Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14015 

(including Alaska Native subsistence 

uses), to be appointed by the Secretary 

of the Interior with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska 

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional 

Director, National Park Service; the 

Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest 

Service; the Alaska State Director, 

Bureau of Land Management; and the 

Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. Each Federal agency 

member of the Board may appoint a 

designee. 

(2) Public board members serve at the 

will of the Secretaries. The Secretaries 

maintain their authorities for 

replacement of Federal agency 

members, public board members, or any 

designees. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) A quorum consists of six members. 

* * * * * 

(11) The Secretary of the Interior, or 

the Secretary of Agriculture with respect 

to a unit of the National Forest System, 

retains authority to (at any time) stay, 

modify, or disapprove any action taken 

by the Board. 

(12) Temporary special actions of the 

Board are not effective unless ratified by 

the Secretary of the Interior or the 

Secretary of Agriculture with respect to 

a unit of the National Forest System. To 

allow an opportunity for the Secretaries 

to modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly 

ratify any temporary action taken by the 

Board, such Board actions will not 

become effective until at least 10 

calendar days after the date of the action 

(or any longer period specified by the 

Board when taking the action). For 

emergency special actions, the Board 

action will likewise not become 

effective for 10 calendar days (or any 

longer period specified by the Board 

when taking the action) unless the 

Board determines that the emergency 

situation calls for responsive action 

within 24 hours to protect subsistence 

resources or public safety. If no action 

is taken by the Secretary to modify, 

disapprove, stay, or expressly ratify 

within 10 days (or the longer period 

specified by the Board), the emergency 

or temporary Board action will be 

deemed automatically ratified for 

purposes of this subpart. The Secretaries 

may revisit a prior ratification (express 

or automatic) of a Board action at any 

time. For other Board actions (i.e., 

actions that follow the regular adoption 

process in § ll.18), the Secretaries 

retain, and will exercise when 

appropriate, their authority to modify or 

disapprove actions prior to publication 

in the Federal Register, as is the current 

practice. 

(13) The Secretaries may establish 

term limits for service of Board 

members in such circumstances as the 

Secretaries deem appropriate. 

* * * * * 

Joan Mooney, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management, and Budget, Department 

of the Interior. 

Homer L. Wilkes, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03604 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P; 4333–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 70 and 71 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0401; FRL–9118–03– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV61 

Clarifying the Scope of ‘‘Applicable 

Requirements’’ Under State Operating 

Permit Programs and the Federal 

Operating Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On January 9, 2024, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed a rule titled, ‘‘Clarifying the 

Scope of ‘‘Applicable Requirements’’ 

Under State Operating Permit Programs 

and the Federal Operating Permit 

Program.’’ The EPA has received 

requests for additional time to review 

and comment on the proposed rule 

revisions. The EPA is extending the 

comment period on the proposed rule 

that was scheduled to close on March 

11, 2024, by an additional 30 days, until 

April 10, 2024. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the proposed ruled published in the 

Federal Register on January 9, 2024 (89 

FR 1150), is being extended by 30 days. 

Written comments must be received on 

or before April 10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2023–0401, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2023–0401 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0401. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

OAR Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Matthew Spangler, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C504–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC; telephone 

number: (919) 541–0327; email address: 

spangler.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: After 

considering the requests to extend the 

public comment period received from 

various parties, the EPA has decided to 

extend the public comment period for 

30 days, until April 10, 2024. This 

extension will ensure that the public 

has additional time to review proposed 

rule. 

Scott Mathias, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03781 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

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

17–183; FCC 23–86; FR ID 192755] 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) explores additional steps 

it could take and rules it could modify 

to provide more utility for very low 

power (VLP) unlicensed devices. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14016 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

comment on permitting higher power 

VLP devices under a two-tiered system 

where those higher powered devices 

would be permitted to operate only in 

locations where the potential for 

causing harmful interference to 

incumbent operations remains 

insignificant. The Commission’s 

decision provides a balance between 

accommodating these new and novel 

devices to deliver innovative 

applications to the American public 

now and taking a judicious approach 

toward modifying the rules to provide 

even more robust use at most locations. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

VLP device requirements and limits for 

operation in the U–NII–6 (6.425–6.525 

GHz) and U–NII–8 (6.875–7.125 GHz) 

bands. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 27, 2024 and reply comments are 

due on or before April 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 13–115 and 

RM–11341, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although the Commission continues to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

Commission to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

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 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

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). 

Comment Period and Filing 

Procedures. Pursuant to sections 1.415 

and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 

file comments and reply comments on 

or before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. For comments 

regarding the Second Further Notice, 

comments must be filed in ET Docket 

No. 13–115. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• All filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.

gov/ecfs/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Ex Parte Presentations. These 

proceedings shall be treated as ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceedings in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document may contain proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

The Commission has also prepared an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) concerning the potential impact 

of the rule and policy changes contained 

in the Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set 

forth in Appendix D of the FCC 

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

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

public comments are requested on the 

IRFA. Comments must be filed by the 

deadlines for comments on the Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14017 

indicated on the first page of this 

document and must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. 

Accessing Materials 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act: The Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act requires each agency, in providing 

notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 

brief plain-language summary of the 

proposed rule. Accordingly, the 

Commission will publish the required 

summary of the Second Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking at https://

www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings. 

Synopsis 

1. As discussed in greater detail 

below, the Commission seeks comment 

on how it can refine the very low power 

(VLP) device rules to provide VLP 

devices greater use of the 6 GHz band 

while continuing to protect licensed 

incumbents. The Commission’s intent is 

to seek comment on specific rules aimed 

at providing additional power and 

flexibility for VLP devices. With the 

limited exception of seeking comments 

on some aspects of the VLP out-of-band 

emission limits, the Commission is not 

seeking comment on any of the rules 

adopted in the Second Report and Order 

(89 FR 874, January 8, 2024). Below, the 

Commission proposes to allow VLP 

devices to operate in the U–NII–5 

(5.925–6.425 GHz) through U–NII–8 

(6.875–7.125 GHz) bands (i.e., a total of 

1200 MHz of spectrum) at a PSD level 

greater than ¥5 dBm/MHz—up to 1 

dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm 

EIRP—provided they operate under the 

control of a geofencing system that 

prevents devices from operating in close 

proximity to co-channel licensed 

incumbent services in these bands. VLP 

access points would obtain information 

from a geofencing system on locations 

where operation is prohibited on 

specific frequencies, and VLP client 

devices would operate only under the 

control of VLP access points. These 

geofenced VLP devices would be a new 

class of higher-power VLP devices in 

addition to those the Commission is 

permitting in the Second Report and 

Order. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should relax the 

restrictions on mobile use of VLP 

devices (e.g., on aircraft and oil 

platforms). In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it could 

allow VLP devices that operate without 

a geofencing system in the U–NII–6 

(6.425–6.525 GHz) and U–NII–8 (6.875– 

7.125 GHz) bands in addition to the U– 

NII–5 and U–NII–7 bands where the 

Second Report and Order permits them 

to operate. As the Commission stated in 

the Policy Statement (FCC 23–27), 

‘‘[r]elevant information about services’ 

transmitter and receiver standards, 

guidelines, and operating characteristics 

is needed to promote effective spectrum 

management and efficient co-existence.’’ 

Thus, going forward, the Commission 

encourages representatives from the 

unlicensed device community and those 

representing the incumbent services to 

work collaboratively and provide 

relevant information on their systems to 

the Commission to allow us to continue 

to refine its rules for the 6 GHz band 

and to ensure that equipment designed 

for and used in the 6 GHz band can fully 

function within the spectral 

environment. 

A. Power Limits for Geofenced VLP 

Devices in the U–NII–5 Through U–NII– 

8 Bands 

2. As discussed in the Second Report 

and Order, the Commission is 

permitting VLP devices to operate at 

power levels up to ¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP 

PSD and up to 14 dBm EIRP. Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. request that the 

Commission permits a higher maximum 

level of 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD with the 

same maximum total power of 14 dBm 

EIRP, which they contend would enable 

important new VLP devices while 

protecting incumbent operations. This 

PSD level would permit VLP devices to 

operate at the maximum 14 dBm EIRP 

levels for any channel bandwidth 

greater than 20 megahertz, whereas 

under the rules the Commission is 

adopting in the Second Report and 

Order that maximum EIRP level can 

only be achieved for 80 megahertz and 

wider channel bandwidths. Based on 

the record and the Commission’s 

analysis of that record, it declined to 

adopt rules permitting VLP devices to 

operate at this requested level of 1 dBm/ 

MHz EIRP PSD in the Second Report 

and Order. However, the Commission 

believes that it can leverage the 

automated frequency coordination 

(AFC) systems used for 6 GHz band 

standard-power devices for use within a 

framework that combines higher power 

operation with geofencing to keep these 

higher powered VLP devices in 

locations where there have an 

insignificant potential to cause harmful 

interference to other users in the band. 

The Commission notes that these 

proposals are not intended to curtail the 

VLP use the Commission is adopting in 

the Second Report and Order. The 

Commission is fully satisfied that VLP 

devices operating at ¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP 

PSD in the U–NII–5 (5.925–6.425 GHz) 

and U–NII–7 (6.525–6.875 GHz) bands 

will protect incumbent operations and 

the Commission does not seek comment 

on these existing rules. Rather, these 

proposals are designed to explore the 

possibility for providing more flexibility 

for higher power use at the expense of 

additional complexity to implement and 

use a geofencing capability so that 

additional use cases and applications 

can be brought to the American public. 

1. In-Band Power Limits 

3. The Commission believes that it 

could allow geofenced VLP devices to 

operate at the higher PSD level 

suggested by Apple, Broadcom, et al. if 

the Commission requires certain 

frequency and geographic area 

restrictions, specifically, that VLP 

devices with higher PSD be prohibited 

from operating co-channel and in close 

proximity to licensed incumbent 

services receive sites. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes to allow VLP 

devices to operate in the U–NII–5 

through U–NII–8 bands at a level greater 

than ¥5 dBm EIRP PSD and 14 dBm 

EIRP, specifically up to 1 dBm EIRP 

PSD and 14 dBm EIRP, provided they 

operate under the control of a 

geofencing system to minimize the 

likelihood of harmful interference to 

licensed incumbent services. Under this 

system, geofenced VLP devices would 

be required to incorporate a capability 

to ensure that they avoid transmitting 

on certain channels within certain 

geographic areas, i.e., this is analogous 

to erecting a fence to prevent VLP 

devices from operating on certain 

channels within certain geographic 

areas, hence the descriptive term 

‘‘geofencing system.’’ While a 

geofencing system is not identical to an 

AFC system that several parties 

requested be required for VLP device 

operation, it will provide similar 

protection to licensed incumbent 

operations. 

4. The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals. Should the 

Commission allow VLP devices to 

operate with up to 1 dBm EIRP PSD and 

14 dBm EIRP, provided they are 

prevented from operating in areas where 

there is an elevated risk of harmful 

interference? What are the advantages 

and disadvantages of allowing a higher 

PSD limit? What additional VLP 

applications could be enabled by this 

proposed increase? Could the 

Commission allow a power limit higher 

than 14 dBm EIRP, e.g., up to 21 dBm 

EIRP, as suggested by some 

commenters? What are the advantages 

and disadvantages of a higher power 

limit? Would higher power limits result 

in higher data usage and if so by how 

much? Would a higher power limit 

create new use cases for VLP? Would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14018 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

even higher PSD and EIRP limits 

increase the risk of harmful interference 

to licensed incumbent services, and 

would the proposed geofencing system 

described below be sufficient to reduce 

this risk? What are the costs and 

benefits of requiring higher power VLP 

devices to operate under a geofencing 

system? How would the additional 

benefits of geofenced U–NII–6 and U– 

NII–8 operations compare to the benefits 

the Commission estimates for nongeofenced U–NII–5 and U–NII–7 

operations in the Second Report and 

Order? Would the power level increase 

that the Commission proposes provide a 

sufficient incentive for equipment 

manufacturers to develop geofencing 

systems? 

2. Transmit Power Control 

5. Consistent with the rules the 

Commission adopts for VLP devices in 

the Second Report and Order, it 

proposes to require geofenced VLP 

devices operating within the U–NII–5 

through U–NII–8 bands to employ a 

transmit power control mechanism that 

has the capability to operate at least 6 

dB below the maximum EIRP the 

Commission permits for the bands (e.g., 

14 dBm or 21 dBm). Because geofenced 

VLP devices do not yet exist and the 

Commission does not know what 

specific transmit power control 

algorithm these devices may employ, 

the Commission does not propose any 

specific requirements in its rules as to 

how the transmit power control 

algorithm of the VLP devices will 

function. The Commission does not 

expect that adopting this transmit power 

control requirement will present an 

undue burden on geofenced VLP device 

manufacturers since these are expected 

to be battery-powered devices that are 

likely to employ transmit power control 

to conserve battery power. In the 

Second Report and Order, the 

Commission requires VLP devices to 

employ a transmit power control 

mechanism with the capability to 

operate at least 6 dB below the 

permitted power level. Because many 

VLP devices will be capable of both 

geofenced and non-geofenced operation, 

these devices will by necessity 

incorporate the ability to implement at 

least a 6 dB power reduction. 

Nevertheless, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether a different 

transmit power control requirement may 

be appropriate for geofenced VLP 

devices. Is there a need to specify any 

additional transmit power control 

requirements for geofenced VLP devices 

that the Commission proposes could 

operate at a higher power than VLP 

devices? For example, should the 

Commission adopt a different 

requirement along the lines of the 

European requirement in the 5250–5350 

MHz and 5470–5725 MHz bands? That 

requirement specifies that transmit 

power control shall provide, on average, 

a mitigation factor of at least 3 dB on the 

maximum permitted output power of 

the systems; or, if transmit power 

control is not in use, then the maximum 

permitted mean EIRP and the 

corresponding mean EIRP density limit 

shall be reduced by 3 dB. What 

information should manufacturers be 

required to include in their application 

for certification to show compliance 

with a transmit power control 

requirement, e.g., an attestation of 

compliance, a detailed operational 

description, actual equipment test data? 

What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of requiring a transmit 

power control mechanism in terms of 

spectrum efficiency, costs, and 

complexity? Commenters who favor the 

European requirement should provide 

specific information regarding how such 

an requirement could be implemented, 

verified during the equipment 

certification process, and enforced. 

What ramifications, if any, would arise 

if there were differing transmit power 

control requirements for VLP devices 

and geofenced VLP devices? 

3. Emission Mask 

6. The Commission proposes to 

require emissions from geofenced VLP 

devices within the U–NII–5 through U– 

NII–8 bands to comply with the 

transmission emission mask adopted for 

standard power and LPI devices in the 

6 GHz Order (FCC 20–51, 33 FCC Rcd 

10496) and for VLP devices in the 

Second Report and Order. That is, the 

power spectral density would have to be 

suppressed by 20 dB at one megahertz 

outside of an unlicensed device’s 

channel edge, suppressed by 28 dB at 

one channel bandwidth from an 

unlicensed device’s channel center, and 

suppressed by 40 dB at one and one-half 

times the channel bandwidth away from 

an unlicensed device’s channel center. 

At frequencies between one megahertz 

outside an unlicensed device’s channel 

edge and one channel bandwidth from 

the center of the channel, the limits 

would be linearly interpolated between 

the 20 dB and 28 dB suppression levels. 

At frequencies between one and one and 

one-half times an unlicensed device’s 

channel bandwidth from the center of 

the channel, the limits would be 

linearly interpolated between the 28 dB 

and 40 dB suppression levels. Emissions 

removed from the channel center by 

more than one and one-half times the 

channel bandwidth, but within the U– 

NII–5 and U–NII–8 bands, would have 

to be suppressed by at least 40 dB. 

Because geofenced VLP devices would 

operate in the same bands and on the 

same channels as VLP devices, LPI, and 

standard power 6 GHz devices and need 

to protect the same incumbent 

operations, the Commission believes 

that using the same emission mask for 

geofenced VLP devices as the 

Commission adopted for VLP devices, 

LPI, and standard power devices is 

appropriate. Using the same mask 

would ensure that licensed incumbent 

operations are fully protected from 

unlicensed adjacent channel operations. 

Moreover, by specifying the same 

emission requirements, the Commission 

anticipates that these requirements 

would act to reduce costs by permitting 

all devices throughout the VLP 

ecosystem to use the same filters and 

benefit from economies of scale for their 

acquisition. 

4. Emission Limits Outside the U–NII– 

5 and U–NII–8 Bands 

7. The Commission proposes 

emissions limits at the edge of the U– 

NII–5 and U–NII–8 bands for geofenced 

VLP devices that are identical to the 

emissions limits that the Commission 

adopted in the 6 GHz Order and the 

Second Report and Order. Specifically, 

the Commission proposes a ¥27 dBm/ 

MHz EIRP limit for 6 GHz VLP devices 

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 proposes to not require it 

between the sub-bands, i.e., between the 

U–NII–5 and U–NII–6, the U–NII–6 and 

U–NII–7, and the U–NII–7 and U–NII– 

8 bands; those emissions would be 

subject to the emission mask and OOBE 

limits proposed above. These limits are 

intended to protect cellular vehicle-toeverything (C–V2X) operations below 

the 6 GHz band and federal operations 

above the 6 GHz 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. Because 

geofenced VLP devices could be mobile 

and potentially used near C–V2X 

operations, to help protect these 

services below the U–NII–5 band from 

harmful interference, the Commission 

proposes to require that geofenced VLP 

devices prioritize spectrum above 6105 

MHz, as the Commission required in the 

Second Report and Order for VLP 

devices. 

8. The Commission seeks comment on 

the proposed emission mask and the 

proposed emission limits outside the U– 

NII–5 and U–NII–8 bands. Are these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14019 

limits appropriate for geofenced VLP 

devices? Would they adequately protect 

licensed incumbent services, both 

within and outside of the U–NII bands? 

Would different emission limits be more 

appropriate? If so, what limits should 

the Commission requires and why? Is a 

requirement for geofenced VLP devices 

to prioritize spectrum use above 6105 

MHz necessary? What are the costs and 

benefits of the proposed emission mask 

and limits? Would requiring the same 

emission limits for geofenced devices 

that the Commission requires for nongeofenced VLP devices reduce the cost 

of compliance with the emission mask? 

B. Geofencing System for Geofenced 

VLP Devices in the U–NII–5 Through U– 

NII–8 Bands 

9. The Commission proposes to allow 

VLP devices to operate at a PSD greater 

than ¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD, up to a 

maximum of 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD, 

when they operate under the control of 

a geofencing system to minimize the 

likelihood of causing harmful 

interference to licensed incumbent 

services. The proposed geofencing 

system would ensure that geofenced 

VLP devices with greater than ¥5 dBm/ 

MHz EIRP do not operate on the same 

channels as licensed incumbents inside 

of defined exclusion zones designed to 

minimize the potential for geofenced 

VLP devices to cause harmful 

interference. The Commission proposes 

requirements for geofencing systems 

and the criteria that would be used to 

calculate the exclusion zones as well as 

technical requirements for geofenced 

VLP devices. The Commission also 

proposes procedures for testing and 

approving geofencing systems to ensure 

that they would operate as intended and 

correctly restrict co-channel operation 

with licensed incumbents in the 6 GHz 

band at certain locations. 

1. Requirement To Use Geofencing 

10. Background. Standard power 

access points and fixed client devices 

must register with and be authorized by 

an AFC system prior to their initial 

service transmission by providing their 

geographic coordinates, antenna height 

above ground level, FCC identification 

number, and manufacturer’s serial 

number. They may transmit only on 

frequencies and at power levels as 

indicated by an AFC system. After 

registration, they must contact an AFC 

system at least once per day to obtain 

the latest list of available frequencies 

and the maximum permissible power 

the device may use on each frequency 

at their location. As discussed in the 

Second Report and Order, the 

Commission is permitting VLP device 

operation at levels up to ¥5 dBm/MHz 

PSD EIRP and 14 dBm EIRP maximum 

without the use of an AFC or other 

database system because the 

Commission determined that the risk of 

harmful interference to licensed 

incumbent services is insignificant at 

that power level. 

11. Discussion. For VLP device 

operation at PSD levels higher than ¥5 

dBm/MHz EIRP where the risk of 

harmful interference to incumbent 

services is elevated, the Commission 

proposes to require VLP access points to 

use a geofencing system to protect fixed 

microwave service, BAS, CARS, radio 

astronomy, and FSS receive sites in the 

6 GHz band. The Commission believes 

that this would be an effective approach 

to protecting licensed incumbent 

services since it could be implemented 

using the same methodology that the 

Commission previously developed for 

standard power access points and fixed 

client devices to protect these services. 

A geofencing approach, as opposed to 

requiring VLP devices to access an AFC 

system, could help preserve VLP device 

battery life by not requiring each device 

to re-check a database every time it 

moves, as is the case for standard power 

access points. Similarly, a geofencing 

approach could help protect user 

privacy since devices would not be 

required to report their location to a 

centralized system. A geofencing system 

would enable VLP devices to operate at 

PSD levels greater than ¥5 dBm/MHz 

EIRP to enable a variety of uses while 

protecting licensed incumbent services 

in the 6 GHz band. The Commission 

previously required certain types of 

devices to operate pursuant to a 

geofencing system. It adopted similar 

requirements to ensure protection to 

fixed service receivers in the 5925–6425 

MHz portion of this band when it 

granted Higher Ground a blanket earth 

station license to operate SatPaqs on a 

non-interference basis through an 

automated frequency coordination 

system basis to enable cellphones to 

communicate with FSS space stations. 

Additionally, the Commission permits 

unlicensed white space devices to 

operate in certain bands subject to their 

use of a geofencing system to protect 

licensed incumbent services. 

12. The Commission proposes to 

protect licensed services in the 6 GHz 

band by prohibiting geofenced VLP 

access points with power levels greater 

than ¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD from 

operating on certain channels within 

defined exclusion zones around the 

sites where licensed incumbent services 

operate. The geofencing system would 

prevent a VLP access point from 

operating on the frequencies within 

these exclusion zones where there may 

be a higher risk of causing harmful 

interference. The Commission proposes 

that the exclusion zones be determined 

based on the operational frequency 

being used by the incumbent service 

licensee as well as the power of the 

geofenced VLP access point. A 

geofenced VLP access point located 

within an exclusion zone would be 

prohibited from operating only on the 

specific frequencies excluded within 

that zone and would be permitted to 

operate on any other frequencies that 

are available at its location at the 

maximum power level permitted. 

Depending on the number of incumbent 

licensees in an area and the size of the 

exclusion zones, a geofenced VLP access 

point could fall within multiple 

overlapping exclusion zones at a 

particular location. In such cases, the 

device would have to avoid all excluded 

frequencies for all the overlapping zones 

in which it is located. To provide 

manufacturers flexibility in developing 

geofencing systems, the Commission 

proposes that geofencing systems may 

also determine areas where particular 

frequencies are available throughout the 

entire area based on the same protection 

criteria used to calculate exclusion 

zones. Each approach may have 

advantages in terms of spectrum 

availability or device complexity, so 

permitting either approach would 

provide manufacturers with the ability 

to determine the most suitable 

implementation for a specific use case. 

The proposed methodology for 

calculating exclusion zones is described 

below. 

13. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Is a geofencing 

system necessary to minimize the 

likelihood of harmful interference from 

VLP devices with a PSD greater than ¥5 

dBm/MHz EIRP to licensed incumbent 

services in the 6 GHz band? Is the 

proposed method of using exclusion 

zones around licensed incumbent 

receive sites an appropriate way to 

protect these sites? Would the proposed 

alternative method allowing geofencing 

operators to calculate zones in which a 

channel is available over an entire zone 

provide the same protection to 

incumbent services as determining 

exclusion zones in which one or more 

channels are unavailable? Should the 

Commission permit use of either 

method, or is one method preferable to 

the other, and if so, why? How would 

the benefits of higher power VLP 

operations in the 6 GHz band vary with 

differences in exclusion zone design? 

14. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether an approach other 

than geofencing, such as requiring the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14020 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

use of an AFC system for higher power 

VLP devices, would be more 

appropriate. What are the advantages 

and disadvantages of requiring a 

geofencing approach for protecting 

licensed services as opposed to other 

approaches? What are the benefits and 

costs of the various approaches for the 

public, unlicensed device 

manufacturers, and incumbent users of 

the 6 GHz band? Are there any other 

factors that the Commission should 

consider in determining whether to 

require use of a geofencing system for 

VLP devices with a PSD greater than ¥5 

dBm EIRP? Commenters advocating for 

the proposed approach or any 

alternatives should provide details 

explaining why their desired approach 

is most beneficial for enabling these 

higher powered geofenced VLP devices. 

2. Geofencing Architecture 

15. Definition of geofenced VLP 

devices. The Commission proposes to 

define a geofenced VLP access point as 

an access point that operates in the 

5.925–7.125 GHz band, has an 

integrated antenna, and uses a 

geofencing system to determine channel 

availability at its location. The 

Commission proposes that these devices 

could simultaneously operate as clients 

to other access points or 

telecommunications systems (e.g., lowpower indoor access points, standard 

power access points, other U–NII band 

access points, commercial 

telecommunication carriers’ networks, 

etc.) and very low power access points. 

The Commission believes that this 

definition adequately describes the 

types of VLP devices that could operate 

under a geofencing system, and the 

proposed requirement for an integrated 

antenna, which is consistent with the 

current rules for indoor access points 

and subordinate devices, will help 

ensure that geofenced VLP devices 

cannot be easily modified to increase 

their EIRP. 

16. The Commission proposes to 

require that geofenced VLP access 

points obtain or calculate the exclusion 

zones—where some operational 

restrictions are required—that will 

protect licensed services, have the 

capability to determine their location, 

and intelligently choose their operating 

channel to avoid operating on a 

prohibited frequency within an 

exclusion zone. The Commission further 

proposes to require that client devices 

operating under the control of a 

geofenced VLP access point operate 

only on channels as determined by its 

connected geofenced VLP access point. 

Under these proposals, client devices 

would not be required to directly obtain 

or calculate exclusion zone information 

as they would only be operating on 

channels already cleared through the 

geofenced VLP access point. The same 

client devices may also be capable of 

operating under the control of LPI 

access points and standard power access 

points, in which case the client devices 

must adjust their power levels 

depending on which type of access 

point they are connected to. That is, 

when connected to an LPI access point 

or standard power access point, the 

client device would have to follow the 

client device rules for those operations, 

which require those client devices to 

reduce their power at least 6 dB below 

the access point power level. Because 

geofenced VLP access points and client 

devices would operate at lower power 

levels than standard power and LPI 

devices, thus reducing the distance at 

which harmful interference may 

possibly occur, the Commission does 

not propose to require client devices to 

reduce their power below that of the 

access point and propose to limit both 

geofenced VLP access points and client 

devices operating under the control of a 

geofenced VLP access point to the same 

power levels. 

17. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Is the proposed 

geofenced VLP two-tier model based on 

access points and client devices in 

which a geofenced VLP access point is 

required to obtain geofencing 

information, but the client device is not, 

appropriate? Is the proposed definition 

of VLP access point appropriate, or are 

different or additional definitions that 

better describe the types of permissible 

geofenced VLP devices necessary? 

Should all geofenced VLP devices be 

required to incorporate an integrated 

antenna? Should client devices be 

permitted to operate at a different power 

level than geofenced access points? Is 

there any need for a 6 dB power 

reduction for a client to a geofenced 

VLP device? 

18. System architecture. The 

Commission proposes to allow 

geofencing systems for VLP devices 

operating at greater than ¥5 dBm/MHz 

flexibility in their design by permitting 

the use of either a distributed 

architecture or a centralized model. One 

possible architecture would have a 

centralized geofencing system calculate 

exclusion zones based on information 

obtained from Commission databases, 

e.g., the Universal Licensing System 

(ULS) and Cable Operations and 

Licensing System (COALS) databases, as 

well the Commission’s rules. A VLP 

access point would contact this 

centralized geofencing system to 

download the exclusion zones and then 

manage its use of spectrum based on 

these areas. Another possible 

architecture would be for a VLP access 

point to regularly send its location to a 

centralized geofencing system, which 

would then inform the access point as 

to the channels it may use. Yet another 

possible architecture would be for the 

geofencing system to be integrated 

within a VLP access point. A VLP access 

point would download information 

about the licensed services to be 

protected from an external source. It 

would contain the data and software 

necessary to independently determine 

exclusion zones and manage its use of 

spectrum. The Commission is not 

proposing specific details for the 

geofencing system architecture for VLP 

devices because the Commission wants 

to provide manufacturers with the 

flexibility to design appropriate 

geofencing systems for different 

equipment use cases, many of which 

may not be known at this time. 

19. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. How much 

flexibility should the Commission 

provide in geofencing system 

architecture? Should the Commission 

provide flexibility for different 

geofencing system implementations or 

should a single approach be specified? 

What are the benefits and drawbacks of 

each approach? How would costs for 

users of a geofencing system vary 

between different approaches? Is there a 

need to specify the overall framework of 

geofencing systems in more detail, e.g., 

whether they are centralized or 

decentralized? Does the Commission 

need to provide more specific 

requirements for a geofencing system 

architecture and if so, what 

requirements should be specified? Does 

the Commission need to provide further 

details on the process that the 

Commission will use to approve 

geofencing systems, and if so, what 

additional details are necessary? 

3. Protection of Incumbent Services 

20. The Commission proposes 

requirements for geofenced VLP devices 

operating at greater than ¥5 dBm/MHz 

EIRP to protect licensed incumbent 

services in the 6 GHz band, specifically, 

fixed microwave services, BAS and 

CARS receive sites, as well as radio 

astronomy and FSS receive sites. 

Consistent with the requirements for 

standard power access points and fixed 

client devices, the Commission 

proposes that geofencing systems use 

data from Commission databases to 

protect fixed microwave services. The 

Commission proposes that BAS and 

CARS receive sites be protected using 

data provided by licensees, as described 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14021 

below. The Commission further 

proposes that geofenced VLP devices 

protect certain radio astronomy sites 

and FSS receive sites as provided in the 

Commission’s rules. Geofenced VLP 

operations, like all other unlicensed 6 

GHz band operations, would have to 

comply with international agreements 

with Canada and Mexico. 

21. Fixed microwave services 

protection. The Commission proposes to 

require geofencing systems to follow the 

same criteria for protecting fixed and 

temporary fixed microwave receive sites 

used for standard power access points 

and fixed client devices. Specifically, 

the Commission proposes that 

geofenced VLP device exclusion zones 

be calculated based on the ¥6 dB I/N 

interference protection criterion used in 

the 6 GHz Order, where N (noise) 

represents the background noise level at 

the fixed microwave receiver, and I 

(interference) represents the co-channel 

signal from the VLP device at the fixed 

microwave service receiver. The 

Commission noted in the 6 GHz Order 

that use of this metric is a conservative 

approach that will ensure that the 

potential for harmful interference to the 

fixed microwave services is minimized 

and that the important fixed microwave 

services in the 6 GHz band are 

protected. 

22. The Commission also proposes to 

allow an assumption of 4 dB for body 

loss in the exclusion zone calculations 

because of its finding, discussed in the 

Second Report and Order, that due to 

the nature of VLP devices and how they 

will be used, an additional 4 dB 

attenuation for body loss is appropriate 

when analyzing the potential effect of 

their emissions. The Commission does 

not propose to consider aggregate 

interference from geofenced VLP 

devices since they will operate at a 

significantly lower power level than 

standard power access points and fixed 

client devices for which the 

Commission previously determined that 

an aggregate interference limit is not 

necessary. 

23. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Are the proposed 

interference metric and body loss 

assumption appropriate? Would other 

values be more appropriate? Are there 

other parameters in addition to body 

loss that should be accounted for when 

determining exclusion zones (e.g., 

transmit power control)? Commenters 

who advocate for additional parameters 

should specify the parameters, 

appropriate values, and a detailed 

justification for why that parameter and 

value are appropriate. The Commission 

seeks estimates of the benefits and costs 

of different parameter proposals. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there is a need for an aggregate 

interference limit. If so, what is the 

appropriate limit and why? How could 

the Commission enforce an aggregate 

interference limit using a geofencing 

system? Would a centralized system be 

required and if so, who would build and 

run such a system? 

24. The Commission proposes to 

require geofencing systems to use the 

same propagation models that are used 

for standard power access points and 

fixed client devices to determine the 

VLP device exclusion zones. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

to require geofencing systems to use the 

free space path-loss model at separation 

distances of up to 30 meters, the 

Wireless World Initiative New Radio 

phase II (WINNER II) model at 

separation distances greater than 30 

meters and up to and including 1 

kilometer, and the Irregular Terrain 

Model (ITM) combined with the 

appropriate clutter model at separation 

distances greater than 1 kilometer. 

Where such data are available, the 

Commission proposes that the exclusion 

zone calculation use site-specific 

information, including buildings and 

terrain data, for determining the line-ofsight/non-line-of-sight path component 

in the WINNER II model. For evaluating 

paths where such data are not available, 

the Commission proposes that the 

calculation use a probabilistic model 

combining the line-of-sight path and 

non-line-of-sight path into a single pathloss as set forth in the requirements for 

AFC systems. The Commission believes 

that these propagation models are 

appropriate for determining exclusion 

zones for geofenced VLP access points 

for the same reasons that they are 

appropriate for determining channel 

availability for standard power devices 

described in the 6 GHz Order. The 

Commission proposes that these 

propagation models be implemented to 

determine the exclusion zones 

consistent with the way that they are 

being used to determine standard power 

device exclusion zones and consistent 

with the consensus methodology 

WinnForum published for AFC systems, 

which permits certain allowances for 

feeder loss and antenna mismatch. Each 

of these models could be used at the 

antenna height above ground (1.5 

meters) that the Commission assumed 

for VLP operation in the Second Report 

and Order. 

25. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Are the proposed 

propagation models appropriate for 

calculating geofenced VLP device 

exclusion zones? Could the Commission 

allow the use of different propagation 

models for calculating geofenced VLP 

device exclusion zones or simplify the 

methodology in some way? For 

example, could the Commission require 

use of a single propagation model, such 

as ITM, for all distances? If so, what is 

the appropriate propagation model? If 

the Commission specifies a different 

propagation model for determining 

exclusion zones, should the 

Commission make its use mandatory or 

should it be an optional alternative to 

the proposed propagation models? 

Parties should address how a different 

propagation model would ensure that 

incumbent services in the 6 GHz band 

are adequately protected. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

benefits and costs of requiring or 

allowing the use of different 

propagation models. Could this 

approach reduce the size of the 

exclusion zones where geofenced VLP 

devices are prohibited from operating 

on certain frequencies? 

26. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there are land-use 

databases that could account, for 

example, for actual buildings and other 

structures, especially in cities and 

suburbs, that could allow a more 

accurate determination of where VLP 

devices can operate without causing 

harmful interference? If so, what 

databases are available for this purpose? 

If this information is not available, 

would it be possible for parties to 

develop it, either nationwide or for 

specific areas? Could the Commission 

allow modifications to any parameters 

used in the specified propagation 

models, and if so, which ones? If the 

Commission allows modifications to the 

method of determining spectrum 

availability for VLP devices, what 

criteria would the Commission have to 

specify in the rules? Would the 

Commission needs to develop a process 

for modifying the locations where VLP 

devices can and cannot operate? Should 

a geofencing system operator be 

required to obtain prior permission from 

the Commission to use a modified 

methodology, or could the Commission 

adopt rules that do not require operators 

to obtain prior permission? 

27. Electronic news gathering central 

receive site protection. The Commission 

proposes to require that geofencing 

systems protect BAS and CARS 

operations in the U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 

bands, including low power auxiliary 

devices. Both the U–NII–6 and U–NII– 

8 bands are used by mobile broadcast 

auxiliary services, including outdoor 

electronic news gathering (ENG) trucks 

and low power short range devices, 

such as portable cameras and 

microphones. Low Power Auxiliary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14022 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Stations, which are licensed in portions 

of the U–NII–8 band, operate on an 

itinerant basis and transmit over 

distances of approximately 100 meters 

for uses such as wireless microphones, 

cue and control communications, and 

TV camera synchronization signals. 

ENG trucks transmit video 

programming, generally using 

telescoping directional antennas that are 

oriented toward a central receive site 

from remote sites, such as the location 

of news or sporting events, to a central 

receive site. According to the ITU, ENG 

collection sites are generally operated 

by TV networks in major city areas 

where the typical central collection site 

is located within the city center, on the 

roof of a high building (e.g., 150 m 

above the surrounding terrain) and that 

many TV networks also have alternative 

dedicated ENG collection sites mounted 

on their broadcast transmission towers. 

The ITU also states that these receive 

sites include both steerable antennas 

and fixed arrays that may have up to 

360° of azimuthal coverage. The central 

receive sites, align with the locations of 

the ENG trucks. Hence, the 

communication link between the ENG 

truck and central receive site shares 

many of the characteristics of a fixed 

microwave link—i.e., they use 

directional antennas to send signals 

between two fixed locations that are 

located mostly above the local clutter— 

and can be protected by the geofencing 

system by creating exclusion zones to 

protect the receiver at the central 

receive site. Due to the steerable nature 

of the central receive antennas, would 

exclusion zones surrounding central 

receive sites need to be circular to 

ensure protection in all directions, or 

could they be only part of a circle, i.e., 

less than 360 degrees, if they only 

receive from specific directions and the 

directional pattern and range of 

orientations of the receive antenna are 

known? 

28. Because links from ENG trucks to 

BAS and CARS receive sites are 

essentially temporary fixed point-topoint links, the Commission proposes 

the use of the same ¥6 dB I/N 

interference protection criterion and 

propagation models along with an 

additional 4 dB body loss consistent 

with the Commission’s proposal for 

calculating geofenced VLP device 

exclusion zones for fixed microwave 

links. Since BAS and CARS operations 

are typically licensed for the entire 

band(s) in which they operate (i.e., U– 

NII–6, U–NII–8, or both), should 

geofenced VLP devices avoid operation 

across the entire band that a BAS/CARS 

site receives within the area where the 

interference protection criterion is 

calculated to be greater than ¥6 dB I/ 

N unless more information about actual 

operations are known? Should the 

exclusion zones be circular when the 

directivity of the BAS/CARS receive 

antenna is not known? 

29. A full record of BAS and CARS 

central receive sites would be needed in 

the Commission’s licensing databases to 

calculate the geofencing exclusion 

zones. The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, the Media 

Bureau, and the Office of Engineering 

and Technology could collect 

information from BAS and CARS 

licensees regarding locations and 

associated information for existing 

central receive sites to ensure that the 

Commission’s databases are complete 

and up-to-date. The Commission would 

not permit geofenced VLP unlicensed 

devices to operate in the U–NII–6 and 

U–NII–8 bands until after the 

Commission’s databases are updated. 

30. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Although the 

Commission is proposing to protect 

BAS/CARS using the ¥6 dB I/N ratio 

and 4 dB body loss assumption, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a different metric or assumption is more 

appropriate? Are the propagation 

models the Commission proposes above 

to protect fixed microwave links also 

appropriate for BAS/CARS? 

Commenters should provide detailed 

technical justification and analysis. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are ways that it could reduce the 

size of the exclusion zones to protect 

BAS and CARS receive sites, limit the 

number of frequencies excluded within 

those zones, or limit receive site 

protection to only the specific times 

when they are in use. For example, 

should the Commission requires BAS 

and CARS users to notify a geofencing 

system of their ENG operations, and for 

the geofencing systems to incorporate a 

push notification feature or similar 

functionality to provide information 

(e.g., actual operating locations and 

frequency usage, on a near real-time 

basis) to VLP devices so that the 

exclusion zones in the U–NII–6 and U– 

NII–8 bands can be tailored to actual 

usage rather than all possible usage 

areas? What specific requirements 

would the Commission need to specify 

for a push notification system? Would it 

be better for the Commission to simply 

require the geofencing system to provide 

updated exclusion zone information to 

devices within a defined time interval 

from the time it receives updated usage 

information, similar to the approach in 

the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, 

which requires devices to respond to 

instructions within a specific time limit, 

and allow device manufacturers to 

determine the most appropriate way to 

comply with this requirement? 

31. The Commission seeks comment 

on the benefits of obtaining more 

detailed information from BAS/CARS 

licensees and limiting protection to only 

the associated exclusion zones and 

times that these services actually 

operate. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how much spectrum ENG 

operations typically use. The Policy 

Statement (FCC 23–27) emphasized 

data-driven regulatory approaches to 

promote co-existence. In this regard, the 

Commission specifically noted that 

‘‘[r]elevant information about services’ 

transmitter and receiver standards, 

guidelines, and operating characteristics 

is needed to promote effective spectrum 

management and efficient coexistence.’’ 

The Commission therefore proposes that 

BAS/CARS licensees be required to 

register their receive site information in 

Commission databases so that 

geofencing systems can use site-specific 

data to create appropriate exclusion 

zones for these sites. The Commission 

seeks comment on what information 

should be collected. Should it be 

limited to information currently 

collected by Commission databases, 

such as location, antenna height, 

antenna model, and azimuth, or are 

there other information fields that the 

Commission should collect? Is the 

current information in ULS and COALS 

appropriate for estimating the number of 

affected incumbents and their 

equipment? Could the Commission use 

past activity on ULS and COALs 

systems to extrapolate the future 

number of necessary updates? The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and whether the Commission 

should conduct an information 

collection for these sites. Assuming that 

the Commission does initiate an 

information collection, what is an 

appropriate time frame over which to 

require licensees to provide their 

information? 

32. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether multiple ENG 

operations at a location use the same or 

different receive sites. What is the 

number of ENG operations that typically 

occur at a news event, sporting event, or 

other event where such operations may 

be used? And what is the maximum that 

might be used at larger national events 

such as political conventions or large 

scale sporting events? How much time 

do ENG operations typically need to 

transmit for these events? Is continuous 

operation required before, during, and 

after an event or only within discrete 

timeframes? Are there ways to predict 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14023 

when operation may be heaviest? 

Looking across these dimensions of 

time, location, and spectrum occupancy, 

how much additional spectrum, 

operating area, and time could this 

approach make available for VLP 

devices, as compared to assuming that 

ENG might always be operating within 

a circular or part of a circular area 

around an ENG receive site? How would 

this differ from a system where ENG 

operations simply preregistered their 

entire service areas and operating 

channels, but with no time limit to 

account for use at unscheduled breaking 

news events? If the specific location, 

antenna pattern, and look angle of an 

ENG receive antenna are known, is it 

necessary for the exclusion zone to be 

circular, or could the Commission 

considers non-circular exclusion zones, 

such as keyhole shaped zones or arcs, to 

protect ENG receive sites? If the 

Commission were to implement a 

registration requirement, should the 

ENG use be updated during in-use times 

or for non-real-time registration, or 

should the ENG use be updated on a 

regular basis? What is a reasonable time 

period for such updates? Can ENG 

operations be automated to inform a 

geofencing system when it is operating 

and on which channels and to which 

receive site it is broadcasting, or would 

registration have to be a manual 

process? What up-front and ongoing 

costs would be involved with setting up 

and using such a system and who would 

incur them? 

33. Although the Commission 

proposes to allow either a distributed or 

centralized architecture model for VLP 

device geofencing systems, if the 

Commission were to adopt a push 

notification or similar approach to 

protect BAS/CARS based on actual 

usage, it appears that there would be a 

need for one or more centralized 

systems to register BAS/CARS usage 

and provide the information to 

geofencing systems. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether this would 

be necessary. If so, who would develop 

and operate these systems? How should 

any information be shared amongst 

geofencing systems? For example, in the 

white space rules, white space device 

operators are required to share 

registration information with all other 

database administrators. Would such a 

requirement be necessary here? If so, 

how would data sharing work to ensure 

that all geofencing systems, both 

centralized and decentralized, have upto-date information to protect ENG 

operations at scheduled and 

unscheduled events? What information 

should licensees be required to file and 

what procedure would they use to get 

their information to the system? Should 

licensees be required to file or update 

information within a specific 

timeframe? What would be the burden 

on licensees for filing this information? 

Could the filing process be automated? 

The Commission seeks comment on any 

other options for transmitting channel 

utilization information to geofencing 

operators. Are there any other factors 

that should be considered in this 

process? Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether there should be 

any channels (e.g, one or two channels) 

set aside as a safe harbor for ENG 

operations in these bands where ENG 

could operate without risk of harmful 

interference from VLP devices at times 

when the operator could not register its 

parameters? If so, how much spectrum 

would need to be set aside for such 

operation? Would spectrum be needed 

in both U–NII–6 and U–NII–8? Are there 

particular places in the band that would 

be most useful; e.g., the top of the band, 

bottom of the band, middle of the band, 

or on the same spectrum permitted for 

satellite downlink operations? Would 

such safe harbor be needed nationwide 

or only in certain areas (e.g., around 

large cities)? Commenters advocating 

such an approach should provide 

detailed information regarding ENG 

requirements and fully support their 

position with technical information. 

34. The Commission seeks comment, 

especially quantitative, on the benefits 

and costs of requiring a push 

notification system. Should any 

particular protocol or security measures 

be required? To what extent would a 

push notification system permit service 

continuity for geofenced VLP devices, as 

compared to how often such users 

would need to modify their channel 

usage to avoid exclusion zones when 

those areas are tailored to the specific 

situation rather than assuming that ENG 

might always be operating within a 

circular or part of a circular area around 

an ENG receive site? How would data 

rates be affected? What would be the 

potential costs associated with 

establishing, maintaining, and operating 

the push notification system? In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on the costs for BAS and 

CARS licensees to report their location 

information to enable push 

notifications. 

35. Low-power short range mobile 

device protection. The Commission 

proposes that low power short range 

BAS and CARS devices, such as 

portable cameras and microphones, and 

Low Power Auxiliary stations be 

protected from harmful interference by 

a combination of a required contentionbased protocol and low probability of a 

VLP device operating on the same 

channel in a nearby location. This 

proposal is consistent with the 6 GHz 

Order in which the Commission 

required that all 6 GHz unlicensed LPI 

access points, subordinate devices, and 

client devices employ a contentionbased protocol. Further, the 6 GHz 

Order showed that the probability of 

channel overlap between 6 GHz 

unlicensed devices and incumbent 

station operations is low due to 

unlicensed devices having a full 1200 

megahertz over which to operate. 

36. The Commission believes that a 

similar approach for geofenced VLP 

devices will adequately reduce the risk 

that mobile service incumbents in the 

U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 bands will be 

subjected to harmful interference and 

keep that risk to an insignificant level. 

The Commission’s reasoning is 

consistent with the 6 GHz Order, i.e., 

the sensing function associated with the 

contention-based protocol, along with 

the low probability for co-channel 

operation, is sufficient to ensure that 

geofenced VLP devices detect nearby 

mobile BAS operations and avoid 

transmitting co-channel to protect those 

operations from harmful interference. 

While the Commission is not proposing 

a specific technology protocol or 

contention method, the Commission 

proposes to require geofenced VLP 

devices to use a contention-based 

protocol as the Commission requires for 

LPI devices. The Commission believes 

that this proposal has additional 

benefits as it provides multiple 

geofenced VLP devices as well as LPI 

devices equal access to the spectrum, 

while protecting mobile incumbents’ 

services. The Commission also believes 

that the use of a contention-based 

protocol will limit the duty cycle of 

geofenced VLP devices as they will need 

to share the spectrum with other 

devices. Additionally, geofenced VLP 

devices would transmit at lower power 

levels than LPI devices, further reducing 

the risk of harmful interference to 

mobile services. Given all these reasons, 

the Commission believes that requiring 

use of a contention-based protocol by 

geofenced VLP devices would protect 

mobile service incumbents. 

37. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. Would requiring 

geofenced VLP devices to incorporate a 

contention-based protocol adequately 

protect mobile service incumbents? If 

not, what other protection measures 

could be used by geofenced VLP devices 

to protect mobile services? For example, 

could a registration system with a push 

notification provide near real-time 

information to geofenced VLP devices to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14024 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

avoid transmitting near mobile BAS 

operations? Is there a need to provide 

greater specificity in the requirements 

for a contention-based protocol used by 

geofenced VLP devices? If so, what 

particular requirements should be 

specified and why? What are the costs 

and benefits of requiring the use of a 

contention-based protocol? 

38. Radio astronomy and fixed 

satellite protection. The Commission 

proposes to require that geofencing 

systems implement the same exclusion 

zone rules for protecting radio 

astronomy sites in the 6650–6675.2 

MHz band as standard power access 

points and fixed client devices, which 

are based on the distance to the radio 

horizon. The locations of the protected 

radio astronomy sites and the protection 

criteria for these sites are specified in 

the rules for standard power access 

points and fixed client devices. 

Additionally, the entire 6 GHz band is 

home to an FSS allocation (Earth-tospace), while the U–NII–8 band has a 

few space-to-Earth MSS feeder 

downlink earth stations operated by 

Globalstar. The only requirement the 

Commission adopted to protect the 

Fixed Satellite Service in the 6 GHz 

Order was restricting standard power 

access point EIRP to 21 dBm above a 30 

degree elevation angle. Because the 

Commission proposes to limit geofenced 

VLP devices to 14 dBm EIRP and seeks 

comment on a maximum EIRP of no 

greater than 21 dBm, the Commission 

proposes no additional restrictions to 

protect FSS Earth-to-space operations. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals. 

39. Globalstar operates receiving earth 

stations for non-geostationary MobileSatellite Service feeder links at five 

locations. The Commission proposes to 

require that geofenced VLP access 

points protect Globalstar’s earth stations 

using the same exclusion zone 

calculation methodology used to protect 

radio astronomy sites. The Commission 

proposes to require the geofencing 

system to implement these exclusion 

zones over 6875–7055 MHz at each of 

Globalstar’s five feeder link earth station 

locations. As these exclusion zones are 

designed to protect extremely sensitive 

radio astronomy facilities, the 

Commission believes that they will 

provide more than adequate protection 

for Globalstar’s earth stations. 

40. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. If different criteria are 

appropriate, what are the key 

parameters that must be considered to 

protect these earth stations? Are 

parameters such as minimum elevation 

angle from the earth station to the 

satellite, gain of earth station antenna, 

and earth station receiver characteristics 

readily available? Are Commission 

databases, such as the International 

Communications Filing System (ICFS), 

able to collect the necessary parameters 

for calculating exclusion zones? If not, 

and given the limited number of these 

Earth stations in the U–NII–8 band, 

could exclusion zones around these 

Earth stations be determined based on 

generalized parameters? What should 

those parameter values be? Would earth 

station receivers require a different level 

of protection than the ¥6 dB I/N ratio 

used to protect other incumbents in the 

band? If so, what is the protection 

criterion? What would be the cost of 

implementing and maintaining 

necessary protections for space-to-Earth 

stations from geofenced VLP devices? 

The Commission also seeks information 

on the economic harm from interference 

that these protections would prevent. 

Commenters should provide technical 

analysis to support their positions. 

41. Adjacent channel protection. The 

Commission proposes that exclusion 

zones for geofenced VLP access points 

account for only co-channel operations 

and not consider adjacent channel 

operations. The Commission believes 

that this proposal is appropriate due to 

the significantly lower power the 

Commission proposes for geofenced 

VLP devices as compared to standard 

power and fixed client devices. The outof-band emission rules for 6 GHz 

unlicensed devices require such 

emissions to be suppressed by 20 dB at 

1 megahertz outside of channel edge, by 

28 dB at one channel bandwidth from 

the channel center, and by 40 dB at oneand one-half times the channel 

bandwidth away from channel. center. 

When compared to standard power 

devices that may operate at EIRP levels 

up to 23 dBm/MHz and must meet the 

same OOBE mask, VLP adjacent channel 

emissions begin at least 22 dBm below 

those standard power device OOBE 

levels. Thus, VLP OOBE levels must 

begin at ¥19 dBm/MHz at 1 megahertz 

outside the channel edge and reduce 

from that level with spectral distance. 

Moreover, the Commission notes that 

adding 20 dB or more additional 

emission reduction represents at least a 

tenfold reduction (assuming free space 

propagation) in distance along any 

radial for determining adjacent channel 

protection as compared to standard 

power device adjacent channel 

geofenced distances. In the 6 GHz 

Order, the Commission concluded that 

the risk of adjacent channel interference 

to microwave receivers was low and 

stated that it expects these adjacent 

channel zones will be small and not 

significantly impact the amount of 

spectrum available to unlicensed 

devices at any given location, but 

included adjacent channel protection in 

the adopted rules for standard power 

devices as part of a conservative 

approach to protecting the incumbent 

receivers. Given the additional 22 dB in 

adjacent channel protection provided by 

geofenced VLP devices as compared to 

standard power devices, and the further 

reduction in protection areas size, the 

Commission concludes that the risk of 

adjacent channel interference is so low 

as to not require geofencing systems to 

account for them. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

42. Geofencing update interval. The 

Commission proposes to require a 

geofencing system to obtain the most 

recent public access file data from 

Commission databases (e.g., ULS and 

COALS) for registered fixed microwave 

links and BAS/CARS central receive 

sites at least once per day and to 

recalculate the exclusion zones, as 

necessary, to account for any new or 

updated information. The Commission 

believes that once per day would be an 

appropriate re-check interval because 

the ULS and COALS, which contain the 

data that will be used to determine the 

exclusion zones to protect fixed 

microwave services and BAS/CARS 

central receive sites, are generally 

updated on a daily basis, and a daily recheck requirement would also ensure 

that newly registered microwave receive 

sites and BAS/CARS central receive 

sites are promptly protected. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Is a daily update necessary, or 

recognizing that not many new stations 

get licensed on a daily basis and that 

there is often a lag between licensing 

and operation, could a longer interval be 

specified? If so, what update interval 

should be required? Conversely, as 

discussed above, could the Commission 

or should it establish a process to 

update BAS/CARS information in a 

much shorter timeframe to enable more 

efficient use of spectrum in areas near 

BAS and CARS receive sites? How 

would the benefits and costs change 

with differing interval lengths? 

4. Other Geofencing Requirements 

43. The Commission proposes 

additional requirements for geofencing 

systems and operators that are similar to 

certain requirements for 6 GHz AFC 

systems. Specifically, the Commission 

proposes that each geofencing system 

and operator thereof for centralized 

systems and the equipment certification 

responsible party for systems internal to 

the very low power device must: (1) 

ensure that a regularly updated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14025 

geofencing system database that 

contains the information required for 

geofencing systems by paragraphs (o) 

through (r) of proposed § 15.407, 

including incumbent’s information and 

very low power access points 

authorization parameters, is maintained; 

(2) respond in a timely manner to verify, 

correct, or remove, as appropriate, data 

in the event that the Commission or a 

party presents a claim of inaccuracies in 

the geofencing system; (3) establish and 

follow protocols to comply with 

enforcement instructions from the 

Commission, including discontinuance 

of very low power access point 

operations on specified frequencies in 

designated geographic areas and 

predetermined exclusion zones; and (4) 

comply with instructions from the 

Commission to adjust exclusion zones 

to more accurately reflect the potential 

for harmful interference. 

44. The Commission further proposes 

that for centralized geofencing systems, 

geofencing system operators must 

provide continuous service to all VLP 

devices for which it has been designated 

to provide service, and that if a 

geofencing system ceases operation, the 

operator must provide at least 30-days’ 

notice to the Commission and a 

description of any arrangements made 

for those devices to continue to receive 

exclusion zone update information. In 

addition, the Commission proposes that 

a geofencing system operator may 

charge fees for providing service and 

that the Commission may, upon request, 

review the fees and can require changes 

to those fees if the Commission finds 

them to be unreasonable. The 

Commission also proposes that at the 

time that a VLP device receives 

equipment certification, the device must 

either have its geofencing system 

approved or specify an already 

approved geofencing system that it is 

using. The Commission further proposes 

that it may specify criteria for such 

approval, which could require test 

results to be submitted. 

45. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Are all the proposed 

requirements appropriate and 

necessary? Should the Commission 

modify any of these proposed 

requirements or establish additional 

requirements for geofencing systems 

and operators? If so, what requirements 

are necessary? The Commission seeks 

quantitative analysis of the likely fee 

structure that would result under its 

proposal allowing fees. What would be 

the initial cost of developing a 

geofencing system and the ongoing cost 

of providing daily information to it? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how any fees would relate to usage or 

other costs of operating the geofencing 

system. 

46. Finally, in light of the proposals 

to base higher power VLP operation on 

using a geofencing system, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are alternative methods to achieve 

the same result. Are there other 

technical or operational approaches that 

would similarly permit more flexible 

VLP operation while protecting 

incumbent operations? Commenters 

advocating for alternative approaches 

should provide specific detail regarding 

any alternative approach along with 

descriptions and analysis of how such 

an approach would protect incumbent 

operations. 

C. Client-to-Client Device 

Communications 

47. In the 6 GHz Order, the 

Commission prohibited unlicensed 

client devices from operating as ‘‘mobile 

hotspots’’ because ‘‘[p]ermitting a client 

device operating under the control of an 

access point to authorize the operation 

of additional client devices could 

potentially increase the distance 

between these additional client devices 

and the access point and increase the 

potential for harmful interference to 

fixed service receivers or electronic 

news gathering operations.’’ To avoid 

this situation, the Commission’s rules 

prohibit 6 GHz unlicensed client 

devices from directly communicating 

with one another. The Commission 

proposes two limited exceptions to this 

rule for VLP devices that operate above 

the ¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD level. First, 

the Commission proposes to permit 

higher powered VLP devices that are all 

operating under the control of the same 

LPI access point to directly 

communicate with each other. The 

Commission further proposes that these 

communications be limited to the LPI 

client device power spectral density 

level (i.e., 6 dB below the LPI access 

point power level) and the VLP device 

14 dBm EIRP limit. Because both VLP 

devices under this approach would also 

meet the LPI requirements, the 

Commission would have assurance that 

their operations are indoors and thus 

that their emissions are subject to the 

same building entry loss as LPI devices. 

With their lower power limit, these 

client devices will have even lower 

potential to cause harmful interference 

to incumbent operations than the 

insignificant level the Commission 

already determined exists for LPI 

devices. This proposed exception could 

provide increased flexibility to a limited 

class of devices, such as laptop 

computers, that generally do not 

incorporate GPS or other geolocation 

technologies while protecting 

incumbent operations beyond levels 

that similar devices (i.e., LPI devices) 

already provide. 

48. Second, the Commission proposes 

to permit direct client-to-client 

communications between VLP client 

devices when they are both under the 

control of the same VLP access point 

and the geofencing system determines 

that they are operating outside of any 

geofencing restrictions; i.e., there are 

channels available for VLP use that are 

not subject to geofencing requirements 

in the location where these devices are 

being used. The rules the Commission 

proposes for geofenced VLP devices 

would permit up to 1 dBm/MHz EIRP 

PSD and up to 14 dBm EIRP when 

operating on channels that are not 

within an exclusion zone. Thus, because 

each client device in this scenario 

would be permitted to operate at the 

maximum power permitted for VLP 

devices, there would be no increase in 

the potential for causing harmful 

interference to incumbent operations if 

the client devices being used are also 

able to communicate directly with each 

other. However, all VLP access points 

would still be subject to the applicable 

geofencing requirements including 

location and geofencing recheck 

intervals and switching channels or 

ceasing communications should they 

enter an exclusion zone and are 

currently using a channel that is 

prohibited within that area. In that case, 

client devices operating under the 

control of a VLP access point that 

switches channels would also be 

required to switch channels as directed 

by the VLP access point. This proposed 

limited exception, as with the first, 

could provide additional flexibility to 

implement novel VLP use cases without 

increasing the risk of harmful 

interference to incumbent operations. 

49. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Are these proposed 

limited exceptions to the prohibition on 

client-to-client device communications 

appropriate? Would any other 

exceptions with respect to VLP devices 

be appropriate? Does the Commission 

need to specify any additional 

requirements or limitations on client-toclient device communications? How 

much and what kinds of additional 

usage would these proposals create in 

client-to-client operations? Would these 

proposals impose any additional costs 

to users of the associated spectrum? 

D. Very Low Power Device Requirements 

50. In the 6 GHz Order, the 

Commission established that an AFC 

system require a device’s geographic 

coordinates—along with the accuracy of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14026 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

those coordinates—and the device’s 

antenna height above ground to 

determine which channels are available 

for use at the device’s location. Standard 

power access points (APs) are required 

to contact an AFC system at least once 

per day, consistent with the frequency 

of the update to the ULS public access 

file, to obtain the latest lists of available 

channels at their locations. The daily 

update ensures that stationary 

unlicensed devices do not operate on a 

channel in proximity of a newly 

licensed fixed service receiver. 

Although VLP devices may be mobile or 

stationary, mobile VLP devices may 

move to different locations, potentially 

resulting in a changing available 

channel list. In lieu of an AFC system, 

the Commission proposes to require that 

geofenced VLP devices access a simpler 

geofencing system to prevent them from 

operating where there may be an 

elevated risk of causing harmful 

interference to licensed incumbent 

services in the 6 GHz band. Under this 

proposed geofencing system, geofenced 

VLP devices would have to incorporate 

provisions to ensure that they avoid 

transmitting on certain channels within 

certain geographic areas. 

51. A mobile geofenced VLP device 

operating at a power level greater than 

¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD would have to 

consider exclusion zone(s) not only at 

its present location, but also at all areas 

that may be traversed by a mobile VLP 

device between the present time and a 

future location update. Naturally, the 

area traversed by the mobile VLP device 

is a function of the VLP device’s speed 

and direction. For example, a mobile 

VLP device located in a vehicle 

traveling 35 miles per hour could cover 

approximately one kilometer within one 

minute. However, there are other mobile 

use cases in which a pedestrian using a 

VLP device will cover well under a 

hundred meters in the same one-minute 

time period. Accordingly, rather than 

proposing a set time period within 

which a mobile VLP device must update 

its location to check if it is in an area 

with different geofencing requirements 

than the previous area in which it 

checked, the Commission proposes a 

flexible approach with varying recheck 

times based on speed to better meet 

device usage requirements. Thus, the 

recheck interval can be tailored to 

require fewer rechecks when moving at 

slow speeds and thus ease processing 

requirements and save battery power. 

52. Incorporated geo-location. 

Consistent with the requirements for 

standard power access points, the 

Commission proposes to require that 

geofenced VLP access points generally 

include a geo-location capability to 

determine their geographic coordinates. 

The Commission proposes to require a 

geofenced VLP device’s geo-location 

capability to determine its location 

uncertainty in meters, with a 95% 

confidence level, and that the applicant 

for certification of a VLP access point 

demonstrate the accuracy of the geolocation method used and the location 

uncertainty. The Commission further 

proposes to require that a geofenced 

VLP access point, using its geographic 

coordinates, take this location 

uncertainty into account when it 

determines whether the VLP access 

point is within an exclusion zone. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. The Commission also seeks 

quantitative information on the benefits 

and costs of this proposal to VLP device 

users, manufacturers and the wider 

public. 

53. Location Update. The Commission 

proposes to require that geofenced VLP 

access points have the capability to 

timely adjust their operating frequencies 

when moving into, out of, or between 

exclusion zones. The Commission 

proposes flexible requirements to enable 

device designers to optimize efficiency 

while still meeting the requirement to 

avoid operating on channels where ¥6 

dB I/N interference protection criterion 

is not met. Specifically, the Commission 

proposes that the time interval for a 

geofenced device to re-check its location 

and adjust its frequency usage must 

decrease proportionally based on an 

increase in the mobile device’s speed. 

Under this proposal, a geofenced VLP 

access point that is in a powered state 

must regularly re-check its location and 

speed and identify its position with 

respect to any exclusion zones that may 

exist within the vicinity of its current 

location. The Commission further 

proposes that this geolocation update be 

done frequently enough that, based on 

the geofenced VLP access point’s 

position and speed, the device will not 

transmit on a channel that is 

unavailable within an exclusion zone. 

The Commission believes that this 

proposal provides flexibility to device 

designers to adjust how often the VLP 

access point must obtain geolocation 

information based on how fast the VLP 

access point is moving and how far it is 

from an exclusion zone where it would 

have to change its operating channel. As 

an additional safeguard, the 

Commission proposes to require the 

VLP access point to determine its 

location and speed at least once a 

minute. This one-minute update 

proposal is designed to provide 

additional assurance that the VLP access 

point avoids transmitting on frequencies 

that are not permitted by the geofencing 

system. The Commission further 

proposes to require applicants for 

geofenced VLP access point certification 

to submit an attestation describing their 

algorithm for updating the device’s 

location with an explanation describing 

how these requirements are met. 

54. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. Do they provide 

sufficient flexibility for mobile 

geofenced VLP devices? Is it necessary 

for us to specify more detailed 

requirements on how often a geofenced 

device must re-check its speed and its 

position with respect to exclusion 

zones? If so, what additional 

requirements should be specified and 

why? Is a requirement for devices to recheck their location and speed at least 

once per minute necessary? Is the 

proposed information that applicants for 

certification of geofenced VLP access 

points must submit appropriate, or 

should any additional information be 

required? If so, what information? The 

Commission seeks quantitative 

information on the benefits and costs to 

VLP device users, manufacturers and 

the wider public of its proposal and any 

proposed alternatives. 

55. Antenna Height. The Commission 

proposes to require geofencing systems 

to use an assumed antenna height above 

ground level of 1.5 meters for geofenced 

VLP access points similar to the 

approach used in the Second Report and 

Order for interference modeling of VLP 

devices. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. Is an 

assumed 1.5 meter antenna height 

appropriate, or should the Commission 

specifies a different value? If so, what 

height should the Commission require 

for the exclusion zone calculations? The 

Commission also seeks quantitative 

information on the benefits and costs to 

VLP device users, manufacturers and 

the wider public of the Commission’s 

proposed antennas height. Commenters 

proposing alternative values should 

quantify the benefits and costs of 

alternatives. 

56. Fixed Infrastructure. Consistent 

with the Commission’s actions in the 

Second Report and Order, the 

Commission proposes to prohibit 

geofenced VLP devices from operating 

as part of a fixed outdoor infrastructure 

as an additional measure to reduce the 

likelihood of interference to licensed 

incumbent services. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. Is a 

prohibition on fixed outdoor 

infrastructure necessary when a 

geofencing system is used? The 

Commission seeks quantitative 

information on the benefits and costs to 

VLP device users, manufacturers and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14027 

the wider public of the Commission’s 

proposal versus allowing operations as 

part of fixed outdoor infrastructure. 

57. Updates to exclusion zones. The 6 

GHz Order established a requirement 

that standard power access points must 

recheck the frequency availability with 

an AFC system once per day. Similarly, 

the Commission proposes to require 

geofencing systems to update the 

exclusion zones at least once per day 

using the data from Commission 

databases on the licensed microwave 

links and BAS/CARS central receive 

sites. The Commission also proposes to 

require geofenced VLP access points to 

obtain or calculate the updated 

exclusion zones from the geofencing 

system at least once per day. This 

proposal is designed to ensure that 

newly registered microwave receive 

sites and BAS/CARS central receive 

sites are promptly protected. Consistent 

with the rules for standard power access 

points and fixed client devices, the 

Commission also proposes that if a VLP 

device is unable to obtain the latest ULS 

or COALS data on a given day, it may 

continue operating until 11:59 p.m. of 

the following day at which time it must 

cease operation until it is able to obtain 

the latest geofencing data. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals. The Commission also seeks 

quantitative information on the benefits 

and costs to VLP device users, 

manufacturers and the wider public of 

the Commission’s proposal and 

alternative update schedules and 

requirements. 

58. Security Issues. Consistent with 

the Commission’s requirements for 

standard power devices and AFC 

systems in the 6 GHz Order, the 

Commission proposes to require that 

geofenced VLP access points 

incorporate adequate security measures 

to: (1) prevent them from accessing 

geofencing systems and geofencing 

methods not approved by the 

Commission, (2) ensure that 

unauthorized parties cannot modify 

devices to operate in a manner 

inconsistent with the rules and licensed 

incumbent protection criteria, and (3) 

ensure that communications between 

VLP access points and geofencing 

systems are secure to prevent corruption 

or unauthorized interception of data. 

The Commission also proposes to 

require that geofencing systems, 

whether centralized or internal to a VLP 

device, must ensure that all 

communications and interactions 

between the geofencing system and VLP 

access points and/or all 

communications between the 

geofencing system and Commission 

databases are accurate and secure and 

that unauthorized parties cannot access 

or alter the database, the exclusion 

zones, or the list of excluded or 

available frequencies. The Commission 

further proposes to require that a 

geofencing system incorporate security 

measures to protect against 

unauthorized data input or alteration of 

stored data, including establishing 

communications authentication 

procedures between client devices and 

VLP access points. These proposed 

requirements are intended to prevent a 

VLP device from using geofencing 

methods not approved by the 

Commission and to ensure that 

unauthorized parties cannot modify a 

device to operate in a manner 

inconsistent with the rules. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals. What would be the cost of 

implementing the Commission’s 

security proposals versus alternatives? 

The Commission seeks quantitative 

information on the costs of geofenced 

VLP device security requirements. 

59. Device testing and approval. As 

indicated above, the Commission 

proposes to require that VLP devices 

operating with greater than ¥5 dBm/ 

MHz PSD EIRP incorporate a geofencing 

capability that prevents them from 

operating where there may be an 

elevated risk of causing harmful 

interference to licensed incumbents in 

the 6 GHz band. Under this proposal, 

geofenced systems in the 6 GHz band 

would determine exclusion zones 

within which specific channels are 

prohibited from use by geofenced VLP 

access points when a ¥6 dB I/N 

interference protection criterion is not 

met (e.g., areas around fixed microwave 

and BAS/CARS central receive sites), 

and each geofenced VLP access point 

would have to be able to connect to a 

geofencing system or have an integrated 

geofencing system capability. 

60. Applicants seeking VLP device 

certifications would have to show in 

their applications how their device will 

comply with any geofencing 

requirements adopted in this 

proceeding. For example, applicants for 

geofenced VLP access point certification 

would have to demonstrate that the 

device operates only pursuant to a 

geofencing system and that the 

geofencing system prevents operation in 

areas where the ¥6 dB I/N metric is not 

met when calculated in accordance with 

the proposed methodology. They would 

also have to demonstrate that their 

devices could not operate on any 

channel that the geofencing system 

determines is prohibited at its location 

at a power level greater than ¥5 dBm/ 

MHz EIRP PSD. Applicants would also 

be required to demonstrate that their 

VLP access points comply with the 

proposed requirements to periodically 

check their location and comply with 

the database recheck intervals proposed 

above as well as adjust their operating 

channel if they move into an exclusion 

zone where that channel is not 

available. They would further have to 

demonstrate how geofenced VLP access 

points obtain exclusion zone data either 

from a geofencing system or through 

calculations based on data downloaded 

from Commission databases. 

61. The Commission seeks comment 

on testing and certification issues for 

geofenced VLP access points and client 

devices. Are there any specific testing or 

certification issues that the Commission 

will need to address, either in a 

subsequent item in this proceeding or 

subsequent to adopting rules, e.g., 

through the KDB process? If so, what 

issues would need to be addressed? 

Would industry groups such as the WiFi Alliance or WinnForum be likely to 

develop procedures for testing 

geofencing systems? The Commission 

seeks quantitative information on the 

benefits and costs to VLP device users, 

manufacturers and the wider public of 

geofenced VLP testing and certification 

requirements. 

E. Spectrum Availability for Very Low 

Power Devices 

62. The Commission seeks comment 

on any changes that it could make that 

would allow for increased spectrum 

availability for geofenced VLP devices 

without increasing the likelihood of 

harmful interference to incumbent 

services, i.e., more efficient spectrum 

use. Consistent with the Commission’s 

recent Policy Statement, the 

Commission seeks additional data that 

can be used to assess geofenced VLP 

device operation and the potential 

impact on incumbent services. Are there 

any particular characteristics of 

geofenced VLP devices, e.g., size, 

operating location, specific applications, 

operating bandwidth, modulation types, 

data rates, duty cycle/activity factor, or 

mobility or lack thereof, that could be 

considered in enabling increased 

spectrum availability for these devices? 

Is there currently any operational or 

other data that would be helpful in this 

regard? How much additional spectrum 

could be made available for geofenced 

VLP devices? Would there be any 

significant increase in the areas where 

they could operate as compared to the 

rules proposed above? The Commission 

recognizes that actual operational data 

that may help us reach a decision on 

these issues may not yet be available. In 

this regard, the Commission encourages 

parties with additional data to approach 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14028 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

the Commission in the future when 

such data becomes available. The 

Commission also seeks information 

from incumbents regarding their 

systems, particularly with respect to the 

amount of fade margin incorporated into 

system design, statistics on when fades 

occur, their severity, and how long they 

last, and how systems are designed to 

cope with fading events using 

techniques such as adaptive modulation 

or adjusting their data streams to focus 

on more time-sensitive critical data over 

less critical data. 

F. Restrictions on Very Low Power 

Device Mobile Operations 

63. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to relax the 

restrictions on VLP device mobile 

operations (e.g., on aircraft, boats on the 

ocean, oil platforms, and terrestrial 

vehicles). In the 6 GHz Order, the 

Commission prohibited standard power 

and LPI access points from operating on 

board aircraft, with the exception of LPI 

use in the U–NII–5 band on large 

passenger aircraft while flying above 

10,000 feet. In the Second Report and 

Order, the Commission is largely 

adopting the same operational 

restriction for VLP devices, except the 

Commission is permitting them to 

operate on boats. Similar to the rules for 

standard power and LPI access points, 

the Commission is prohibiting VLP 

devices from operating on oil platforms. 

The restrictions on oil platforms is being 

put in place to protect incumbent EESS 

remote sensing operations, which, in 

this band are used inter alia for 

monitoring ocean temperature. 

64. As noted, these decisions were 

made largely to provide consistency 

with the Commission’s prior decision 

regarding standard power and LPI 

devices. However, given the inherent 

differences between those devices and 

VLP devices, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether these restrictions 

on mobile operations on aircraft and oil 

platforms can be relaxed for nongeofenced VLP devices, geofenced VLP 

devices, or both. First, emissions from 

both types of VLP devices will be lower 

than standard power and LPI devices; 

geofenced VLP access points and 

associated client devices are permitted 

to operate with no more than 1 dBm/ 

MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP while 

standard power and LPI devices may 

operate at 23 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 

36 dBm EIRP and 5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD 

and 30 dBm EIRP, respectively. VLP 

devices operate at an even lower ¥5 

dBm/MHz EIRP PSD. Second, both 

types of VLP devices are mobile, 

generally operate close to the ground 

and in proximity to the body or other 

objects, are likely to be battery powered, 

and either operate pursuant to a geolocation system or at or below ¥5dBm/ 

MHz EIRP PSD. 

65. Considering expected use cases 

and the minimal potential for VLP and 

geofenced VLP devices to cause harmful 

interference, the Commission proposes 

to permit mobile operation on 

commercial and general aviation aircraft 

more generally, but not on UAS. The 

Commission can speculate that several 

prominent use cases will occur on 

aircraft. The Commission seeks 

comment on permitting more general 

use of VLP and geofenced VLP devices 

onboard commercial and general 

aviation aircraft. For example, because 

FAA guidance specifies that aircraft 

operators, when operating aircraft that 

have been certified to meet portable 

electronic device tolerance standards, 

may permit certain portable electronic 

devices to operate in all phases of flight 

(i.e., from gate-to-gate), body-worn VLP 

and geofenced VLP devices could be 

used to monitor a person’s health 

metrics or to stream a movie (e.g., from 

a smartphone to smart glasses). In such 

cases, operation is not likely to be near 

a fixed microwave, BAS, or CARS 

receive site and is likely to be low 

power, given the short transmission 

distance and the fact that emissions will 

be shielded by the aircraft fuselage and 

will be subject to clutter loses from 

nearby seats and passengers. In 

addition, the Commission notes that the 

worst case for harmful interference 

potential is likely to be on take-off or 

landing when the aircraft is lower to the 

ground and thus, potentially closer to an 

incumbent receiver. However, good 

engineering practice should prevent 

microwave links in locations where 

aircraft are likely to fly as their mere 

presence could cause link degradation. 

And even if an aircraft were to fly in an 

area where it may be seen by a 

microwave receive antenna main beam, 

the aircraft will be moving at significant 

speed and the time a VLP or geofenced 

VLP device’s emission could be within 

an incumbent’s receiver main beam will 

be fleeting and handled by forward error 

correction or other techniques. In 

addition, when operated on the ground, 

geofenced VLP access points and 

associated clients would operate under 

the control of a geofencing system, 

while non-geofenced VLP devices 

would operate at even lower power. As 

an initial matter, considering operation 

on aircraft, should the Commission 

considers permitting all VLP devices to 

operate across all phases of flight or just 

VLP devices that are not geofenced? Or 

should geofenced VLP devices be 

limited to only operating when above 

10,000 feet or not permitted to operate 

on aircraft at all? The Commission is 

already permitting non-geofenced VLP 

devices to operate on large aircraft 

above 10,000 feet and ask if there is a 

different metric that could be used for 

the specific case of aircraft. For 

example, noting the very fast take-off 

and landing speeds, could the 

Commission implement a rule stating 

that if a geofenced VLP access point is 

moving at an average speed over 100 

mph, it would no longer need to check 

the geofencing system? Moving at or 

above this speed would imply operation 

on a very fast moving vehicle, such as 

an aircraft. If the Commission allows a 

minimum average speed metric for this 

purpose, should it apply only to devices 

operated on aircraft, or could it apply to 

other modes of transportation such as 

rail? Is there a different speed or metric 

that would work better in providing a 

demarcation between when the 

geofencing system must be used and 

when it is not necessary when 

considering use on aircraft? What other 

considerations need to be taken into 

account? For example, could there be 

issues that affect radio astronomy sites? 

If so, should certain channels be 

prohibited from use until an aircraft 

exceeds 10,000 feet? We seek comment 

on the Commission’s proposal to permit 

any or all VLP devices to operate gateto-gate while on aircraft. 

66. The Commission continues to 

believe that any VLP operation when 

such devices are mounted on a UAS 

could pose more than an insignificant 

harmful interference risk, given the 

potential of UAS to fly almost anywhere 

and to have clear line of sight to an 

incumbent’s receiver. In addition, 

because the geofencing system 

determines exclusion zones based on an 

assumed 1.5 meter antenna height, any 

exclusion zone associated with a UAS 

would be much larger than for general 

VLP device usage. Nevertheless, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are operational limitations or 

guidelines the Commission could adopt 

that could permit VLP devices to 

operate when mounted on a UAS. Are 

there applications that are specifically 

well-suited for use on a UAS? Are there 

methods using the geofencing system or 

otherwise that could be implemented to 

ensure that incumbent receivers are 

protected from harmful interference? If 

so, how complex and feasible would 

these methods be to implement? Would 

the costs associated with additional 

complexity outweigh any benefits that 

might be gained from permitting such 

operation? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14029 

67. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission maintained its 

prohibition on all types of 6 GHz device 

usage on oil platforms to protect EESS 

operations but did not prohibit the use 

of VLP devices on boats. The 

Commission now seeks comment on 

whether the prohibition on all types of 

6 GHz device usage on oil platforms can 

be scaled back or lifted. For example, 

given the differences between VLP 

devices (both geofenced and nongeofenced) and standard power and LPI 

devices, does the use of VLP devices on 

oil platforms pose the same risk of 

harmful interference to EESS 

operations? Could standard power, LPI 

or either type of VLP devices be used on 

oil platforms without causing a risk to 

EESS ocean temperature monitoring 

operations? The Commission can 

foresee applications where a 6 GHz 

device could provide utility through 

augmented reality to a worker on an oil 

platform to provide relevant 

information, such as for safety, 

maintenance tasks, or general operating 

instructions. Is any restriction of VLP 

device use on boats appropriate to 

protect EESS operations? If such a 

restriction were adopted, could it be 

limited to boats located in the ocean, 

given that EESS is used for sensing over 

the ocean? How could the prohibition 

on use of VLP devices on oil platforms 

or a prohibition on use on boats, if 

adopted, be implemented for nongeofenced VLP devices? 

68. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether there is additional 

flexibility that can be provided for 

terrestrial in-vehicle use (e.g., cars, 

buses, and trucks). For example, are 

there devices that are designed to be 

used solely in vehicles, such as an incar hotspot, that can only be used in a 

vehicle where due to the nature of use— 

within a vehicle cabin, generally in 

motion at high speeds—different 

requirements regarding power or 

exclusion zones could apply? If so, are 

there requirements that could provide 

assurance that a VLP device (geofenced 

or non-geofenced) is, in fact, in a 

vehicle, such as having a connection to 

Carplay or Android Auto? 

69. The Commission invites 

commenters to address these issues and 

provide detailed information regarding 

whether the Commission can provide 

more flexibility to VLP devices, both 

geofenced and non-geofenced, for 

expanded use in aircraft, on boats, in 

vehicles, and in more places while still 

ensuring that incumbent operators’ 

facilities are protected from harmful 

interference. The Commission seeks 

quantitative estimates of benefits or 

costs of its proposals for relaxing the 

VLP prohibition in these locations and 

potential alternatives. How much and 

what kinds of additional VLP operations 

might occur? How much and what kind 

of costs would be incurred to 

accommodate these increased 

operations? 

G. Expanding Very Low Power 

Operations to U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 

70. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission adopted rules to permit 

VLP devices to operate in the U–NII–5 

and U–NII–7 bands at power levels up 

to ¥5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm 

EIRP. The Commission determined that 

the risk of harmful interference to 

incumbent services in those bands, e.g., 

fixed microwave links and radio 

astronomy, was insignificant for VLP 

devices operating at that power level. In 

this Second Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission proposes 

to permit VLP devices to also operate in 

the U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 bands without 

geofencing. Given that fixed microwave 

links in the U–NII–8 band have the 

same characteristics as those in U–NII– 

5 and U–NII–7, the Commission 

concludes that any risk of harmful 

interference from VLP devices to these 

microwave links is insignificant. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

allowing VLP devices on U–NII–6 and 

U–NII–8 band devices will yield 

comparable benefits to those that stem 

from allowing VLP devices in the U– 

NII–5 and U–NII–7 bands in the Second 

Report and Order. The Commission 

tentatively concludes that at a minimum 

the benefits would be in proportion to 

the amount of spectrum in U–NII–6 and 

U–NII–8 bands relative to the amount of 

spectrum in the U–NII–5 and U–NII–7 

bands. The Commission anticipates that 

these benefit estimates are conservative, 

as making available the full 1200 MHz 

in the 6 GHz band could lead to larger 

channel sizes that could increase speed 

and decrease latency. The Commission 

seeks comment on this and alternate 

methods of estimating these benefits. 

1. Protection of Mobile Services 

71. As discussed above, both the U– 

NII–6 and U–NII–8 bands are used by 

mobile BAS and CARS, including 

outdoor electronic news gathering 

(ENG) trucks and low power short range 

devices, such as portable cameras and 

microphones. Low Power Auxiliary 

Stations, which are licensed in portions 

of the U–NII–8 band, operate on an 

itinerant basis and transmit over 

distances of approximately 100 meters 

for uses such as wireless microphones, 

cue and control communications, and 

TV camera synchronization signals. 

There are also BAS and CARS fixed 

microwave links in these bands, which 

are used for such purposes as video 

links between studios and transmitters 

and to relay video signals between 

cities. 

72. Outdoor electronic news gathering 

central receive sites. As described 

above, the communications link 

between ENG trucks and a central 

receive site shares many of the 

characteristics of a fixed microwave 

link—i.e., they use directional antennas 

to send signals between two fixed 

locations that are mostly above the local 

clutter. The Commission proposes to 

permit VLP devices to also operate in 

the U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 bands and 

seek comment on whether VLP devices 

could operate at up to ¥5 dBm/MHz 

EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP while 

keeping the risk of harmful interference 

to ENG central receive sites to an 

insignificant level. Would the same type 

of analysis discussed in the Second 

Report and Order showing an 

insignificant risk of harmful interference 

to fixed microwave receive sites be 

appropriate with respect to ENG receive 

sites? Are there inherent differences 

between BAS/CARS operations as 

compared to fixed point-to-point 

operations that must be considered 

when analyzing the harmful 

interference risk? For example, are there 

differences in antenna types, e.g., 

beamwidth and gain, or in typical 

antenna heights or the locations of 

receive antennas? Commenters noting 

differences should provide detailed 

descriptions and information regarding 

how any difference could affect the 

potential for VLP devices to cause 

harmful interference? Are there specific 

VLP device characteristics that need to 

be considered in analyzing their 

interference potential to ENG operations 

and if so, what are they? The 

Commission seeks to provide uniform 

rules for operations across the full 6 

GHz band, but recognizing that there 

could be differences in how VLP 

emissions may interact with different 

incumbent systems, the Commission 

also seeks comment on what effect a 

lower power limit for VLP devices 

might have regarding protecting ENG 

operations in the U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 

bands. Commenters advocating for a 

lower power level should provide 

detailed analysis regarding their 

preferred power level and the 

incremental effect such a power level 

would have on the ability for VLP 

devices to access spectrum as well as to 

what extent ENG operations would have 

additional protection from harmful 

interference. Are there any other 

requirements that the Commission 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14030 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

could adopt for VLP devices to protect 

ENG operations? 

73. Apple, Broadcom, and Meta 

submitted a Monte Carlo simulation 

addressing the potential for VLP devices 

operating at ¥5 dBm/MHz to exceed 

¥6 dB I/N for two specific ENG receive 

sites. For the ENG receivers, the 

simulation used the same two ENG 

receive sites and technical parameters 

that were used in a Monte Carlo 

simulation previously submitted by 

NAB that examined the potential for 6 

GHz band unlicensed access points to 

interfere with ENG receivers. As the 

ENG receive antennas are directional 

but generally are able to provide 360° 

azimuthal coverage, it is not practical to 

simulate every azimuth. Thus, Apple, 

Broadcom, and Meta limited their 

simulation to the same three antenna 

orientations that NAB simulated for the 

two ENG receive sites. For the VLP 

devices, the simulation used similar 

assumptions for body loss, transmit 

power control, and propagation models 

as the Apple, Broadcom et al. and Apple 

simulations discussed in the Second 

Report and Order that assessed the 

potential for VLP devices to exceed ¥6 

dB I/N for microwave links in San 

Franscisco and Houston. The Apple, 

Broadcom, and Meta Monte Carlo 

analysis found no instances where the 

VLP devices caused the signal received 

at the ENG receive sites to exceed ¥6 

dB I/N. The Commission notes that NAB 

previously expressed skepticism about 

the accuracy of a similar Monte Carlo 

simulation provided by Apple, 

Broadcom, et al. that likewise found that 

the ¥6 dB I/N threshold was never 

exceeded for one of these ENG receive 

sites. The Commission seeks comment 

on the Apple, Broadcom, and Meta 

simulation. The Commission seeks 

comment on its conclusions that ¥6 dB 

I/N will not be exceeded or will only be 

exceeded in so few instances at ENG 

central receive sites that the 

Commission can conclude that the risk 

of harmful interference from VLP 

devices operating at ¥5 dB/MHz EIRP 

PSD is insignificant. Given that this 

simulation used two ENG receive sites 

that were chosen by NAB, can the 

Commission assume that they are 

representative of BAS and CARS receive 

sites in general? Are there particular 

scenarios that need further study? 

74. Outdoor electronic news gathering 

ENG trucks. ENG trucks are generally 

situated near news or sporting events 

and receive signals from hand-held 

cameras or other portable news 

gathering devices. Based on a study 

previously submitted by NAB, the ENG 

truck receive antenna may be omnidirectional or sectoral with adjustable 

height and location. Additionally, the 

ENG truck signals may use various 

bandwidths between 3 to 20 megahertz. 

For its study, NAB evaluated harmful 

interference based on free space path 

loss and on whether an unlicensed 

device would cause the I/N to exceed 

¥10 dB. 

75. Broadcom submitted a simulation 

showing a low probability (<0.001%) 

that a VLP device operating at ¥5 dBm/ 

MHz will cause the signal-tointerference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) at 

the ENG truck receiver to fall below 1 

dB. Broadcom’s 1 dB SINR threshold is 

based on a previously submitted 

Broadcom study showing that a 10 

megahertz ENG channel with a 7/8 

coding rate can maintain a signal with 

a bit-error-rate (BER) less than 1e–8 in 

the presence of an RLAN signal 

operating with a 2% duty cycle. Charter, 

Comcast, Cox and CableLabs also 

previously submitted studies of the ENG 

truck signal SINR requirements in the 

presence of RLANs operating at various 

duty cycles. While these studies 

examined the impact of LPI 

transmissions, which operate at a higher 

power than is proposed for VLP, their 

findings with respect to SINR are also 

applicable to assessing VLP impact to 

BAS operations. CableLabs finds that a 

10 dB SINR ‘‘provides an accurate view 

of system requirements for high-quality 

BAS video delivery’’. 

76. The Commission proposes to 

permit non-geofenced VLP devices 

operate in the U–NII–6 and U–NII–8 

bands and seeks comment on whether 

those devices could operate at up to ¥5 

dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP 

while minimizing the risk of harmful 

interference to ENG truck receive sites. 

What is the appropriate metric for 

evaluating the harmful interference risk 

to a ENG truck receiver, which is fixed 

during operation but otherwise 

transportable, from a mobile or transient 

VLP transmission? Regarding 

potentially using SINR, because actual 

signal levels are not known prior to any 

transmission, what value or range of 

values should be used for the ENG 

signal level for any analysis? 

Commenters should provide insight and 

data regarding how any assumed signal 

level is consistent with the signal levels 

used for ENG operations. Previously 

submitted studies show that the 

required SINR will vary according to 

channel bandwidth and coding rate. 

What are the typical bandwidths and 

coding rates used by ENG truck 

receivers? If the Commission were to 

rely on evaluating SINR, what SINR 

threshold should be assumed to be 

necessary at the ENG truck receive site 

to maintain a high quality signal? 

Broadcom’s study predicted an impact 

when the VLP device was within 5 

meters of the receiver. Under normal 

operating conditions, how close could a 

random user’s VLP device actually come 

to an ENG truck receiver? Is assuming 

at least a 5 meter separation distance 

realistic? Or is that distance too short or 

too long? Will the itinerant nature of 

VLP devices help reduce the likelihood 

of a VLP device causing harmful 

interference? Are there any particular 

connections the Commission should 

make between its reliance on an I/N 

metric when evaluating ENG trucks 

connecting to a central receive site and 

potentially evaluating the harmful 

interference risk from portable devices 

to an ENG truck based on SINR? In 

evaluating analysis methodology and 

protection metrics, commenters should 

detail how such an approach supports 

permitting non-geofenced VLP 

operations at power levels up to ¥5 

dBm/MHz EIRP PSD or indicates that a 

different power level may be 

appropriate. 

77. Low-power short range mobile 

devices. The Commission proposes that 

low power short range BAS and CARS 

devices, such as portable cameras and 

microphones, and Low Power Auxiliary 

stations be protected from harmful 

interference by a combination of a 

required contention-based protocol and 

the low probability of a VLP device 

operating on the same channel in a 

nearby location. This proposal is 

consistent with the 6 GHz Order in 

which the Commission required that all 

6 GHz unlicensed LPI access points, 

subordinate devices, and client devices 

employ a contention-based protocol as 

well as the Commission’s proposal 

above with respect to geofenced VLP 

devices. Further, the 6 GHz Order 

showed that the probability of channel 

overlap between 6 GHz unlicensed 

devices and incumbent station 

operations is low due to unlicensed 

devices having a full 1200 megahertz 

over which to operate. 

78. The Commission believes that a 

similar approach for VLP devices will 

adequately reduce the risk that mobile 

service incumbents in the U–NII–6 and 

U–NII–8 bands would be subjected to 

harmful interference and keep that risk 

to an insignificant level. The 

Commission’s reasoning is consistent 

with the 6 GHz Order, i.e., the sensing 

function associated with the contentionbased protocol, along with the low 

probability for co-channel operation, is 

sufficient to ensure that VLP devices 

detect nearby mobile BAS operations 

and avoid transmitting co-channel to 

protect those operations from harmful 

interference. While the Commission is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14031 

not proposing a specific technology 

protocol or contention method, the 

Commission proposes to require VLP 

devices to use a contention-based 

protocol as the Commission requires for 

LPI devices. The Commission believes 

that this proposal has additional 

benefits as it provides multiple VLP 

devices as well as LPI devices equal 

access to the spectrum, while protecting 

mobile incumbents’ services. The 

Commission also believes that the use of 

a contention-based protocol will limit 

the duty cycle of VLP devices as they 

will need to share the spectrum with 

other devices. Additionally, VLP 

devices would transmit at lower power 

levels than LPI devices, further reducing 

the risk of harmful interference to 

mobile services. Given all these reasons, 

the Commission believes that requiring 

use of a contention-based protocol by 

VLP devices would protect mobile 

service incumbents. 

79. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. Would requiring VLP 

devices to incorporate a contentionbased protocol adequately protect 

mobile service incumbents in the U– 

NII–6 and U–NII–8 bands? If not, are 

there any other protection measures that 

could be used by VLP devices to protect 

mobile services? Is there a need to 

provide greater specificity in the 

requirements for a contention-based 

protocol used by VLP devices? If so, 

what particular requirements should be 

specified and why? What are the costs 

and benefits of requiring the use of a 

contention-based protocol? 

2. Fixed Satellite Services 

80. The U–NII–7 and U–NII–8 bands 

contain Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) 

space-to-Earth allocations and are 

restricted to feeder links for MobileSatellite Service non-geostationary 

satellite systems. No such earth stations 

are currently licensed in the U–NII–7 

band. The U–NII–8 space-to-Earth 

allocation is limited to use by 

Globalstar’s non-geostationary MobileSatellite Service feeder links and earth 

stations receiving at locations within 

300 m of coordinates in Brewster, WA, 

Clifton, TX, and Finca Pascual, PR. 

Globalstar also operates earth station 

receive sites at Naalehu, HI, Wasilla, 

AK, and Sebring, FL. These last two 

locations are authorized to operate on a 

co-primary basis for FSS feeder 

downlinks, except for the 7.025–7.055 

GHz band, where they are authorized 

only on an unprotected basis. In the 6 

GHz Order, the Commission determined 

that the probability of harmful 

interference to FSS space-to-Earth 

stations from LPI device operations in 

U–NII–8 is low, primarily due to the 

restriction that LPI devices operate 

indoors and at EIRP power levels no 

greater than 30 dBm. 

81. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether any restrictions on VLP 

device operation is necessary to protect 

space-to-Earth stations. Because VLP 

devices would operate at significantly 

lower PSD levels than geofenced VLP 

access points and associated client 

devices, how does this impact the 

analysis of the potential for harmful 

interference occurring? As VLP devices 

operate without the supervision of a 

geofencing system, how could such 

restrictions, if needed, be implemented? 

Would there be differences in the cost 

of protection for VLP devices compared 

to geofenced VLP access point and 

associated client devices? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how the earth station antenna sites 

themselves provide interference 

protection by creating a physical barrier 

(e.g., fencing) or using geographic 

features to keep members of the public 

that could be using a VLP device 

beyond some minimum distance from 

those earth stations. Commenters should 

provide technical analysis to support 

their positions. 

H. Emission Limits Below the U–NII–5 

Band 

82. The 5.895–5.925 GHz band 

immediately below the U–NII–5 band is 

used by the Intelligent Transportation 

Service (ITS) which the Commission is 

requiring to transition to C–V2X-based 

technology. In the Second Report and 

Order, the Commission adopted the 

same ¥27 dBm/MHz out-of-band 

emission (OOBE) limit for VLP devices 

for emissions below the U–NII–5 band 

and above the U–NII–8 band as it had 

already required for standard power and 

low-power indoor 6 GHz devices. NTIA 

filed a technical exhibit into the record 

that includes a Department of 

Transportation study (DoT Exhibit) 

addressing C–V2X protection 

requirements in the 5.895–5.925 GHz 

band from 6 GHz VLP devices’ and 

mobile access points’ out-of-band 

emissions. Deployers plan to transmit 

basic safety messages for crashavoidance applications that require lowlatency, free-from-harmful-interference 

in the 5.895–5.925 band. According to 

the DoT Exhibit, testing shows that VLP 

devices operating within a motor 

vehicle and that comply with the 27 

dBm/MHz OOBE limit will decrease the 

operational range of C–V2X receivers in 

the same vehicle by more than 50%. 

While these tests are based on U–NII– 

4 (5.850–5.895 GHz) devices in the band 

immediately below the 5.895–5.925 GHz 

ITS band, the DoT Exhibit contends that 

the results can be translated to assess 

the impact of VLP devices in the U–NII– 

5 band. The DoT Exhibit claims that 

implementing both parts of a two-part 

compromise submitted by several VLP 

proponents is necessary to protect 

C–V2X receivers. This compromise 

proposal would require VLP devices to 

prioritize their operations to frequencies 

above 6.105 GHz and limit VLP OOBE 

below 5.925 GHz to ¥37 dBm/MHz. 

The Alliance for Automotive 

Innovation, 5GAA, and ITS America 

similarly point to the compromise 

proposal and advocate that the 

Commission modifies the VLP OOBE 

limits. While the rules the Commission 

adopted for VLP devices implement the 

former requirement, the Commission 

adopted the same ¥27 dBm/MHz OOBE 

limit. 

83. The Commission seeks additional 

information on the potential impact that 

VLP devices operating in motor vehicles 

could have on C–V2X performance 

when a VLP device is operating within 

the same motor vehicle as the C–V2X 

receiver. In seeking comment on this 

issue, the Commission notes that the 

DoT Exhibit is narrowly limited to VLP 

operation as an access point or as a 

client connected to a 6 GHz enabled 

mobile access point within motor 

vehicles and does not address any other 

6 GHz device or VLP device operation 

outside of motor vehicles. In particular, 

the Commission seeks technical 

information, including studies, 

analyses, and measurements detailing 

the interaction between VLP devices 

operating under the Commission’s rules 

and C–V2X receivers in the 5.895–5.925 

GHz band when these devices are in 

close proximity such as in the same 

motor vehicle. What affect, if any, do 

VLP devices’ OOBE have on C–V2X 

devices’ ability to communicate at 

distances and with timing necessary to 

ensure a vehicle has sufficient reaction 

time to keep passengers safe in various 

situations? In undertaking studies to 

submit to the record, commenters 

should assess realistic scenarios for VLP 

device deployment, whether VLP 

devices are installed inside the vehicle 

or carried by a passenger from outside 

of the vehicle, as well as realistic 

scenarios for C–V2X devices as they 

pertain to device location within the 

vehicle, power level, OOBE level, 

antenna directivity, and activity factor. 

For example, are VLP devices expected 

to be mounted on dashboards, in 

headrests, etc. and are C–V2X antennas 

expected to be mounted inside or 

outside the vehicle, on the roof, in the 

grille, etc.? How do the various relative 

placements between VLP and C–V2X 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14032 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

devices affect performance? The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

any adjustments are needed to its VLP 

device rules to adequately protect 

C–V2X operation in vehicles. 

Commenters advocating for adjustments 

should address whether they believe 

prioritization and a more stringent 

emission limit, such as ¥37 dBm/MHz 

below 5.925 GHz for VLP devices, is 

necessary as the DoT Exhibit advocates. 

Or whether either acting on its own 

provides the protection level being 

claimed as needed. Similarly, 

commenters advocating for prioritizing 

spectrum should address whether a 

single limit is needed, such as above 

6.105 GHz, or whether a variable limit 

based on channel bandwidth can be 

implemented to provide more flexibility 

for VLP devices. For example, would 

one bandwidth buffer suffice such that 

20-megahertz channels would not 

transmit on the lowest 20 megahertz of 

the band, 40-megahertz channels would 

not transmit on the lowest 40 megahertz 

of the band, etc.? Are there other 

alternative measures that VLP devices 

could use to safeguard C–V2X 

operations? Although, the Commission 

seeks comment on the narrow issue of 

in-vehicle VLP device use, the 

Commission asks how any change to the 

OOBE limit might affect the entire VLP 

device market. Commenters should 

address whether permanently installed 

in-vehicle VLP devices should be 

treated differently than other VLP 

devices, such as those used as mobile 

access points or ‘‘hotspots,’’ or would 

all VLP devices need to comply with a 

more stringent OOBE limit should the 

record indicate some adjustments to the 

Commission’s rules are necessary for invehicle VLP operation? Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

or how any changes to its rules would 

affect device harmonization regarding 

the global VLP device market. The 

Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 

5GAA, and ITS America state that 

dozens of countries have adopted a ¥37 

dBm/MHz OOBE level to protect ITS 

services. They claim that the European 

Union (EU) as well as many non-EU 

member countries in the CEPT region, 

adopted a more stringent OOBE level of 

¥45 dBm/MHz below 5935 MHz, which 

may be adjusted to ¥37 dBm/MHz in 

2025 following additional protection 

studies. The Commission notes, 

however, that the EU OOBE limit is 

designed to protect urban rail intelligent 

transport systems, including 

communication based train control 

systems, not C–V2X operations. Thus, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

applicability of the EU adopted rule to 

C–V2X operations. Do equipment 

manufacturers seeking to supply a 

global market plan to do so with a single 

device that meets the most stringent 

OOBE level or would they provide 

variants for different regions based on 

local rules? What are the costs and 

benefits of various approaches? 

I. LPI Client-to-Client Communications 

84. In this section, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should permit direct 

communications between clients to LPI 

devices. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the requirements that it 

would have to specify to enable clientto-client communications without 

causing harmful interference to licensed 

incumbent operations in the 6 GHz 

band. 

85. Background. Standard-power 

access points can operate in the U–NII– 

5 and U–NII–7 bands and require use of 

an AFC system for providing access to 

spectrum in the band. LPI access points 

can operate across the entire 6 GHz 

band but at lower power levels than 

standard power devices. Client devices 

operate under the control of either a 

standard-power or LPI access point and 

communicate using power levels that 

depend on the type of access point to 

which they are connected. To ensure 

that client devices not associated with 

standard power access points transmit 

indoors, the Commission required that 

these devices operate under the control 

of an indoor access point and prohibited 

6 GHz U–NII client devices from 

directly communicating with one 

another. The Commission prohibited 

unlicensed client devices from acting as 

‘‘mobile hotspots’’ because ‘‘[p]ermitting 

a client device operating under the 

control of an access point to authorize 

the operation of additional client 

devices could potentially increase the 

distance between these additional client 

devices and the access point and 

increase the potential for harmful 

interference to fixed service receivers or 

electronic news gathering operations.’’ 

To avoid this situation, the 

Commission’s rules prohibit 6 GHz 

U–NII client devices from directly 

communicating with one another. The 

Commission did not, however, consider 

whether a more limited approach to 

indoor client-to-client communications 

should be permissible, such as when a 

client is not acting as a mobile hotspot. 

86. In response to suggestions by 

Apple, Broadcom et al. that client 

devices could be permitted to directly 

communicate with each under certain 

conditions, OET released a public notice 

on January 11, 2021 seeking information 

regarding client-to-client device 

communications in the 6 GHz band. The 

conditions that Apple, Broadcom et al. 

suggest for permitting client-to-client 

communications include requiring 

client devices to decode an enabling 

signal transmitted by an LPI device 

within the last four seconds, and 

requiring that an enabling signal be 

received at a signal strength of at least 

¥99 dBm/MHz. These parties assert 

that these requirements would ensure 

each individual client participating in 

client-to-client communications is 

safely inside the area where a client 

device is authorized to communicate 

with an access point. 

87. Fourteen parties filed comments 

and 12 parties filed reply comments in 

response to the OET public notice. 

Advocates of unlicensed operation 

support permitting client-to-client 

communications by LPI devices, arguing 

that they will enable new applications 

that benefit the public, such as AR/VR 

and digital education and training. 

Incumbent operators in the 6 GHz band 

(e.g., fixed microwave and broadcast) 

and in adjacent bands express concern 

about permitting client-to-client 

operations; specifically the potential for 

harmful interference and a lack of 

interference testing with devices 

operating under the current rules. 

88. Discussion. The Commission 

invites comment on whether and under 

what circumstances LPI client devices 

could be permitted to directly 

communicate with each other in a 

limited manner while protecting 

incumbent licensed services. The 

Commission recognizes that OET 

previously sought comment on these 

issues. However, more than two years 

have passed since the Commission 

received responses to OET’s public 

notice. During that time, many LPI 

devices have been certified and put into 

operation. In addition, the approval 

process for AFC systems for standard 

power devices has advanced, and as 

discussed in the Second Report and 

Order, several parties have provided 

detailed analyses on the potential for 

interference from 6 GHz devices to 

incumbent services such as fixed 

microwave and broadcast services. 

Given that there is now more 

information available or that could 

become available in the near future 

concerning the interference potential of 

6 GHz devices, the Commission believes 

it is now appropriate to refresh and 

further build the record on whether the 

Commission could permit LPI client-toclient operations. 

89. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should permit 6 GHz client 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14033 

devices to directly communicate when 

they are under the control of or have 

received an enabling signal from a LPI 

access point. Commenters should 

explain how to define an enabling signal 

(e.g., power level, modulation type, how 

often it should be broadcast if it is 

discrete from the regular data stream, 

etc.), what characteristics it should 

have, how it would be similar or 

different from signals, such as beacons, 

that access points already use to connect 

with client devices, and the degree to 

which an enabling signal would tether 

a client device not under the direct 

control of an access point to that access 

point. Commenters should also provide 

information on the types of applications 

that direct client-to-client 

communications would enable that 

cannot be accomplished by 

communications through an access 

point. In addition, commenters 

advocating for rule changes should 

address whether direct client-to-client 

communications should be under the 

current power limits or restricted to 

lower power limits to reduce the 

potential for harmful interference to 

incumbent operations. 

90. The requirement that 6 GHz client 

devices operate under the control of 

either a standard-power or low-power 

indoor access point is intended to 

prevent client devices from causing 

harmful interference by limiting their 

operation either to outdoors in areas 

where an AFC system has determined 

that interference is unlikely to occur, or 

in the case of LPI devices to indoor 

locations where other factors such as 

building entry loss prevent harmful 

interference. It may be possible for a 

client device to receive an enabling 

signal from an access point even when 

the enabling signal is too weak to enable 

the client device to conduct 

communications with the access point. 

In such situations, the weak received 

signal level makes it more likely that the 

client device could be outdoors. By 

requiring that the enabling signal have 

a specific signal strength, this problem 

could be potentially avoided. If the 

Commission were to adopt rules 

permitting client-to-client 

communications, should it require the 

enabling signal from the low-power 

indoor access point to be received by 

the client device with a particular signal 

level, such as ¥99 dBm/MHz as 

suggested by Apple, Broadcom et al.? If 

not, what signal level would be 

appropriate? How can a specific signal 

level be correlated with the requirement 

that the client device be under the 

control of an access point? Should the 

enabling signal level be of sufficient 

strength to effectively require that the 

signal levels between the access point 

and client device be sufficiently strong 

to permit bi-directional communications 

between the client devices and the 

access point, thereby ensuring that both 

client devices are close to the access 

point? How frequently should a client 

device be required to receive an 

enabling signal to continue transmitting 

to another client device? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether client devices should be 

limited to receiving an enabling signal 

from the same access point or whether 

client-to-client communications could 

be permitted so long as each client 

device receives an enabling signal from 

any authorized access point. Apple, 

Broadcom et al.’s suggestion would 

potentially permit two client devices to 

communicate even if they receive 

enabling signals from two different 

access points. For example, client 

devices in two different buildings 

receiving enabling signals from different 

low-power indoor access points could 

attempt to communicate with each 

other. Would permitting this situation to 

occur increase the potential for the 

client devices to cause harmful 

interference to licensed services? 

Should other configurations be 

permitted? For example, could a client 

device controlled by a standard power 

access point be permitted to 

communicate with a client device 

controlled by a low-power indoor access 

point? In such a case, should the client 

device power level be restricted to the 

standard power client device power 

level? Could client-to-client 

communications be permitted between 

devices when both clients are controlled 

by a standard power access point? If so, 

are any changes needed to the AFC 

systems? Must an enabling signal be 

received on the same channel for each 

device under any of the scenarios 

contemplated? Under any envisioned 

client-to-client communication scenario, 

commenters should provide detailed 

descriptions of how such 

communications can be enabled 

including how such communications fit 

under the current rules that limit client 

devices to operating only under the 

control of a standard power access point 

or a low-power indoor access point or 

whether, and which, rules would need 

to be modified. Commenters should 

provide detailed analysis of how any 

client-to-client communication 

configurations they prefer would protect 

incumbent operations from harmful 

interference. Finally, commenters 

should provide any other information 

relevant to evaluating whether direct 

client-to-client communications should 

be permitted, including any alternative 

methods or necessary rule changes not 

directly discussed above. 

E. 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, this Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 

adopted. 

2. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Secretary, Reference Information 

Center, shall send a copy of the Second 

Further Notice of Propose Rulemaking 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15 

Communications equipment, Radio, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

document, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 15 as follows: 

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 

307, 336, 544a, and 549. 

■ 2. Section 15.403 is amended by 

adding the definitions of ‘‘Geofenced 

very low power access point’’ and 

‘‘Geofencing’’ in alphabetical order, to 

read as follows: 

§ 15.403 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Geofenced Very Low Power Access 

Point. For the purpose of this subpart, 

an access point that operates in the 

5.925–7.125 GHz band, has an 

integrated antenna, and uses a 

geofencing system to determine channel 

availability at its location. 

Geofencing. For the purposes of this 

subpart, a method of establishing 

exclusion zones within which very low 

power devices are not permitted to 

operate on frequencies specified by the 

geofencing system. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 15.407 by: 

■ A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7) 

and (8) as paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (ii); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14034 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ B. Adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and 

(a)(8)(iii); 

■ C. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(9) 

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

through (a)(13); 

■ D. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(10); 

■ E. Revising paragraphs (d)(3) and 

(d)(5); 

■ F. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(7); 

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

(10); and 

■ H. Adding paragraphs (o) through (r). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 15.407 General technical requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(7) For a geofenced very low power 

access point operating in the 5.925– 

7.125 GHz band, the maximum power 

spectral density must not exceed 1 dBm 

e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz band. In 

addition, the maximum e.i.r.p over the 

frequency band of operation must not 

exceed 14 dBm. 

(8) * * * 

(iii) For client devices operating 

under the control of a geofenced very 

low power access point in the 5.925– 

7.125 GHz bands, the maximum power 

spectral density must not exceed 1 dBm 

e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz band, and the 

maximum e.i.r.p over the frequency 

band of operation must not exceed 14 

dBm. 

* * * * * 

(10) Access points operating under 

the provisions of paragraphs (a)(5), (6), 

and (7) of this section must employ a 

permanently attached integrated 

antenna. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Transmitters operating under the 

provisions of paragraphs (a)(5), (6), and 

(8)(ii) of this section are limited to 

indoor locations. 

* * * * * 

(5)(i) In the 5.925–7.125 GHz band, 

client devices must operate under the 

control of a standard power access 

point, low-power indoor access point, 

subordinate device, or geofenced very 

low power access point; Subordinate 

devices must operate under the control 

of a low-power indoor access point. 

(ii) Fixed client devices may only 

connect to a standard power access 

point. 

(iii) In all cases, an exception exists 

such that a client device may transmit 

brief messages to an access point when 

attempting to join its network after 

detecting a signal that confirms that an 

access point is operating on a particular 

channel. 

(iv) Client-to-client communications: 

Client devices are prohibited from 

connecting directly to another client 

device, except that client devices under 

the control of the same indoor access 

point or geofenced very low power 

access point may communicate directly 

with each other. 

(v) Client devices under the control of 

indoor access point, that directly 

connect to another client, transmit 

power must not exceed ¥1 dBm e.i.r.p. 

in any 1-meghertz band, and the 

maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency 

band of operation must not exceed 14 

dBm. 

* * * * * 

(7) [Reserved] 

(8) Geofenced very low power and 

very low power devices may not employ 

a fixed outdoor infrastructure. Such 

devices may not be mounted on outdoor 

structures, such as buildings or poles. 

(9) Geofenced very low power and 

very low power devices must prioritize 

operations on frequencies above 6.105 

GHz prior to operating on frequencies 

between 5.925 GHz and 6.105 GHz. 

(10) Transmit power control (TPC). 

Geofenced very low power devices 

operating in the 5.925–7.125 GHz bands 

shall employ a TPC mechanism. A very 

low power device is required to have 

the capability to operate at least 6 dB 

below the maximum EIRP PSD value of 

¥5 dBm/MHz. 

* * * * * 

(o) Geofencing system. (1) A 

geofencing system must obtain 

information on protected services 

within the 5.925–7.125 GHz band from 

Commission databases and use that 

information to determine frequencyspecific exclusion zones where very low 

power access points and associated 

client devices may not operate on 

specified frequencies based on the 

propagation models and protection 

criteria specified in paragraph (p) of this 

section. The geofencing system must 

access the Commission’s licensing 

databases and update the frequencyspecific exclusion zones at least once 

per day to ensure that they are based on 

the most recent information in the 

Commission’s databases. 

(2) Geofencing systems may be 

implemented using a centralized 

database or may be integrated into 

geofenced very low power access point 

devices. 

(3) A geofenced very low power 

access point operating under paragraph 

(a)(7) of this section must access a 

geofencing system to obtain frequencyspecific exclusion zones for the area in 

which it is operating or intends to 

operate (e.g., within a specific point 

radius or within specific geopolitical 

boundaries) prior to transmitting. If the 

geofenced very low power access point 

moves outside this area, it must obtain 

additional frequency-specific exclusion 

zones for the area and adjust its 

operating frequency, if necessary, prior 

to operating in this new area. The 

geofenced very low power access point 

must obtain updated frequency-specific 

exclusion zones from the geofencing 

system at least once per day. If the 

geofenced very low power access point 

fails to obtain the updated frequency 

specific exclusion zones on any given 

day, the geofenced very low power 

access point may continue to operate 

until 11:59 p.m. of the following day at 

which time it must cease operations 

until it can obtain updated frequencyspecific exclusion zones. 

(4) A geofenced very low power 

access point must determine its location 

and avoid transmitting on frequencies 

that are not available in accordance with 

the frequency specific exclusion zones. 

The geofenced very low power access 

point may not permit a client device 

operating under its control to transmit 

on frequencies that are not available in 

accordance with the frequency specific 

exclusion zones. The geofenced very 

low power access point must determine 

its location frequently enough that, 

based on its position and speed, it will 

not transmit on an unavailable 

frequency. The geofenced very low 

power access point must determine its 

location and speed at least once a 

minute. 

(5) A geofenced very low power 

access point must incorporate adequate 

security measures to prevent it from 

accessing geofencing systems and 

geofencing methods not approved by the 

FCC and to ensure that unauthorized 

parties cannot modify the device to 

operate in a manner inconsistent with 

the rules and protection criteria set forth 

in this section and to ensure that 

communications between geofenced 

very low power access points and 

geofencing systems are secure to prevent 

corruption or unauthorized interception 

of data. 

(6) A geofenced very low power 

access point must include an internal 

geo-location capability to automatically 

determine the geofenced very low 

power access point’s geographic 

coordinates and location uncertainty (in 

meters), with a confidence level of 95%. 

(i) The geofenced very low power 

access point must use such coordinates 

and location uncertainty when 

comparing the devices specific location 

to the exclusion zone boundaries. 

(ii) The applicant for certification of a 

geofenced very low power access point 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14035 

must demonstrate the accuracy of the 

geo-location method used and the 

location uncertainty. 

(7)(i) For centralized geofencing 

systems, geofencing system operators 

must provide continuous service to all 

very low power devices for which it has 

been designated to provide service. If a 

geofencing system ceases operation, the 

operator must provide at least 30-days’ 

notice to the Commission and a 

description of any arrangements made 

for those devices to continue to receive 

exclusion zone update information. 

(ii) For geofencing systems internal to 

the geofenced very low power device, 

the equipment certification responsible 

party must ensure that the device 

continues to be capable of receiving 

Commission database updates as 

required by this section. 

(iii) As required by paragraph (o)(3) of 

this section, devices that do not receive 

timely geofencing update information or 

timely Commission database updates 

necessary to calculate up-to-date 

exclusion zones must cease operating. 

(8) The geofencing system whether 

centralized or internal to the geofenced 

very low power device must ensure that 

all communications and interactions 

between the geofencing system and the 

geofenced very low power access point 

and/or all communications between the 

geofencing system and Commission 

databases are accurate and secure and 

that unauthorized parties cannot access 

or alter the database, the exclusion 

zones, or the list of excluded or 

available frequencies. Additionally, the 

geofencing system must incorporate 

security measures to protect against 

unauthorized data input or alteration of 

stored data, including establishing 

communications authentication 

procedures between client devices and 

geofenced very low power access points. 

(9) A geofencing system must 

implement the terms of international 

agreements with Mexico and Canada. 

(10) At the time that the geofenced 

very low power device receives 

equipment certification, the device must 

either have its geofencing system 

approved or specify an already 

approved geofencing system that it is 

using. The Commission may specify 

criteria for such approval, which could 

require test results to be submitted. 

(11) Each geofencing system and 

operator thereof for centralized systems 

and the equipment certification 

responsible party for systems internal to 

the geofenced very low power device 

must: 

(i) Ensure that a regularly updated 

geofencing system database that 

contains the information described in 

this section, including incumbent’s 

information and geofenced very low 

power access points authorization 

parameters, is maintained. 

(ii) Respond in a timely manner to 

verify, correct, or remove, as 

appropriate, data in the event that the 

Commission or a party presents a claim 

of inaccuracies in the geofencing 

system. 

(iii) Establish and follow protocols to 

comply with enforcement instructions 

from the Commission, including 

discontinuance of geofenced very low 

power access point operations on 

specified frequencies in designated 

geographic areas and predetermined 

exclusion zones. 

(iv) Comply with instructions from 

the Commission to adjust exclusion 

zones to more accurately reflect the 

potential for harmful interference. 

(12) A geofencing system operator 

may charge fees for providing service. 

The Commission may, upon request, 

review the fees and can require changes 

to those fees if the Commission finds 

them to be unreasonable. 

(p) Incumbent protection by 

geofencing system. A very low power 

access point or very low power client 

device must not cause harmful 

interference to fixed microwave services 

and Broadcast Auxiliary Service and 

Cable Television Relay Service receive 

sites authorized to operate in the 5.925– 

7.125 GHz bands. Based on the criteria 

set forth below, a geofencing system 

must establish location and frequencybased exclusion zones around fixed 

microwave receivers, fixed Broadcast 

Auxiliary Service receive sites, and 

fixed Cable Television Relay Service 

receive sites operating in the 5.925– 

7.125 GHz bands. Individual very low 

power access points and their associated 

client devices must not operate cochannel to the frequencies licensed for 

fixed microwave systems, fixed 

Broadcast Auxiliary Service receive 

sites, and fixed Cable Television Relay 

Service sites within an exclusion zone. 

(1) Geofencing systems must use the 

following propagation models to 

determine exclusion zones for very low 

power access points. For a separation 

distance between geofenced very low 

power devices and fixed microwave 

receive sites, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary 

Service receive sites, or fixed Cable 

Television Relay Service receive sites. 

(i) Up to 30 meters, the geofencing 

system must use the free space path-loss 

model. 

(ii) More than 30 meters and up to 

and including one kilometer, the 

geofencing system must use the 

Wireless World Initiative New Radio 

phase II (WINNER II) model. The 

geofencing system must use site-specific 

information, including buildings and 

terrain data, for determining the line-ofsight/non-line-of-sight path component 

in the WINNER II model, where such 

data are available. For evaluating paths 

where such data are not available, the 

geofencing system must use a 

probabilistic model combining the lineof-sight path and non-line-of-sight path 

into a single path-loss as follows: 

Equation 3 to paragraph (p)(2)(ii) 

Path-loss (L) = Si P(i) * Li = PLOS * LLOS

+ PNLOS * LNLOS; 

Where: 

PLOS is the probability of line-of-sight; 

LLOS is the line-of-sight path loss; 

PNLOS is the probability of non-line-of sight; 

LNLOS is the non-line-of-sight path loss; and 

L is the combined path loss. 

(iii) The WINNER II path loss models 

include a formula to determine PLOS as 

a function of antenna heights and 

distance. PNLOS is equal to (1¥PLOS). 

(iv) In all cases, the geofencing system 

will use the correct WINNER II 

parameters to match the morphology of 

the path between a very low power 

access point and a fixed microwave 

receiver, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary 

Service receiver, or fixed Cable 

Television Relay Service receiver (i.e., 

Urban, Suburban, or Rural). 

(v) More than one kilometer, the 

geofencing system must use Irregular 

Terrain Model (ITM) combined with the 

appropriate clutter model. To account 

for the effects of clutter, such as 

buildings and foliage, the geofencing 

system must combine the ITM with the 

ITU–R P.2108–0 (06/2017) clutter model 

for urban and suburban environments 

and the ITU–R P.452–16 (07/2015) 

clutter model for rural environments. 

The geofencing system should use the 

most appropriate clutter category for the 

local morphology when using ITU–R 

P.452–16. However, if detailed local 

information is not available, the 

‘‘Village Centre’’ clutter category should 

be used. The geofencing system must 

use 1 arc-second digital elevation terrain 

data and, for locations where such data 

are not available, the most granular 

available digital elevation terrain data. 

(vi) Geofencing systems may include 

up to 4 dB additional loss to account for 

losses due to scattering and absorption 

from a nearby body or object. 

(vii) Geofencing systems may 

calculate exclusion zones based on a 1.5 

meter very low power access point 

antenna height above ground level, 

regardless of the actual antenna height 

above ground level. 

(2) The geofencing system must use 

¥6 dB I/N as the interference protection 

criteria when calculating the exclusion 

zones where I (interference) is the coVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Feb 23, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM 26FEP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14036 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

channel signal from the very low power 

access point at the fixed microwave 

service receiver, fixed Broadcast 

Auxiliary Service receiver, or fixed 

Cable Television Relay Service receiver 

and N (noise) is background noise level 

at the fixed microwave service receiver, 

fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service 

receiver, or fixed Cable Television Relay 

Service receiver. 

(q) Incumbent Protection by 

Geofencing System: Radio Astronomy 

Services. (1) The geofencing system 

must enforce exclusion zones to the 

following radio observatories that 

observe between 6650–6675.2 MHz: 

Arecibo Observatory, the Green Bank 

Observatory, the Very Large Array 

(VLA), the 10 Stations of the Very Long 

Baseline Array (VLBA), the Owens 

Valley Radio Observatory, and the Allen 

Telescope Array. 

(2) The exclusion zone sizes are based 

on the radio line-of-sight and 

determined using 4/3 earth curvature 

and the following formula: 

Equation 4 to paragraph (q)(2) 

dkm_los = 4.12*(sqrt(Htx) + sqrt(Hrx)) 

Where: 

Htx is the height of the very low power 

access point and is set at 1.5 meters 

above ground level; and 

Hrx is the height of the radio astronomy 

antenna in meters above ground level. 

(3) Coordinate locations of the radio 

observatories are listed in 

§ 2.106(c)(131), (c)(385) of this part. 

(r) Incumbent Protection by 

Geofencing System: FSS (space-toEarth) Earth Stations. (1) The 

geofencing system must enforce 

exclusion zones to protect FSS earth 

stations that receive in the 6875–7055 

MHz band at Clifton, TX, Cabo Rojo, PR, 

Wasilla, AK, Sebring, FL, and Naalehu, 

HI. 

(2) The exclusion zone sizes are based 

on the radio line-of-sight and 

determined using 4/3 earth curvature 

and the following formula: 

Equation 5 to Paragraph (r)(2) 

dkm_los = 4.12*(sqrt(Htx) + sqrt(Hrx)) 

Where: 

Htx is the height of the very low power 

access point and is set at 1.5 meters 

above ground level; and 

Hrx is the height of the FSS antenna in 

meters above ground level. 

Coordinate locations of the FSS sites 

are listed in the following table: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (r)(2) 

Location Coordinates 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°47′59.22′′ N, 97°36′46.71′′ W 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°48′2.149′′ N, 97°36′44.37′′ W 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°47′57.4′′ N, 97°36′47.9′′ W 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°48′0.1′′ N, 97°36′48.9′′ W 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (r)(2)— 

Continued 

Location Coordinates 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°48′3′′ N, 97°36′49.2′′ W 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°47′57.5′′ N, 97°36′44.7′′ W 

Clifton, Texas ..... 31°48′0.2′′ N, 97°36′44.3′′ W 

Sebring, Florida 27°27′34.3′′ N, 81°21′26.6′′ W 

Sebring, Florida 27°27′35.6′′ N, 81°21′26.8′′ W 

Sebring, Florida 27°27′35.6′′ N, 81°21′28.4′′ W 

Sebring, Florida 27°27′34.3′′ N, 81°21′28.3′′ W 

Wasilla, Alaska .. 61°35′24.9′′ N, 149°29′9.6′′ W 

Wasilla, Alaska .. 61°35′24.1′′ N, 149°29′6′′ W 

Wasilla, Alaska .. 61°35′24.6′′ N, 149°29′2.4′′ W 

Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico.17°58′48′′ N, 67°8′15′′ W 

Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico.17°58′50′′ N, 67°8′13′′ W 

Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico.17°58′49′′ N, 67°8′14′′ W 

Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico.17°58′48′′ N, 67°8′12′′ W 

Naalehu, Hawaii 19°0′51.99′′ N, 155°39′47′′ W 

Naalehu, Hawaii 19°0′52.99′′ N, 155°39′48.99′′ W 

Naalehu, Hawaii 19°0′51′′ N, 155°39′48.9′′ W 

[FR Doc. 2023–28620 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 240220–0053] 

RIN 0648–BM01 

Pacific Island Fisheries; Catch and 

Retention Limits for Striped Marlin in 

the Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

North of the Equator 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a catch limit 

of 457 metric tons (t) for Western and 

Central North Pacific Ocean (WCNPO) 

striped marlin caught by U.S. fishing 

vessels in the Commission for the 

Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Commission or WCPFC) Convention 

area north of the Equator and west of 

150° W longitude (the action area) and 

a retention limit of 443 t for U.S. fishing 

vessels with Hawaii longline limited 

entry permits. If the retention limit is 

projected to be reached, NMFS will 

prohibit retention of striped marlin 

caught in the WCNPO by Hawaii 

longline vessels for the calendar year. 

Action is required under MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Section 304(i) to 

address U.S. fishing vessels’ relative 

impact on this internationally managed 

stock, which is overfished and 

experiencing overfishing. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

by March 27, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule, identified by 

NOAA–NMFS–2022–0148, by either of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2022–0148 in the Search box, 

click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Sarah Malloy, Acting Regional 

Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp 

Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on https://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and 

NMFS prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) that supports this 

proposed rule. The EA is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov, or from the 

Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, 

Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, 

or https://www.wpcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Savannah Lewis, PIRO Sustainable 

Fisheries, 808–725–5144. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and 

the Council manage U.S. commercial 

fishing for Pelagic Management Unit 

Species (PMUS) under the Fishery 

Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of 

the Western Pacific Region (FEP) and 

implementing Federal regulations. 

Although the FEP indicates that PMUS 

have statutory exemptions from annual 

catch limits (ACL), the MagnusonStevens Act authorizes the Council to 

determine ACLs or other catch limits for 

PMUS if such actions are deemed 

appropriate and consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

statutory mandates. Magnuson-Stevens 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS