomm Inc., Google LLC
RLAN Group
Rev. Dante King
Southern Company Services Inc.
Ultra Wide Band Alliance Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
136Utilities Technology Council
Utilities Technology Council, APCO, Edison Electric Institute, Enterprise Wireless Alliance, 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Southern Company
Utilities Technology Council, Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, American Gas Association, American Water Works 
Association, APCO International, International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council
Utilities Technology Council, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Water Works 
Association
Utilities Technology Council, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association, American Gas Association, APCO International, International Association of Fire Chiefs (6 
GHz Industry Stakeholders)
Utilities Technology Council, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association, APCO International, Enterprise Wireless Alliance
Utility Broadband Alliance
Wi-Fi Alliance
Wi-Fi Alliance, The Wireless Innovation Forum (WinnForum)
Wireless Application Corporation
The Wireless Innovation Forum (WinnForum)
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)  
Verizon
Xcel EnergyFederal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
137STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 
and 24 GHz; ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; Second Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (October 19, 2023)
Our lives run on unlicensed spectrum.  Consider the laptop you pulled open this morning to check 
your e-mail, the baby monitor you use to keep tabs on your child at night, the fitness tracker you use to 
count your steps, or the tunes you stream over your phone to power you through a workout.  No matter 
who you are or where you live, the odds are good that all sorts of activities in your day-to-day life depend 
on wireless airwaves that are unlicensed.  
Unlicensed spectrum is an invisible force.  It contributes more than $95 billion to our economy 
every year.  It helps make our lives more convenient, more connected, and more productive.
This was no accident.  It is the result of wireless policy choices that were made by the Federal 
Communications Commission more than three decades ago.  Our engineers challenged the status quo by 
suggesting that spectrum that was not licensed to specific individuals could be useful for all.  So the FCC 
opened a handful of underused frequencies—airwaves that were widely viewed as “garbage bands”—to 
anyone who followed some basic technical rules.
What followed was revolutionary.  We made it possible to access airwaves without licenses, to 
innovate without permission, and to develop low-power wireless technologies that have changed the way 
we live and work.  But the best-known development from this effort was Wi-Fi.  Because unlicensed 
airwaves are the spectrum where Wi-Fi was born.  
The challenge now is to keep this good stuff growing.  So a few years ago, when the global 
pandemic put our Wi-Fi routers centerstage, the FCC determined it was vital to identify additional 
spectrum to carry our unlicensed wireless activity and set aside a large swath of airwaves in the 6 GHz 
band.  This was the right thing to do.  Because as fiber, cable, and commercial wireless move to gigabit 
speeds, we need to ensure our Wi-Fi connections have the wider channels and additional bandwidth they 
need to keep pace.
Today we take the effort to support unlicensed activity in the 6GHz band even further.  We are 
opening up 850 megahertz of the 6 GHz band to small mobile devices operating at very low power, while 
putting in place common sense safeguards to protect incumbent uses.  We are also proposing to open up 
an additional 350 megahertz of the 6 GHz band for very low power devices.  
This means we are expanding access to the 6 GHz band to help jumpstart the next generation of 
unlicensed wireless devices.  So get ready.  Because we now have unlicensed bandwidth with a terrific 
mix of high capacity and low latency that can deliver new immersive, real-time applications.  That means 
these are the airwaves where we can develop new wearable technologies and expand access to augmented 
and virtual reality.  
These are the airwaves where the future happens—and with the 6 GHz band the United States is 
leading the way.  
Thank you to the staff responsible for this effort, including Ron Repasi, Ira Keltz, Jamison Prime, 
Michael Ha, Nick Oros, Bahman Badipour, Hugh VanTuyl, Aole Wilkinsel, Dusmantha Tennakoon, Jim 
Szeliga, Damian Ariza, Barbara Pavon, Aniqa Tahsin, and David Duarte from the Office of Engineering 
and Technology; Roger Noel, Paul Powell, Blaise Scinto, John Schauble, Chris Andes, and Stephen Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
138Buenzow from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Keith McCrickard, Doug Klein, Anjali Singh, 
and Jim Carr from the Office of General Counsel; Ken Lynch, Kate Matraves, Patrick Sun, and Aleks 
Yankelevich from the Office of Economics and Analytics; Kathy Harvey, Jason Koslofsky, David Marks, 
and Neil McNeil from the Enforcement Bureau; David Furth, Renee Roland, John Evanoff, Rasoul 
Safavian, Brian Marenco, and Tracy Simmons from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; 
Michael Gussow and Joy Ragsdale from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities; Sankar 
Persaud and Franco Hinojosa from the Space Bureau; Ethan Lucarelli and Dante Ibarra from the Office of 
International Affairs; and Jeff Neumann from the Media Bureau.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
139STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR
Re:Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 
and 24 GHz; ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; Second Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (October 19, 2023)
In 2020, the FCC took a historic step to advance U.S. leadership in wireless.  Back then, we led 
the world by opening up the full 6 GHz band for next-generation unlicensed use.  By doing so, we 
effectively increased the amount of mid-band spectrum available for Wi-Fi by almost a factor of five.  
And by acting early, our 2020 decision ensured that Americans and the businesses that are based here on 
our shores would benefit from this country’s first-mover advantage.  The results speak for themselves as 
consumers here are now benefiting from better, faster Wi-Fi and 5G services in their homes.
The truth is that our action in 6 GHz was part of a broader and forward-thinking approach to 
spectrum.  All told, from 2017 through 2020, the FCC’s spectrum efforts opened up more than six 
gigahertz of spectrum for licensed 5G services in addition to thousands of megahertz of unlicensed 
spectrum.  None of those decisions were easy, but they were all important and for some pretty core 
reasons.
For one, America’s leadership in wireless is vital to our geopolitical interests.  When America 
goes first, the world takes notice.  When we free up spectrum, other countries follow suit.  And when we 
are clear about our goals in wireless, it puts the wind at the backs of U.S. officials and our allied 
stakeholders that are working in international settings to ensure that spectrum bands and technologies 
develop in ways that work for America’s interests—not those of the foreign governments and delegations 
that do not share our values or goals.
That is why I argued in early 2021 for this new FCC to keep acting on spectrum matters with the 
same pace and urgency that we did during my first four years on the job.  In fact, I detailed a spectrum 
calendar back in March of 2021 that would ensure America stays on track and keeps leading the world in 
wireless.
One of the actions I outlined was for the FCC to act that year—in 2021—on authorizing very low 
power or VLP devices in the full 6 GHz band.  VLP operations can unlock even more innovative 
operations from wearables to augmented and virtual reality.
Unfortunately, the FCC did not act on VLP for over two more years.  And that delay has 
consequences.  Again, the U.S. was first to act on the 6 GHz band back in 2020.  But in the meantime, 
something like 50 countries not only caught up to us by authorizing unlicensed operations in 6 GHz, but 
they moved faster than us on authorizing VLP in the band.  It is critical for the U.S. to start leading again 
on wireless.
Now, I am very glad we are unanimous in taking action today in 6 GHz in a way that authorizes 
VLP operations.  But I would have been happy for the FCC to go even further.  For instance, I would 
have preferred for the FCC to address higher power levels for low power indoor or LPI devices today.  I 
would have preferred to move now on authorizing additional power for VLP devices.  And I would have 
preferred authorizing VLP operations in additional portions of the 6 GHz band today.  After all, acting on 
these issues now would have been entirely consistent with both the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision on 6 
GHz as well as the FCC’s own 2023 spectrum policy statement.  And it would have shown strong 
spectrum leadership, which would have aided U.S. efforts heading into next month’s World Radio 
Conference in Dubai.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
140So while the U.S. has been stalling out on spectrum as of late, I am confident that we can get 
things back on track.  One reason is the FCC’s talented and dedicated staff.  They worked hard on this 
decision today, and there’s no doubt that it tackles many complex and technical matters.  So I am very 
appreciative for their work.  And this order has my support.  I approve.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
141STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
Re:Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 
and 24 GHz; ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; Second Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (October 19, 2023)
We opened the 6 GHz band to unlicensed devices at a unique moment in American history.  It 
was April 2020.  Wi-Fi had emerged as a lifeline of connectivity in places like libraries, restaurants, 
parking lots, and youth centers.  Internet usage had morphed and surged, sparking a new sense of urgency 
to ensure that our networks—including our home networks—could keep pace with demand.  At the same 
time, new waves of IoT innovation began to grip sectors like healthcare and transportation.  Consumer 
adoption also began to climb as newer and more affordable devices offered fresh ways to make life safer, 
more convenient, more enriching, and more efficient. 
On all these fronts, 6 GHz unlicensed showed a vibrant path forward, from the wide-area to the 
local-area to the interconnectivity immediately around us.  That’s why when we adopted our 2020 order, I 
spoke about the band’s potential to serve as a lynchpin for a more innovative, and more inclusive, 
wireless future.
I continue to share that vision for 6 GHz, and today’s action takes another important step towards 
achieving it.  Wearable devices stand at the very leading edge of wireless innovation.  They can power 
applications for everyday users, educators, medical professionals and, yes, gamers, too.  But in 2023, 
consumers don’t want and shouldn’t have to put up with devices that are wired, clunky, or sluggish, or 
that overheat and need to constantly recharge.  With VLP, they can benefit from products that are more 
capable, sleeker, and more power efficient, and that cost less to make and just plain work better.  
This has been a long time coming, and I’m glad we got it done ahead of the upcoming World 
Radio Conference.  Countries around the world are exploring the future of 6 GHz within their borders.  
As today’s action shows, the promise of 6 GHz unlicensed goes well beyond the millions of Wi-Fi 6E 
devices that have shipped already.  And it will only continue to build as the ecosystem matures and 
develops.
The incumbents in this band provide vital services, and making sure we protect their operations is 
critical.  That’s why we’ve taken a conservative first step with VLP power levels as we continue to build 
a record on future possibilities.  Speaking of which, I hope we continue to explore our limits for low-
power indoor devices, and that we do so quickly.  As I said in 2020, raising power can help ensure that 
people can connect to Wi-Fi throughout their homes without additional equipment that might be too 
costly or complicated for many Americans.  It also can help make 6 GHz networks less expensive to 
deploy for small businesses.  The potential consumer impact here is big, and it’s real.  Now, the 
engineering isn’t easy.  But the time has come to work through the questions that remain, and see if we 
can come up with the right solutions.
I thank the Office of Engineering and Technology for its hard work on this item.Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
142STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON 
Re:Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 
and 24 GHz; ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; Second Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (October 19, 2023)
While I support today’s item, I would be remiss if I did not express my reservations about how 
the Second Report and Order dismisses technical arguments made by certain commenters.  The analysis 
within the Second Report and Order is thorough and well-reasoned based on the data and simulations it 
relies upon—the San Francisco and Houston simulations completed by Apple and Broadcom, et al.  But 
what concerns me about today’s item is that it does not give adequate consideration to many of the 
arguments made by commenters who raise concerns about lack of access to crucial data that informs those 
simulations and the potential for harmful interference to their operations from unlicensed VLP devices.805  
It does so in many instances by pointing to the same simulations relied upon to make its conclusions, as 
evidence that the arguments against those conclusions are wrong.  
I fear that without a thorough deliberation of licensed incumbent’s substantive technical 
arguments, that the Commission may be failing to anticipate instances of harmful interference from VLP 
devices.  And if my fears bear fruit, the Commission could find itself in the position of attempting to 
police interference fights in a heavily congested environment where it proves difficult, if not impossible, 
to enforce its rules.  
If 6 GHz licensees are unable to identify the source of the interference, they will be unable to file 
a complaint with sufficient information to allow Commission staff to conduct any enforcement.  I am 
pleased that the Chairwoman addressed my concerns by including additional language about rules 
enforcement and equipment certification for VLP devices.  This additional language, in addition to the 
promising benefits of 6 GHz devices, is why I support this item.  We must carefully consider, through the 
proceeding teed up in the Second Further Notice, what additional steps can or should be taken to mitigate 
the potential for harmful interference.  
We must be prepared, just in case it turns out that the simulations are in certain instances wrong, and 
harmful interference is caused by the proliferation of the VLP devices approved of in today’s Second 
Report and Order.  
As always, thank you to the OET staff for all of their great work.
805 See, e.g., Second Report and Order at para. 37 (“we do not agree with AT&T that it is necessary for multiple 
proximate VLP devices communicating with each other to be specifically modeled by the simulations as such use is 
implicitly accounted for”) referring to AT&T’s Aug. 29, 2023 Ex Parte; id. at para. 52 (“[w]hile Apple Broadcom et 
al. and Apple have not made their simulation code or the resulting raw data produced by the simulations publicly 
available, we believe that they have provided sufficient information for knowledgeable engineers to understand the 
algorithms and models used in the simulations”) referring to Southern Company Aug. 24, 2023 Ex Parte.  See also 
Letter from Michael P. Goggin, AT&T to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission, ET 
Docket No. 18-295 (filed Oct. 11, 2023) at 2; Letter from Patrick McFadden, Senior Vice President and Deputy 
General Counsel, National Association of Broadcasters, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication 
Commission, ET Docket No. 18-295 (filed Oct. 11, 2023); See Letter from Larry F. Butts, Director, Telecom 
Services, Southern Company Services, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission, 
ET Docket No. 18-295 (filed Oct. 10, 2023); Letter from Brett Kilbourne, Senior Vice President Policy and General 
Counsel, Utilities Technology Council to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission, 
(ET Docket No. 18-295 (filed Oct. 13, 2023).Federal Communications Commission FCC  23-86
143STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ANNA M. GOMEZ
Re:Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 
and 24 GHz; ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; Second Report and Order and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (October 19, 2023)
Spectrum is the heart of wireless innovation.  And as wireless innovation flourishes, shared use of 
limited spectrum continues to be key.  Around the world, spectrum management is one of the most 
important functions national communications regulatory bodies undertake, and it certainly is for us at the 
FCC.  
The Second Report and Order will allow a new class of devices, Very Low Power devices, for 
unlicensed use in the 6 GHz band, and the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to 
allow an additional class of Very Low Power devices to operate unlicensed at slightly higher power 
levels, in some portions of the band, but Geofenced.  The FCC has given careful consideration to all 
perspectives and relied on rigorous analysis.  As the new unlicensed uses are carried out, we remain open 
to hearing from all.  Bring your demonstrable evidence, your experiences, your complaints and your 
success stories.  We are here to hear you.
Today, by adopting the Second Report and Order, we expand access to unlicensed use of the 6 
GHz band. And by adopting the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we continue to explore 
further unlicensed use of the band.  This action achieves two important and interrelated goals.  Nationally, 
we strike a balance of spectrum use that fosters innovation while setting parameters that protects 
incumbent operations.  Our action demonstrates the continued implementation of the FCC’s historic 2020 
decision to dedicate 1200 megahertz of mid-band spectrum to unlicensed innovation.  Internationally, we 
send a powerful message about the United States’ continued commitment to next generation Wi-Fi 
operations in the 6 GHz band in advance of the 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference.  With 
these decisions, we support innovation at home, and uphold our leadership internationally.  I want to 
thank the Office of Engineering and Technology for their hard work on this item.