[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14015-14036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28620]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Mid-Band 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

[[Page 14016]]

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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to 
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc9a9f9fe9ece89cbabfbff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6a6f6f191c186c4a4f4f024b435a">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdf3d4ded5d2d1dcce93f2cfd2cefddbdede93dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd83a4aea5a2a1acbee382bfa2be8dabaeaee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55333636606561153336367b323a23">[email protected]</a> 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).
    <bullet> All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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 
``permit-but-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

[[Page 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

[[Page 14018]]

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 non-geofenced 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-to-everything (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

[[Page 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 non-geofenced VLP devices 
reduce the cost of compliance with the emission mask?

B. Geofencing System for Geofenced VLP Devices in the U-NII-5 Through 
U-NII-8 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

[[Page 14020]]

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., 
low-power indoor access points, standard power access points, other U-
NII band access points, commercial telecommunication carriers' 
networks, etc.) and very low power access points. 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

[[Page 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-of-sight/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 path-loss 
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

[[Page 14022]]

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[deg] 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-to-point 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

[[Page 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 up-to-date 
information to protect ENG operations at scheduled and unscheduled 
events? What information should licensees be required to file and what 
procedure would they use to get their information to the system? Should 
licensees be required to file or update information within a specific 
timeframe? What would be the burden on licensees for filing this 
information? Could the filing process be automated? 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 
contention-based protocol and low probability of a VLP device operating 
on the same channel in a nearby location. This proposal is consistent 
with the 6 GHz Order in which the Commission required that all 6 GHz 
unlicensed LPI access points, subordinate devices, and client devices 
employ a contention-based protocol. 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

[[Page 14024]]

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-to-space), 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 Mobile-Satellite 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 
out-of-band emission rules for 6 GHz unlicensed devices require such 
emissions to be suppressed by 20 dB at 1 megahertz outside of channel 
edge, by 28 dB at one channel bandwidth from the channel center, and by 
40 dB at one- and one-half times the channel bandwidth away from 
channel. center. 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 re-check 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

[[Page 14025]]

geofencing system database that contains the information required for 
geofencing systems by paragraphs (o) through (r) of proposed Sec.  
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-to-client 
device communications? How much and what kinds of additional usage 
would these proposals create in client-to-client operations? Would 
these proposals impose any additional costs to users of the associated 
spectrum?

D. Very Low Power Device Requirements

    50. In the 6 GHz Order, the Commission established that an AFC 
system require a device's geographic coordinates--along with the 
accuracy of

[[Page 14026]]

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 geo-location 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 re-check their 
location and speed at least once per minute necessary? Is the proposed 
information that applicants for certification of geofenced VLP access 
points must submit appropriate, or should any additional information be 
required? If so, what information? 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

[[Page 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 Wi-Fi 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

[[Page 14028]]

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 non-geofenced VLP devices, geofenced VLP devices, or 
both. First, emissions from both types of VLP devices will be lower 
than standard power and LPI devices; geofenced VLP access points and 
associated client devices are permitted to operate with no more than 1 
dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 14 dBm EIRP while standard power and LPI devices 
may operate at 23 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD and 36 dBm EIRP and 5 dBm/MHz EIRP 
PSD and 30 dBm EIRP, respectively. VLP devices operate at an even lower 
-5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD. Second, both types of VLP devices are mobile, 
generally operate close to the ground and in proximity to the body or 
other objects, are likely to be battery powered, and either operate 
pursuant to a geo-location 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 gate-
to-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?

[[Page 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 non-geofenced) and standard power and LPI devices, does 
the use of VLP devices on oil platforms pose the same risk of harmful 
interference to EESS operations? Could standard power, LPI or either 
type of VLP devices be used on oil platforms without causing a risk to 
EESS ocean temperature monitoring operations? 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 non-geofenced 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 in-car 
hotspot, that can only be used in a vehicle where due to the nature of 
use--within a vehicle cabin, generally in motion at high speeds--
different requirements regarding power or exclusion zones could apply? 
If so, are there requirements that could provide assurance that a VLP 
device (geofenced or non-geofenced) is, in fact, in a vehicle, such as 
having a connection to Carplay or Android Auto?
    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

[[Page 14030]]

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[deg] 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 omni-directional 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-to-interference-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 contention-based protocol, along with the 
low probability for co-channel operation, is sufficient to ensure that 
VLP devices detect nearby mobile BAS operations and avoid transmitting 
co-channel to protect those operations from harmful interference. While 
the Commission is

[[Page 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 contention-based protocol adequately 
protect mobile service incumbents in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands? If 
not, are there any other protection measures that could be used by VLP 
devices to protect mobile services? Is there a need to provide greater 
specificity in the requirements for a contention-based protocol used by 
VLP devices? If so, what particular requirements should be specified 
and why? What are the costs and benefits of requiring the use of a 
contention-based protocol?
2. Fixed Satellite Services
    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 
Mobile-Satellite 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 Mobile-Satellite Service feeder links and earth stations 
receiving at locations within 300 m of coordinates in Brewster, WA, 
Clifton, TX, and Finca Pascual, PR. 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 crash-avoidance applications that require 
low-latency, free-from-harmful-interference in the 5.895-5.925 band. 
According to the DoT Exhibit, testing shows that VLP devices operating 
within a motor vehicle and that comply with the 27 dBm/MHz OOBE limit 
will decrease the operational range of C-V2X receivers in the same 
vehicle by more than 50%. 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

[[Page 14032]]

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 in-vehicle 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 client-to-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-to-client 
operations.
    89. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should permit 6 GHz client

[[Page 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

0
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.

0
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:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  15.407 by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7) and (8) as paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and 
(ii);

[[Page 14034]]

0
B. Adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8)(iii);
0
C. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(12) as paragraphs 
(a)(10) through (a)(13);
0
D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(10);
0
E. Revising paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(5);
0
F. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(7);
0
G. Adding paragraphs (d)(8) through (10); and
0
H. Adding paragraphs (o) through (r).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  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 frequency-
specific exclusion zones where very low power access points and 
associated client devices may not operate on specified frequencies 
based on the propagation models and protection criteria specified in 
paragraph (p) of this section. The geofencing system must access the 
Commission's licensing databases and update the frequency-specific 
exclusion zones at least once per day to ensure that they are based on 
the most recent information in the Commission's databases.
    (2) Geofencing systems may be implemented using a centralized 
database or may be integrated into geofenced very low power access 
point devices.
    (3) A geofenced very low power access point operating under 
paragraph (a)(7) of this section must access a geofencing system to 
obtain frequency-specific exclusion zones for the area in which it is 
operating or intends to operate (e.g., within a specific point radius 
or within specific geopolitical boundaries) prior to transmitting. If 
the geofenced very low power access point moves outside this area, it 
must obtain additional frequency-specific exclusion zones for the area 
and adjust its operating frequency, if necessary, prior to operating in 
this new area. The geofenced very low power access point must obtain 
updated frequency-specific exclusion zones from the geofencing system 
at least once per day. If the geofenced very low power access point 
fails to obtain the updated frequency specific exclusion zones on any 
given day, the geofenced very low power access point may continue to 
operate until 11:59 p.m. of the following day at which time it must 
cease operations until it can obtain updated frequency-specific 
exclusion zones.
    (4) A geofenced very low power access point must determine its 
location and avoid transmitting on frequencies that are not available 
in accordance with the frequency specific exclusion zones. The 
geofenced very low power access point may not permit a client device 
operating under its control to transmit on frequencies that are not 
available in accordance with the frequency specific exclusion zones. 
The geofenced very low power access point must determine its location 
frequently enough that, based on its position and speed, it will not 
transmit on an unavailable frequency. The geofenced very low power 
access point must determine its location and speed at least once a 
minute.
    (5) A geofenced very low power access point must incorporate 
adequate security measures to prevent it from accessing geofencing 
systems and geofencing methods not approved by the FCC and to ensure 
that unauthorized parties cannot modify the device to operate in a 
manner inconsistent with the rules and protection criteria set forth in 
this section and to ensure that communications between geofenced very 
low power access points and geofencing systems are secure to prevent 
corruption or unauthorized interception of data.
    (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

[[Page 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 frequency-based 
exclusion zones around fixed microwave receivers, fixed Broadcast 
Auxiliary Service receive sites, and fixed Cable Television Relay 
Service receive sites operating in the 5.925-7.125 GHz bands. 
Individual very low power access points and their associated client 
devices must not operate co-channel to the frequencies licensed for 
fixed microwave systems, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service receive 
sites, and fixed Cable Television Relay Service sites within an 
exclusion zone.
    (1) Geofencing systems must use the following propagation models to 
determine exclusion zones for very low power access points. For a 
separation distance between geofenced very low power devices and fixed 
microwave receive sites, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service receive 
sites, or fixed Cable Television Relay Service receive sites.
    (i) Up to 30 meters, the geofencing system must use the free space 
path-loss model.
    (ii) More than 30 meters and up to and including one kilometer, the 
geofencing system must use the Wireless World Initiative New Radio 
phase II (WINNER II) model. The geofencing system must use site-
specific information, including buildings and terrain data, for 
determining the line-of-sight/non-line-of-sight path component in the 
WINNER II model, where such data are available. For evaluating paths 
where such data are not available, the geofencing system must use a 
probabilistic model combining the line-of-sight path and non-line-of-
sight path into a single path-loss as follows:

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

Path-loss (L) = [Sigma]<INF>i</INF> P(i) * L<INF>i</INF> = 
P<INF>LOS</INF> * L<INF>LOS</INF> + P<INF>NLOS</INF> * 
L<INF>NLOS</INF>;

Where:

P<INF>LOS</INF> is the probability of line-of-sight;
L<INF>LOS</INF> is the line-of-sight path loss;
P<INF>NLOS</INF> is the probability of non-line-of sight;
L<INF>NLOS</INF> 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 
P<INF>LOS</INF> as a function of antenna heights and distance. 
P<INF>NLOS</INF> is equal to (1-P<INF>LOS</INF>).
    (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 co-

[[Page 14036]]

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 
Sec.  2.106(c)(131), (c)(385) of this part.
    (r) Incumbent Protection by Geofencing System: FSS (space-to-Earth) 
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[deg]47'59.22'' N,
                                        97[deg]36'46.71'' W
Clifton, Texas.......................  31[deg]48'2.149'' N,
                                        97[deg]36'44.37'' W
Clifton, Texas.......................  31[deg]47'57.4'' N,
                                        97[deg]36'47.9'' W
Clifton, Texas.......................  31[deg]48'0.1'' N,
                                        97[deg]36'48.9'' W
Clifton, Texas.......................  31[deg]48'3'' N, 97[deg]36'49.2''
                                        W
Clifton, Texas.......................  31[deg]47'57.5'' N,
                                        97[deg]36'44.7'' W
Clifton, Texas.......................  31[deg]48'0.2'' N,
                                        97[deg]36'44.3'' W
Sebring, Florida.....................  27[deg]27'34.3'' N,
                                        81[deg]21'26.6'' W
Sebring, Florida.....................  27[deg]27'35.6'' N,
                                        81[deg]21'26.8'' W
Sebring, Florida.....................  27[deg]27'35.6'' N,
                                        81[deg]21'28.4'' W
Sebring, Florida.....................  27[deg]27'34.3'' N,
                                        81[deg]21'28.3'' W
Wasilla, Alaska......................  61[deg]35'24.9'' N,
                                        149[deg]29'9.6'' W
Wasilla, Alaska......................  61[deg]35'24.1'' N,
                                        149[deg]29'6'' W
Wasilla, Alaska......................  61[deg]35'24.6'' N,
                                        149[deg]29'2.4'' W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico...............  17[deg]58'48'' N, 67[deg]8'15'' W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico...............  17[deg]58'50'' N, 67[deg]8'13'' W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico...............  17[deg]58'49'' N, 67[deg]8'14'' W
Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico...............  17[deg]58'48'' N, 67[deg]8'12'' W
Naalehu, Hawaii......................  19[deg]0'51.99'' N,
                                        155[deg]39'47'' W
Naalehu, Hawaii......................  19[deg]0'52.99'' N,
                                        155[deg]39'48.99'' W
Naalehu, Hawaii......................  19[deg]0'51'' N,
                                        155[deg]39'48.9'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-28620 Filed 2-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>