874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

PENALTIES APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS—Continued 

U.S. Code citation CMP description 

Maximum 

penalty 

amount 

(in dollars) 8

12 U.S.C. 1467(d) ................... Refusal of Affiliate to Cooperate in Examination ........................................................................... 12,249 

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r) .................. Late/Inaccurate Reports: 

1st Tier .................................................................................................................................... 4,899 

2nd Tier ................................................................................................................................... 48,992 

3rd Tier .................................................................................................................................... 2 2,449,575 

712 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16) ............ Violation of Change in Bank Control Act: 

Tier 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 12,249 

Tier 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 61,238 

Tier 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2,449,575 

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2) 3 ............. Violation of Law, Unsafe or Unsound Practice, or Breach of Fiduciary Duty: 

Tier 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 12,249 

Tier 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 61,238 

Tier 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2,449,575 

12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6)(A)(ii) ...... Violation of Post-Employment Restrictions: Per violation .............................................................. 402,920 

12 U.S.C. 1832(c) ................... Violation of Withdrawals by Negotiable or Transferable Instruments for Transfers to Third Parties: Per violation.3,234 

12 U.S.C. 1884 ....................... Violation of the Bank Protection Act .............................................................................................. 356 

12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F) .............. Violation of Provisions regarding Correspondent Accounts, Unsafe or Unsound Practices, or 

Breach of Fiduciary Duty: 

Tier 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 12,249 

Tier 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 61,238 

Tier 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2,449,575 

15 U.S.C. 78u–2(b) ................. Violations of Various Provisions of the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, the Investment Company Act, or the Investment Advisers Act: 

1st Tier (natural person)—Per violation .................................................................................. 11,524

1st Tier (other person)—Per violation .................................................................................... 115,231 

2nd Tier (natural person)—Per violation ................................................................................ 115,231 

2nd Tier (other person)—Per violation ................................................................................... 576,158

3rd Tier (natural person)—Per violation ................................................................................. 230,464

3rd Tier (other person)—Per violation .................................................................................... 1,152,314 

15 U.S.C. 1639e(k) ................. Violation of Appraisal Independence Requirements: 

First violation ........................................................................................................................... 14,069 

Subsequent violations ............................................................................................................. 28,135 

42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(5) ............. Flood Insurance: Per violation ....................................................................................................... 2,661 

8The maximum penalty amount is per day, unless otherwise indicated. 

2The maximum penalty amount for a federal savings association is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets. 

3These amounts also apply to statutes that cross-reference 12 U.S.C. 1818, such as 12 U.S.C. 2804, 3108, 3349, 4309, and 4717 and 15 

U.S.C. 1607, 1681s, 1691c, and 1692l. 

Theodore J. Dowd, 

Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00097 Filed 1–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0925; FRL–10943– 

02–R9] 

Air Quality Implementation Plan; 

California; Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District; Stationary 

Source Permits 

Correction 

In Rule Document 2023–27889, 

appearing on pages 88255 to 88257 in 

the issue of Wednesday, December 21, 

2023, make the following correction: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan-in part. 

[Corrected] 

■ On page 88257, in the second column, 

beginning on the thirty-fifth line, the 

entry ‘‘(ii)’’ should read ‘‘(i)’’. 

■ On the same page, in the same 

column, beginning on the thirty-eighth 

line, the entry ‘‘(ii)’’ should read ‘‘(1)’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2023–27889 Filed 1–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 18–295 and GN Docket No. 

17–183; FCC 23–86; FR ID 190574] 

Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; 

and Expanding Flexible Use in MidBand Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 

GHz 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) builds on the 6 GHz band 

unlicensed rules by permitting very low 

power (VLP) devices 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. 

The Commission will limit VLP devices 

to 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. 

The Commission also takes action in a 

Memorandum Opinion and Order on 

Remand that addresses a remand from 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit 

concerning an issue raised by television 

broadcasters. The Commission finds 

that broadcasters’ unsubstantiated 

claims of interference in the 2.4 GHz 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 875 

band do not warrant any changes to the 

6 GHz rules. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

8, 2024. The Memorandum Opinion and 

Order on Remand in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION is effective February 7, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Oros of the Office of 

Engineering and Technology, at 

Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov or 202–418– 

0636. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order on Remand, ET 

Docket No. 18–295 and GN Docket No. 

17–183; FCC 23–86, adopted on October 

19, 2023 and released on November 1, 

2023. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection and can 

be downloaded at: https://docs.fcc.gov/ 

public/attachments/FCC-23-86A1.pdf. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format) by 

sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), 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.’’ 

Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

concerning the possible impact of the 

rule changes contained in the Second 

Report and Order on small entities. The 

FRFA is set forth in Appendix C of the 

FCC document, https://docs.fcc.gov/ 

public/attachments/FCC-23-86A1.pdf. 

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). 

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 the Second Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability office, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Accessing Materials. People with 

Disabilities: To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis 

1. As discussed in greater detail 

below, the Commission adopts rules to 

permit very low power (VLP) devices to 

operate with up to ¥5 dBm/MHz 

effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) 

power spectral density (PSD) and 14 

dBm EIRP across the U–NII–5 (5.925– 

6.425 MHz) and U–NII–7 (6.525–6.875 

MHz) 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. The 

rules the Commission is 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, 

the Commission is 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. The Commission plans 

on proposing to expand VLP device 

operation to the U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 

portions of the band which support 

mobile operations. 

A. VLP Power Levels and Protection of 

the Fixed Microwave Services 

2. In making this decision to enable 

this new class of VLP unlicensed 

devices to operate in the 6 GHz band 

while protecting licensed incumbent 

operations from harmful interference, 

the Commission notes 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, the Commission is taking 

reasonable actions to minimize such 

potential. The Commission emphasizes 

the core principle from its Policy 

Statement (FCC 23–27, Apr. 21, 2023) 

that expresses the notion that datadriven approaches are necessary to 

promote co-existence. 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. The Commission’s decision 

herein is consistent with its principles. 

In adopting rules to enable VLP devices 

to share the 6 GHz band, the 

Commission has followed this approach 

in anchoring its decision on an 

extensive technical record. The 

Commission recognizes the highly 

variable nature of the electromagnetic 

environment and relies on analyses that 

use a probabilistic approach to 

evaluating interference risk rather than 

basing our decision on worst-case 

examples. 

3. In considering the maximum power 

level for VLP devices, the Commission’s 

goal is to balance competing factors. The 

Commission aims 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 the Commission’s 

understanding of the potential for VLP 

devices to cause harmful interference 

under a variety of conditions. As 

described in detail, the Commission 

believes based on the technical record 

that it 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. 

1. Computer Simulations/Monte Carlo 

Analysis 

4. In considering the technical record, 

the Commission finds 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. 

Relying on computer simulations is in 

harmony with the Commission’s Policy 

Statement’s directive to follow a datadriven approach to spectrum 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
876 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

management rather than placing 

dispositive weight on worst-case 

examples that may be rare or never 

occur in practice. In relying on these 

computer simulations, the Commission 

follows the path of its previous decision 

in adopting rules for unlicensed 6 GHz 

low-power indoor (LPI) devices. For the 

LPI rules, the Commission characterized 

a computer simulation submitted by 

CableLabs as ‘‘the best evidence in the 

record of the impact that unlicensed 

low-power indoor devices will have on 

incumbent operations.’’ 

5. 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. 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. 

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. Because of 

this fading phenomenon, 6 GHz 

microwave links are designed with large 

‘‘fade margins’’ that are typically 25–40 

dB. 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. 

6. 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. Data from the 

Commission’s licensing database was 

used to model each microwave link. 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 were 

placed in areas with higher population 

density. 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 dB was 0.003% and the 

probability of the I/N exceeding 0 dB 

was 0.001% over the one million 

simulation iterations. 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. 

7. 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. For each of the 247 

microwave links in the San Francisco 

area, the simulation calculated the fade 

margin by calculating the actual carrierto-noise (C/N) ratio for the microwave 

link based on the link’s technical 

parameters 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. 

The simulation then determined the 

probability distribution for the 

atmospheric multipath fading for each 

link using the ITU–R P.530–17 model. 

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. 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%. 

8. 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. 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. 

9. 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. 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. 

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 power 

received from the VLP devices and the 

atmospheric multipath fading. 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. 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. Finally, this simulation also 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 877 

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. 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. 

10. 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. This contention is based on 

several misunderstandings of the 

Houston Monte Carlo simulation. The 

approximately 0.1% chance of the I/N 

being greater than ¥6 dB means that on 

10,000 of these 10 million iterations of 

the simulation, 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. The Commission 

reiterates that in the 6 GHz Order, 85 FR 

31390 (May 26, 2020), 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.’’ 

11. 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 summation of 

microwave receiver noise floor from 

VLP device transmissions and the 

occurrence of atmospheric multipath 

fading. 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. The computer simulations 

used this mathematical convolution 

process to examine the combination of 

these two processes 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. 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. 

12. 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. The Commission 

believes 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. The 

fade margin is simply the difference 

between these two C/N ratios. 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. As to whether some of the 

link availabilities are excessively low or 

high, as AT&T claims, the Commission 

does 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. 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. 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. 

13. For the Commission to have 

confidence in the results of computer 

simulations, the assumptions and 

models that are used must be 

appropriate. The Commission finds 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, the Commission discusses these 

assumptions. 

14. Each of the simulations randomly 

distributed a number of VLP devices 

over the study area for each iteration. 

The Commission finds 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. The 

Commission agrees; such an assumption 

is consistent with its 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; at least 10 dB more than the 

Commission is 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. 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. As this assumption is based 

on Department of Transportation and 

Environmental Protection Agency 

statistics, the Commission finds that it 

is reasonable. The Commission believes 

that assuming 25% of people outdoors 

at any given time will be using a VLP 

device is a conservative assumption as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
878 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

to 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. 

These appear to be reasonable 

assumptions. In addition, they assume 

that VLP devices will actively transmit 

2% of the time. While VLP devices are 

not yet deployed, the Commission finds 

this assumption reasonable for 

analytical purposes. Thus, as the 

number of VLP devices placed in each 

iteration for the San Francisco 

simulation appears to be based on 

reasonable assumptions, the 

Commission concludes that placing 

1,146 devices per iteration was 

appropriate to model the interference 

potential of VLP devices. 

15. Apple placed 224 VLP devices 

during each iteration for its Houston 

area analysis. This number was based 

on a set of assumptions about VLP 

device use appear to be reasonable. The 

analysis places all 224 VLP devices 

around a single microwave receiver 

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, the Commission finds 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 the Universal 

Licensing System (ULS) for that market 

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. This situation is 

unlikely to occur under actual operating 

conditions. 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. 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 the Commission believes 

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, the Commission believes 

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. 

16. 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. The Commission agrees 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, the 

Commission does 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. 

17. 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 

simulation uses the exact propagation 

models that the Commission specified 

for the automated frequency 

coordination (AFC) systems that manage 

access to 6 GHz band spectrum by 

standard power access points, while the 

San Francisco simulation departs 

slightly from this framework. As the 

Commission concluded that these 

models are appropriate in preventing 

harmful interference from standard 

power devices in this band, the 

Commission agrees that these models 

are appropriate for a computer 

simulation for VLP devices. The San 

Francisco simulation departs from the 

Commission’s AFC rules. As the 

difference in the propagation models 

used in the San Francisco simulation 

and the Commission’s 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 the Commission deems 

appropriate in its rules. 

18. 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). 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. 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. Considering the data 

placed on the record reflecting widely 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 879 

varying levels of body loss under 

different conditions, as well as the 

general consensus among studies relied 

on by other regulators, the Commission 

finds 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. 

The Commission believes 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 International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU) and 

the European Conference of Postal and 

Telecommunications Administrations’ 

(CEPT) Electronic Communications 

Committee (ECC) for interference 

analysis. While many commenters put 

data on the record purporting to show 

losses greater than 4 dB, the 

Commission notes that this data also 

shows, in some instances, losses less 

than this value. 

19. 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, the 

Commission believes 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. Considering that the body loss 

measurements submitted by Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. and Meta have a mean 

higher 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. The 

Commission does 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. 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. 

20. Both computer simulations 

assumed that 90% of VLP devices 

would operate at a 1.5 meter height 

above ground level. 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. The 

Commission agrees with Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. that, assuming that 

10% are at heights greater than 1.5 

meters appears to be a conservative 

assumption. 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. 

The Commission concludes that this is 

a reasonable approach to modeling the 

VLP device heights. 

21. Both simulations used the ITU–R 

F.1245 antenna pattern to model 

microwave receiver antennas. This ITU 

recommendation provides an average 

antenna pattern to be used in 

interference assessments. AT&T 

criticizes the simulations for not using 

actual antenna patterns for the antennas 

specified in the Commission’s licensing 

database 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 specification. 

22. 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, the 

Commission appreciates 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. The Commission 

does 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. 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 § 101.115 of the Commission’s 

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, the 

Commission believes 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. 

23. 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 

unspecified. While the San Francisco 

simulation used the data from the ULS 

for each individual link, 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. 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. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the Houston area. While the 

Commission believes 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. 

24. 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. The 

Houston simulation used an antenna 

pattern for client devices from the ECC 

302 report, which examined the 

interference potential of unlicensed 6 

GHz devices. 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.’’ In 

making this broad statement, AT&T 

refers to its previous discussion of a 

Monte Carlo simulation for LPI devices 

conducted by CableLabs. The 

Commission does not believe AT&T’s 

concerns have validity for the two 

simulations under consideration here. 

The Commission finds each of these 

studies provide independent grounds 

for its conclusions. 

25. Transmit power control is another 

important parameter that VLP devices 

will use and was appropriately included 

in the analyses. 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. The 

Houston simulation used a gaussian 

distribution with 7 discrete steps from 

0 to 6 dB for transmit power control. 

The Commission believes that transmit 

power control is likely to be 

implemented for most VLP devices, 

such as body worn devices, to save 

battery power. Consequently, modeling 

the transmit power control as a random 

variable in the computer simulations is 

appropriate. 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–NII–2C devices have the capability 

for at least 6 dB transmit power control, 

the Commission believes 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. 

26. The Houston simulation used a 

noise figure of 5 dB and a feeder loss of 

1.3 dB for the microwave receivers. 

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. 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. 

Apple, Broadcom, and Meta have 

indicated that the simulation used 2 dB 

for waveguide feeder loss and 5 dB for 

the noise figure. While the Commission 

agrees with AT&T 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 while no feeder loss should 

be used for outdoor units. 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. 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, the 

Commission believes that employing 

such an ‘‘in-between’’ value for feeder 

loss is a reasonable approach for a 

Monte Carlo simulation. 

27. In sum, the Commission’s 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, the Commission believes 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 

28. 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, the Commission will limit 

them to a maximum of ¥5 dBm/MHz 

PSD EIRP and 14 dBm EIRP at this time. 

The Commission believes 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. 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, the Commission 

believes 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. The 

Commission also limits total EIRP to no 

more than 14 dBm consistent with 

Apple, Broadcom, et al. and other VLP 

proponents’ comments. While there may 

be some worst-case locations where 

harmful interference is possible, the 

Commission finds the overall risk 

insignificant. In addition, because (i) the 

Commission is 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, the Commission will permit VLP 

devices operating at this PSD level to 

directly communicate with each other. 

The Commission is examining 

additional steps that it could take to 

provide additional power or operating 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 881 

flexibility to VLP devices. However, 

given that no VLP devices have yet to 

be deployed, the Commission believes 

limiting operation to no more than ¥5 

dBm/MHz EIRP PSD is appropriate at 

this time. Given the conservative PSD 

limit the Commission is adopting, we 

are confident that the harmful 

interference risk is insignificant. 

29. 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 on 

spectrum management. 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. 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. 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. 

30. While Apple, Broadcom, et al. and 

Apple have not made their simulation 

code or the resulting raw data produced 

by the simulations publicly available, 

the Commission believes that they have 

provided sufficient information for 

knowledgeable engineers to understand 

the algorithms and models used in the 

simulations. Both Apple, Broadcom, et 

al. for the San Francisco simulation and 

Apple for the Houston simulation 

provided filings detailing the significant 

simulation assumptions. Apple has 

indicated that its simulation was 

prepared using the widely available and 

well understood Spectrum Engineering 

Advanced Monte Carlo Analysis Tool 

(SEAMCAT) simulation tool, while 

Apple, Broadcom, et al. indicated that 

its simulation was implemented using 

the C++ programming language using 

well-established Monte Carlo simulation 

techniques. Through these filings to the 

record, the Commission believes 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. Furthermore, the 

Commission observes that it is 

noteworthy that no opponents of VLP 

deployment have conducted their own 

simulations to confirm or refute the 

results. The Commission has no 

statutory obligation to conduct or 

commission [its] own empirical or 

statistical studies. The Commission 

therefore concludes that the results 

presented in the filings are adequate to 

inform its decision. The Commission’s 

decision to authorize VLP devices will 

encourage innovative methods of using 

the 6 GHz band and the Commission is 

exercising its technical judgment in 

relying on the simulations from Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. and Apple in reaching 

this decision. The Commission notes 

that parties opposing its low-power 

indoor (LPI) rules raised a similar 

concern in a challenge to the previously 

adopted 6 GHz unlicensed rules 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. 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.’’ In 

accordance with this established 

precedent, the Commission finds 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. 

31. Fade margin infringement. The 

Fixed Wireless Communications 

Coalition (FWCC) expresses a strong 

opinion that unlicensed devices should 

not be permitted to infringe on the fade 

margin of microwave links. 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.’’ FWCC claims that 

because adding fade margin is 

expensive, system designers build only 

the necessary minimum, with a small 

safety margin, and that any unlicensed 

interference that encroaches into a 

microwave link’s fade margin will 

reduce the link reliability. 

32. As the Commission stated in the 

6 GHz Order which authorized LPI 

devices, it ‘‘is not required to refrain 

from authorizing services or unlicensed 

operations whenever there is any 

possibility of harmful interference.’’ 

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.’’ 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. 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. The 

Commission believes 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 the 

Commission’s 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, the Commission 

observes that there is no appreciable 

difference between the systems operated 

by those different entities and finds that 

the rules we are adopting protects both 

commercial and public safety 

microwave systems in a comparable 

manner. Finally, the Commission 

reiterates 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. 

3. Fixed Infrastructure Prohibition 

33. As suggested by Apple, Broadcom, 

Google, and Meta, the Commission is 

prohibiting VLP devices from operating 

as part of a fixed outdoor infrastructure. 

The Commission notes 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 Monte 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
882 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 the Commission’s 

rules permit for a device in the worstcase 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 

34. The Commission is 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 the 

Commission have concluded is 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. To ensure that actual VLP devices 

operate consistent with the simulations 

on which its relying, the Commission 

adopts this provision to provide 

confidence that such devices do indeed 

operate using transmit power control. 

The Commission is not placing any 

specific requirements in its 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. The 

Commission does 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. 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. 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, the Commission notes that 

it’s 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, the Commission believes 

this requirement is reasonable given the 

diversity in propagation environments 

in which VLP will operate. 

5. Equipment Compliance and 

Enforcement Matters 

35. Consistent with the requirements 

for most other unlicensed transmitters, 

the Commission requires 6 GHz VLP 

transmitters to be approved under the 

Commission’s certification procedure. 

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 the 

Commission is 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. 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 States. 

36. For reasons discussed throughout 

the Report and Order, the Commission 

is 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 the its equipment authorization 

rules. The Commission also emphasizes 

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. 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.’’ In the 

unlikely event that harmful interference 

does occur due to VLP operations, 

§ 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.’’ Although UTC asks the 

Commission to ‘‘propose processes and 

procedures for the identification, 

reporting and resolution of interference 

from unlicensed operations as part of 

[future rulemaking],’’ the Commission 

already have processes and procedures 

in place under which the Enforcement 

Bureau investigates complaints of 

harmful interference and takes 

appropriate enforcement action, as 

necessary. 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. 

37. 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. 

6. Cumulative Effect of Different Classes 

of Unlicensed Devices 

38. 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. AT&T 

points out that no computer simulation 

models the combined impact of all these 

different types of unlicensed devices. 

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 the 

Commission’s rules permit, and only 

assumed 1% of devices located outdoors 

as illustrating the error in the VLP 

proponents reasoning. 

39. As the Commission 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, the Commission 

does 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, the Commission again points 

out that Apple’s Monte Carlo analysis 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 883 

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. 

7. Request for Higher Power 

40. 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. 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 applications. 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. 

41. 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, 

the Commission declines to permit 

additional power for VLP devices at this 

time. The Commission also observes 

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 the Commission is 

permitting for VLP devices. Much of the 

Commission’s 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, 

the Commission declines to permit VLP 

devices to operate at greater than 14 

dBm EIRP. The Commission does not 

plan on seeking comment, however, 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 

42. 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. 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; 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. 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. Other commenters such as Nokia, 

the National Association of Broadcasters 

(NAB), and AT&T suggest that we only 

permit VLP if we limit such devices to 

much lower power than what the 

Commission proposed. 

43. While several commenters request 

that the Commission only permits VLP 

devices to operate at lower power, for 

the reasons already articulated we 

decline to do so. First, the Commission 

concludes 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, 

the Commission appreciates 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, the 

Commission agrees 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. The 

Commission does 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, the Commission is 

adopting such a requirement on VLP 

devices. Second, the Commission does 

not believe that tying the power level for 

VLP devices to the power levels for lowpower 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 the 

Commission 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. Consequently, the 

Commission believes 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, the 

Commission is not persuaded to reduce 

VLP device utility by artificially 

restricting their power levels to even 

lower levels. 

9. VLP Devices and the AFC 

44. 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. As the 

Commission concludes 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, the Commission 

sees 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. 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. The Commission does note 

that consistent with 6 GHz low-power 

indoor unlicensed devices as well as all 

client devices, the Commission will 

require VLP devices to include a 

contention-based protocol which will 

act to avoid channels on which 

incumbent systems are actively 

transmitting. 

10. Link Budget Analysis 

45. 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. 

The Commission disagrees with CTIA— 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
884 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The Wireless Association (CTIA), 

Southern Company, and others 

regarding the utility of link budget 

analysis in driving the Commission’s 

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 the 

Commission is 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. The 

Commission also disagrees 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 cochannel. 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. 

46. As already noted, the Commission 

believes that Monte Carlo analysis is the 

most appropriate method for evaluating 

the potential for VLP devices to exceed 

¥6 dB I/N. Although the link budget 

analyses provided by commenters 

conclude 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. For example, 

Southern Company and Edison Electric 

Institute (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 lineof-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 the 

Commission’s 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 

47. 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 which they claim show the 

emulated VLP device reduced the 

microwave link fade margin between 5.2 

dB and 10.9 dB. For its test, Evergy used 

a commercially purchased LPI access 

point. When the result is adjusted for 

the power difference between LPI and 

VLP devices, the test indicates the I/N 

could be 14.5 dB for a VLP device 

located next to a window in a school 

classroom. 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. 

48. 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. Apple, Broadcom, et al. claim 

the field test methodology is unreliable 

and produces inconsistent results. 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. In addition, NCTA—The 

internet & Television Association 

(NCTA) suggests that the field test 

should use a metric based on the 

microwave link’s signal to interferenceplus-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. 

49. The Commission believes Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. and NCTA express 

valid points about the field test results, 

especially regarding the testing 

methodology. However, as the 

Commission’s focus here is on the 

potential for VLP devices to cause 

harmful interference and the field tests 

were mainly directed to LPI devices, the 

Commission refrains from opining on 

how representative the tests are of LPI 

device use. As for their connection to 

assessing VLP interference potential, the 

Commission observes 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. 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. Thus, these field tests are not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 885 

informative with respect to the impact 

that VLP devices could have on 

microwave link reliability. 

12. Chain of Coincidences Rationale 

50. 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.’’ 

The Commission agrees 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. 

Consequently, while these assertions 

may have some merit, the Commission 

did not rely on them in reaching our 

conclusions here. Instead, the 

Commission’s 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, the 

Commission concludes that the risk is 

insignificant. 

B. Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) 

51. The entire 6 GHz band is allocated 

for the FSS in the Earth-to-space 

direction. Additionally, portions of the 

U–NII–7 and U–NII–8 bands are 

allocated for FSS space-to-Earth 

(downlink) operations. 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 of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), 88 FR 43502 (July 10, 2023), 

but these comments were limited to 

their operations in the U–NII–8 band. 

52. 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. 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. 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. 

Because VLP devices are limited to no 

more than 14 dBm EIRP, for the same 

reasons, the Commission concludes that 

no restrictions on VLP devices are 

necessary to protect FSS Earth-to-space 

operations. 

C. Radio Astronomy Services 

53. 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. 

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. 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. 

54. When the Commission adopted 

the rules for 6 GHz LPI devices, it 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, the 

Commission does not expect them to 

create an interference problem for the 

radio observatories. The Commission 

recognizes 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, the 

Commission is not able to adopt 

exclusion zones around these radio 

observatories. 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, the Commission 

concludes that radio astronomy 

operations will not be subject to harmful 

interference from unlicensed VLP 

devices. Given this conclusion, the 

Commission 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 

55. In the FNPRM, 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. The 

Commission notes 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 Order 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, the Commission 

finds that using the same emission mask 

for VLP devices as adopted for LPI and 

standard power devices is appropriate. 

As the incumbent operations’ protection 

requirements have not changed since 

the Commission’s 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, the 

Commission anticipates 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, the Commission 

takes this opportunity to again point out 

that the emission specification it’s 

adopting represents the minimum 

requirement. The Commission 

encourages device manufacturers, 

consistent with the recent Commission 

Policy Statement, to design their devices 

to minimize energy transmitted into 

adjacent channels. 

56. Accordingly, the Commission is 

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. That 

is, the Commission is 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. 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. 

At frequencies between one and one and 

one-half times an unlicensed device’s 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
886 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

channel bandwidth from the center of 

the channel, the limits must be linearly 

interpolated between the 28 dB and 40 

dB suppression levels. 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. 

2. Emission Limits Outside the U–NII– 

5 and U–NII–7 Bands 

57. The Commission is 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 the Commission 

adopted in the 6 GHz Order. 

Specifically, the Commission is 

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 subbands, 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. These limits are 

intended to protect cellular vehicle-toeverything (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. 

58. The Commission notes here that it 

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. In the 5.9 GHz Order, 83 FR 

23281 (May 3, 2021), the Commission 

also required that dedicated short range 

communications (DSRC)-based 

technology operating in the ITS radio 

service transition to C–V2X-based 

technology. The FNPRM, 86 FR 23323 

(May 3, 2021), 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. 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. 

59. Several parties support the ¥27 

dBm/MHz EIRP emission limit, while 

other parties make alternative proposals. 

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. 

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. 

60. The Commission is not convinced 

at this time that a more stringent out-ofband emission limit nor operational 

restrictions suggested by C–V2X 

proponents are necessary to protect invehicle 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. 

C–V2X devices must be designed to 

successfully operate in an interferencelimited environment as they are 

subjected to co-channel and adjacent 

channel signals between each other that 

are higher than the ¥27 dBm/MHz outof-band emission limit the Commission 

is adopting here for 6 GHz unlicensed 

VLP devices. 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, 

the Commission notes 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 below C–V2X device’s 

own signal levels. The Commission also 

believes 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. 

61. The Commission declines to adopt 

the ¥37 dBm/MHz out-of-band 

emissions limit suggested by some 

parties. However, the Commission plans 

on seeking additional information 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. Likewise, the Commission 

finds the ¥60 dBm/MHz out-of-band 

emission limit suggested by the Alliance 

for Automotive Innovation (AAI) for 

application at the U–NII–5 band edge to 

be too restrictive. In addition, the 

Commission finds 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, the Commission typically 

does 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, the Commission declines to 

adopt a requirement advocated by 

Panasonic that VLP devices include 

sensing technology as it does 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. 

62. As discussed above, the 

Commission remains 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 

63. The Commission is 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 Institute 

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 887 

64. To ensure that safety of life 

services below the U–NII–5 band are 

protected from harmful interference, the 

Commission adopts the suggestion from 

the compromise proposal to require VLP 

devices to prioritize spectrum above 

6105 MHz. The Commission disagrees 

with NAB that this is inconsistent with 

its previous decision not to exclude VLP 

devices from a portion of the 6 GHz 

band to protect electronic news 

gathering (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 the 

Commission does 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 

65. Restrictions on Very Low Power 

Device Use on Aircraft, Boats, and Oil 

Platforms. Because VLP access points 

can operate in motion, unlike standard 

power and LPI devices that the rules 

limit to stationary operation, the 

Commission will permit VLP devices to 

operate in terrestrial land-based 

vehicles, including cars, buses, trains, 

etc. The Commission will also not 

prohibit VLP device use on boats in 

contrast to its decision to prohibit 

standard power and LPI devices from 

operating on boats. That decision 

stemmed from a request from the 

National Academy of Sciences’ 

Committee on Radio Frequencies 

(CORF) seeking protection for Earth 

Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) 

remote sensing operations over oceans. 

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, the Commission does not 

believe that they will present an 

interference threat to EESS sensing over 

the oceans. However, the Commission 

plans on seeking comment on whether 

any restrictions should be put in place 

for VLP operation on boats. The 

Commission 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. The 

Commission also notes 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. However, the 

Commission plans on seeking comment 

on whether this restriction should be 

eliminated. 

66. Consistent with the Commission’s 

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), the Commission similarly 

prohibits 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-ofsight path to an incumbent receiver 

location resulting in a higher potential 

for causing harmful interference. Hence, 

the Commission will apply the same 

aircraft restriction to VLP devices as it 

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. 

Consistent with the Commission’s 

decision in the 6 GHz Order, it believes 

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. The 

Commission will permit VLP devices 

operating on aircraft above 10,000 feet 

to operate across the 5.925–6.425 GHz 

band. This is consistent with the 6 GHz 

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. VLP devices will 

also not be permitted to be used for 

control of or communications with 

unmanned aircraft systems. 

67. 57–71 GHz Band. 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. 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. 

VLP operations are no different and, as 

explained in the Second Report and 

Order, the Commission believes that 

permitting VLP operations in the 6 GHz 

band meets that goal. The rules the 

Commission is adopting provides 

flexibility for VLP operations while still 

protecting authorized services from 

harmful interference. Furthermore, the 

Commission notes that the 57–71 GHz 

band has flexible rules for unlicensed 

operations 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. 

68. 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. 

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. 

69. The Commission does 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, 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, the Commission disagrees with 

AT&T’s assertion that there is no cost to 

implement an AFC capability in VLP 

devices. Adding AFC capability to these 

small battery-powered portable device 

would likely increase their complexity 

and, correspondingly, their cost. The 

Commission also agrees 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, the Commission finds 

AT&T’s contention to be without merit. 

70. Rule Corrections. The Commission 

is making two minor changes to § 15.407 

to correct cross-references that were 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
888 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

inadvertently not updated when the 

Commission previously renumbered 

paragraphs in this section. Specifically, 

the Commission corrects the crossreference in the introductory text of 

§ 15.407(b) to reference paragraph 

(b)(10) rather than paragraph (b)(7), and 

the Commission corrects the crossreference in § 15.407(l)(2)(ii) to 

reference paragraph (b)(7) rather than 

paragraph (b)(6). 

F. Benefits and Cost 

71. As discussed above, the 

Commission adopts 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. 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. 

Another report estimated that making 

the 6 GHz band accessible to VLP 

devices would produce over $39 billion 

in economic value over five years. Even 

if the rules that the Commission adopts 

herein lead to expected benefits of 5% 

of $39 billion, or approximately $2 

billion—a figure the Commission finds 

to be below the likely benefits of these 

rules—the expected benefits will be 

well in excess of the costs that we 

estimate. 

72. Because there are presently no 

VLP devices in operation, the rules that 

the Commission promulgate does not 

have cost implications for the existing 

unlicensed device ecosystem. And 

because the harmful interference risk to 

incumbent operators is insignificant and 

the Commission is 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. 

Memorandum Opinion and Order on 

Remand 

73. Introduction. In this order, the 

Commission addresses 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 

(AT&T Servs., Inc. v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841 

(D.C. Cir. 2021)). 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. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Commission concludes that 

broadcasters’ unsubstantiated claims of 

interference in the 2.4 GHz band do not 

warrant any modification of our 6 GHz 

rules. 

74. Background. 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). Several 

parties, including NAB, filed petitions 

for review of the rules in the D.C. 

Circuit. The court denied the petitions 

for review ‘‘in all respects save one.’’ 

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.’ ’’ 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.’’ In the court’s view, ‘‘the 

Commission failed adequately to 

respond to [this] request’’ because it 

‘‘never responded’’ to NAB’s concerns 

about interference in the 2.4 GHz band. 

‘‘Given the Commission’s failure to 

respond’’ to these concerns, the court 

concluded that ‘‘further explanation is 

called for.’’ Accordingly, the court 

‘‘remand[ed] to the Commission for it to 

respond to [NAB’s] concerns about 

interference in the 2.4 GHz band.’’ 

75. Discussion. In response to the 

court’s remand, the Commission has 

further examined NAB’s claims 

concerning the 2.4 GHz band, and the 

Commission finds 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. Consequently, the 

Commission finds that NAB’s claims of 

interference in the 2.4 GHz band do not 

warrant any modifications to its 6 GHz 

rules. 

76. 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. 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. But NAB offered no 

specific evidence to support this broad 

claim. Instead, NAB cited comments 

filed in this proceeding by the Engineers 

for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary 

Services Spectrum (EIBASS) in 

February 2019. 

77. 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, 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. EIBASS 

described a presentation made by the 

BAS frequency coordinator for Phoenix, 

Arizona, during a conference of 

broadcast engineers in April 2004. 

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.’’ 

78. Even if the Commission 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 the Commission needs 

to take additional measures that would 

affect the entirety of the U.S. to protect 

broadcasters from harmful interference 

in the 6 GHz band. Even assuming that 

harmful interference did in fact occur, 

the Commission has no way of verifying 

that Wi-Fi devices caused the problem. 

If the alleged interference did, in fact, 

occur, the Commission notes that many 

unlicensed part 15 non-Wi-Fi devices 

also operate in the 2.4 GHz band, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 889 

those devices do not use a contentionbased protocol. Similarly, industrial, 

scientific, and medical (ISM) devices 

operate on a primary basis in the 2.4 

GHz band. 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. 

79. The other evidence that EIBASS 

provided was a spectrum analyzer 

screenshot that was captured at an ENG 

receive-only site in Phoenix in 2013. 

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. 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 contentionbased 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. 

80. Furthermore, even if the devices 

that EIBASS alleged were causing 

interference in Phoenix used a 

contention-based protocol, the 

Commission cannot determine from the 

sparse evidence in the record whether 

those devices were operating in 

compliance with the Commission’s part 

15 rules. 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. 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. 

81. 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.’’ 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 U.S. 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.’’ 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. 

82. Because the record contains no 

substantial evidence of harmful 

interference to broadcast operations in 

the 2.4 GHz band, the Commission finds 

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 Order, ‘‘Wi-Fi 

devices have been deployed’’ in the 2.4 

GHz band ‘‘in abundance for well over 

20 years.’’ 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, the 

Commission 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. 

83. Following the remand, the Society 

of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) and 

EIBASS attempted to supplement the 

record by presenting new evidence of 

harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz 

band. 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. In this context, the relevant 

record is ‘‘the record before the agency 

at the time of its decision.’’ 

84. 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 WiFi 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.’’ But as Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. point out, SBE’s 

‘‘informal survey’’ was ‘‘backed in most 

cases by no supporting evidence or 

incident descriptions.’’ The only 

evidence offered by SBE to support its 

‘‘informal survey’’ is a spectrum plot 

that purports to show interference in 

Milwaukee. The Commission agrees 

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. In particular, the 

Commission notes 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.’’ The same is true of EIBASS’s 

comparison of the noise floors for 

mobile broadcast operations at 2 GHz 

and 2.5 GHz. Although EIBASS claims 

that part 15 Wi-Fi devices are 

responsible for the higher noise floor at 

2.5 GHz, 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.’’ 

85. The post-remand submissions by 

SBE and EIBASS also fail to cite any 

complaints filed with our Enforcement 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
890 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

86. 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 alleged interference cited in the 

record occurred about two decades ago 

in Phoenix, and it was never reported to 

the Commission’s 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, and in 

light of the substantial record evidence 

demonstrating that there is no 

significant risk of harmful interference 

given the constraints under which WiFi devices are required to operate in the 

6 GHz band, the Commission rejects 

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. 

87. Conclusion. For the foregoing 

reasons, the Commission concludes that 

NAB’s unsubstantiated claims of 

interference in the 2.4 GHz band do not 

justify any modifications to its 6 GHz 

rules to provide broadcasters with 

further protections from harmful 

interference. The Commission reaffirms 

that the rules 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, the Commission 

declines to adopt NAB’s proposal to 

reserve part of the 6 GHz band for the 

exclusive use of mobile broadcast 

operations. 

Ordering Clauses 

1. 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, the Second Report and Order 

and Memorandum Opinion and Order 

on Remand, is hereby adopted. 

2. 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 the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order on Remand is 

hereby adopted. 

3. It is further ordered that the 

amendments of the Commission’s rules 

as set forth in Appendix A of the 

Second Report and Order are adopted, 

effective 60 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

4. It is further ordered that the 

Memorandum Opinion and Order on 

Remand shall become effective thirty 

(30) days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

5. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Secretary, Reference Information 

Center, shall send a copy of the Second 

Report and Order including the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

6. It is further ordered that the Office 

of Managing Director, Performance 

Program Management shall send a copy 

of the 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). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15 

Communications equipment, Radio, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, 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. Removing the headings from 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (3); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(9) 

through (12) as paragraphs (a)(10) 

through (13); 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (a)(9); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (c), and (d)(1); 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(2); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(6); 

■ g. Adding paragraphs (d)(8) through 

(10); and 

■ h. 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. 

* * * * * 

(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. The 

provisions in this paragraph (c) 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 the requirement in this 

paragraph (c) is met. 

(d) * * * 

(1) Operational restrictions include: 

(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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 891 

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) Unmanned aircraft systems. 

Operation of transmitters in the 5.925– 

7.125 GHz band is prohibited for control 

of or communications with unmanned 

aircraft systems. 

* * * * * 

(6) All U–NII transmitters, except for 

standard power access points, 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) Very low power devices 

operating in the 5.925–6.425 and 6.525– 

6.875 GHz bands shall employ a 

transmit power control (TPC) 

mechanism. A very low power device is 

required to have the capability to 

operate at least 6 dB below the 

maximum EIRP power spectral density 

(PSD) value of ¥5 dBm/MHz. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28006 Filed 1–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 221223–0282; RTID 0648– 

XD631] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Quota Transfer From North Carolina to 

Connecticut 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; quota transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of North Carolina is transferring a 

portion of its 2023 commercial summer 

flounder quota to the State of 

Connecticut. This adjustment to the 

2023 fishing year quota is necessary to 

comply with the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer 

provisions. This announcement informs 

the public of the revised 2023 

commercial quotas for North Carolina 

and Connecticut. 

DATES: Effective January 5, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Deighan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9184. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 

648.100 through 648.111. These 

regulations require annual specification 

of a commercial quota that is 

apportioned among the coastal states 

from Maine through North Carolina. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state is described in § 648.102 and final 

2023 allocations were published on 

January 3, 2023 (88 FR 11). 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder 

FMP, as published in the Federal 

Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 

65936), provided a mechanism for 

transferring summer flounder 

commercial quota from one state to 

another. Two or more states, under 

mutual agreement and with the 

concurrence of the NMFS Greater 

Atlantic Regional Administrator, can 

transfer or combine summer flounder 

commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). 

The Regional Administrator is required 

to consider three criteria in the 

evaluation of requests for quota transfers 

or combinations: (1) the transfer or 

combinations would not preclude the 

overall annual quota from being fully 

harvested; (2) the transfer addresses an 

unforeseen variation or contingency in 

the fishery; and (3) the transfer is 

consistent with the objectives of the 

FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional 

Administrator has determined these 

three criteria have been met for the 

transfer approved in this notification. 

North Carolina is transferring 30,000 

pounds (lb; 13,608 kilograms (kg)) to 

Connecticut through a mutual 

agreement between the states. This 

transfer was requested to ensure 

Connecticut would not exceed its 2023 

quota. The revised summer flounder 

quotas for 2023 are North Carolina, 

3,001,074 lb (1,361,264 kg), and 

Connecticut, 953,031 lb (432,288 kg). 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was 

issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: January 3, 2024. 

Everett Wayne Baxter, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00149 Filed 1–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1