Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 14859 

For further information, please 

contact the persons listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Jane Nishida, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–05436 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 03–123, 10–51, 13–24; FCC 

20–161; FRS 17375] 

TRS Fund Contributions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) proposes to expand the 

telecommunications relay services 

(TRS) Fund contribution base for 

support of video relay service (VRS) and 

internet Protocol (IP) Relay to include 

intrastate, as well as interstate, end-user 

revenues from providers of 

telecommunications and Voice over IP 

(VoIP) services. 

DATES: Comments are due April 19, 

2021. Reply comments are due May 3, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 03–123, 

10–51, and 12–38, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see 

document FCC 20–161 at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC20-161A1.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Scott, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at: (202) 

418–1264, or email Michael.Scott@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

document FCC 20–161, adopted on 

November 18, 2020, released on 

November 20, 2020 in CG Docket Nos. 

03–123, 10–51, and 12–38. The full text 

of document FCC 20–161 is available for 

public inspection and copying via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 

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 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

§ 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. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The NPRM seeks comment on 

proposed rule amendments that may 

result in modified information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any modified 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish another notice 

in the Federal Register inviting the 

public to comment on the requirements, 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission seeks comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. Public Law 107–198; 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. In the NPRM, document FCC 20– 

161, the Commission proposes to 

complete the process of updating the 

mechanism for the funding of internetbased TRS. When the Commission first 

authorized use of the internet to provide 

TRS, it decided as an interim measure 

that all of the costs of providing 

internet-based TRS should be paid by 

contributors to the TRS Fund, based 

only on their interstate 

telecommunications revenue. In the IP 

CTS Contributions Order, published at 

85 FR 462, January 6, 2020, the 

Commission recognized that this 

‘‘interim’’ funding mechanism, which 

disproportionately burdens providers 

and users of interstate services, was no 

longer justifiable as a means of 

supporting one internet-based form of 

TRS—internet Protocol Captioned 

Telephone Service (IP CTS), and 

expanded the contribution base for that 

service to include intrastate as well as 

interstate end-user revenues. The 

Commission now proposes to expand 

the TRS Fund contribution base for the 

other two forms of internet-based TRS— 

video relay service (VRS) and internet 

Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay)—so 

that providers of intrastate voice 

communications must contribute to the 

TRS Fund for the support of these 

services as well. 

2. To conform the funding of VRS and 

IP Relay to the requirements of section 

225 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended (the Act), and to harmonize 

cost recovery for these services with the 

cost recovery plan adopted for IP CTS, 

the Commission proposes to expand the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TRS Fund contribution base for VRS 

and IP Relay to include intrastate 

revenues of telecommunications carriers 

and VoIP service providers for several 

reasons. 

3. First, the current funding 

arrangements were authorized as 

interim measures to speed the 

development of these services and were 

not intended to be permanent. Twenty 

years later, the primary purpose of these 

interim arrangements has been 

achieved. VRS has grown to be the 

second largest TRS program, and even 

IP Relay, with much lower demand than 

VRS, now accounts for more annual 

minutes than all state TRS programs 

combined. 

4. Second, the inherent inequities and 

limitations of the interim contribution 

arrangement for these services loom 

much larger today, given the current 

size of the TRS funding requirement— 

more than $1.6 billion for TRS Fund 

Year 2020–21. Nearly all of this amount 

is attributable to support for the three 

internet-based relay services—IP CTS, 

VRS, and IP Relay. IP CTS is projected 

to cost the TRS Fund approximately $1 

billion and is supported by all end-user 

telecommunications and VoIP revenues, 

with a contribution factor of less than 

1%. VRS and IP Relay, with projected 

expenditures of $575 million in Fund 

Year 2020–21, are supported by a 1.33% 

contribution only from interstate enduser telecommunications and VoIP 

revenues, with no contribution from 

intrastate revenues. By contrast, 

approximately 58% of IP CTS costs are 

funded from intrastate end-user 

revenues, and 75% of the costs of relay 

services provided through state TRS 

programs are funded from intrastate 

sources. 

5. The burden of supporting the $575 

million annual cost of VRS and IP Relay 

has widely disparate impacts on TRS 

Fund contributors, based solely on the 

extent of interstate usage of their 

services. In TRS Fund Year 2020–21, for 

example, providers of interstate-only 

services must contribute approximately 

1.33% of their annual end-user revenues 

to support VRS and IP Relay. By 

contrast, service providers for which 

only 42% of end-user revenues are 

interstate (the industry average) 

contribute only 0.56% of annual enduser revenues to support these services. 

And providers of intrastate-only 

services, of which there are at least 200, 

contribute nothing to support VRS and 

IP Relay, despite consumers’ use of VRS 

and IP Relay to make intrastate calls. 

6. Third, the recovery of VRS and IP 

Relay costs based on interstate revenues 

alone appears likely to cause distortions 

in the pricing of interstate and intrastate 

voice services due to inaccurate market 

signals regarding their relative costs. As 

the Commission has recognized in 

various contexts, applying artificial 

regulatory distinctions or other 

disparate treatment to providers of 

similar services may create unintended 

market distortions, which can reduce 

the effectiveness of competition in 

ensuring efficient pricing of 

telecommunications services. 

7. Fourth, the total amount of enduser revenues from which TRS Fund 

contributions can be drawn has been 

steadily decreasing over time, 

worsening the impact of the current 

funding arrangement on interstate 

service providers and users and 

increasing any existing distortion 

between intrastate and interstate service 

prices. Expanding contributions to 

support VRS and IP Relay to encompass 

intrastate as well as interstate revenues 

would strengthen the sustainability of 

these services. 

8. The Commission seeks comment on 

this proposal and its costs and benefits. 

Are there additional aspects of the 

current state of the VRS and IP Relay 

programs that support either altering or 

maintaining the current interstate-only 

funding mechanism? Are there 

differences between those programs and 

IP CTS, such that the interim funding 

arrangement for VRS and IP Relay 

should be retained, notwithstanding the 

facts stated above and the Commission’s 

2019 determination that the interim 

plan was no longer suitable for IP CTS? 

9. Legal Authority. Section 225 of the 

Act requires the Commission to ensure 

that both ‘‘interstate and intrastate [TRS] 

are available, to the extent possible and 

in the most efficient manner.’’ The Act 

directs the Commission to adopt, 

administer, and enforce regulations 

governing the provision of interstate and 

intrastate TRS, including rules on cost 

separation, which ‘‘shall generally 

provide’’ that interstate TRS costs are 

recovered from interstate services and 

intrastate TRS costs are recovered from 

the intrastate jurisdiction. Section 225 

of the Act also authorizes, but does not 

require, the establishment of stateadministered TRS programs and 

funding mechanisms, subject to 

approval by the Commission. 

10. The Commission believes it has 

statutory authority to include the 

intrastate end-user revenues of 

telecommunications carriers and VoIP 

service providers in the calculation of 

TRS Fund contributions to support VRS 

and IP Relay, to the extent that these 

services continue to be funded solely 

through the TRS Fund. Section 225 of 

the Act expressly directs the 

Commission to ensure that both 

interstate and intrastate TRS are 

available and grants the Commission 

broad authority to establish regulations 

governing both interstate and intrastate 

TRS, including TRS cost recovery. 

Congress expressly carved section 225 

out from the Act’s general reservation of 

state authority over intrastate 

communications, and responsibility for 

administering TRS is shared with the 

states only to the extent that a state 

applies for and receives Commission 

approval to exercise such authority. The 

Commission believes this analysis 

equally supports the Commission’s 

authority to adopt the same approach to 

funding an appropriate share of the 

costs of VRS and IP Relay from 

intrastate revenues. The Commission 

seeks comment on the above analysis 

and assumptions. Are there differences 

between the provision of IP CTS and the 

provision of VRS and IP Relay that 

could affect the Commission’s statutory 

analysis? 

11. Implementation. The Commission 

proposes to apply a separate 

contribution factor for VRS and IP Relay 

which is applied to all (interstate and 

intrastate) end-user revenues of each 

TRS Fund contributor, using a single 

contribution factor to determine the 

total level of support required for all 

three services from a contributor’s total 

intrastate and interstate end-user 

revenues. To implement this approach, 

the TRS Fund administrator would 

determine a revenue requirement for all 

three services, based on the applicable 

compensation rates and projected 

demand. Next, based on the total 

intrastate and interstate end-user 

revenue data reported by TRS Fund 

contributors on Forms 499–A, the TRS 

Fund administrator would compute a 

separate TRS Fund contribution factor 

for the three services, by dividing the 

revenue requirement by contributors’ 

total intrastate and interstate end-user 

revenues. 

12. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that implementation of this 

approach does not require separation of 

VRS and IP Relay costs, because a single 

contribution factor would apply to 

contributors’ total interstate and 

intrastate end-user revenues, regardless 

of the proportion of VRS and IP Relay 

minutes and costs that might be deemed 

interstate or intrastate. Accordingly, it 

would not be necessary to refer this 

matter to a Federal-State Joint Board, 

absent a state request to include VRS or 

IP Relay in state program offerings. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

implementation proposal and tentative 

conclusion. Is the above approach 

reasonable, equitable to all providers, 

and consistent with the requirements of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 14861 

section 225 of the Act? What are the 

costs and benefits of this approach? 

How should a state opting to include 

VRS or IP Relay in its state TRS program 

affect the Commission’s analysis? 

13. Are there alternative 

implementation approaches the 

Commission should consider? 

Commenters proposing an alternative 

approach should discuss the costs and 

benefits of their preferred approach. 

14. Inclusion of VRS and IP Relay in 

State Programs. To date, no state TRS 

program provides VRS or IP Relay, and 

the Commission believes that some of 

the same impediments to states 

administering and funding intrastate IP 

CTS may exist for intrastate VRS and IP 

Relay. 

15. The Commission nonetheless 

seeks comment on how the Commission 

should proceed in the event that a state 

requests certification to include VRS or 

IP Relay in a state TRS program. What 

modifications to the cost recovery 

method described above would be 

necessary to ensure that cost recovery is 

fairly apportioned and that TRS Fund 

contributors providing service within 

the affected state are not subjected to 

double payment of their share of 

intrastate VRS or IP Relay costs? Should 

the Commission refer such state 

requests to a Federal-State Joint Board, 

in order to make an appropriate 

determination regarding separation of 

intrastate and interstate TRS costs? 

16. Economic Impact. Expanding the 

TRS Fund contribution base for VRS 

and IP Relay to include intrastate 

revenues would likely reduce the TRS 

funding contributions that are passed on 

by contributing providers to users of 

interstate telecommunications and VoIP 

services, and concomitantly increase the 

contributions that are passed on to users 

of intrastate services. This broadening of 

the base on which TRS Fund 

contributions are made would tend to 

reduce any current distortions in the 

relative prices of intrastate and 

interstate services, increasing economic 

efficiency by more accurately signaling 

relative costs to purchasers, which in 

turn will generate more efficient 

provider investment signals. The change 

the Commission proposes would cause 

some one-off implementation costs, but 

with the exception of any repricing, 

most of these would be de minimis, 

since current TRS Fund administrative 

processes would be left intact. Any 

repricing costs, being one-off, are likely 

to be small relative to the ongoing 

benefits such repricing would bring. 

Thus, the Commission tentatively 

concludes the benefits of more efficient 

production and consumption would 

exceed any implementation costs of the 

proposed rule change. The Commission 

seeks comment on this. Broadening the 

base on which TRS Fund contributions 

are based also would ensure fair 

treatment of intrastate and interstate 

service providers and users in TRS 

funding and the long-term sustainability 

of the TRS Fund. This justifies the 

redistribution the Commission’s action 

would impose on interstate and 

intrastate service providers and their 

customers. The Commission seeks 

comment on this analysis. 

17. Compliance date. In the IP CTS 

Contributions Order, the Commission 

required intrastate carriers and VoIP 

service providers to contribute revenue 

to fund IP CTS starting with TRS Fund 

year 2020–21, to allow reasonable time 

for the Commission to amend relevant 

forms, for any carriers and VoIP service 

providers that have only intrastate 

revenue to register and prepare for 

submission of IP CTS contributions to 

the TRS Fund administrator, and for the 

TRS Fund administrator and Universal 

Service Administrative Company 

(USAC) to process such registrations. In 

setting that timeline, the Commission 

afforded seven months for these steps to 

be taken. If the Commission moves 

forward with implementing its proposed 

rule change, carriers and VoIP service 

providers that have only intrastate 

revenue will already be registered to 

submit contributions to the TRS Fund 

given the Commission’s earlier change 

to the IP CTS cost recovery rules. 

Nevertheless, the Commission will still 

need to amend the instructions for the 

relevant forms, and it would be 

administratively efficient to tie the 

compliance date to the start of new TRS 

Fund year. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether a similar timeline 

should apply to affected providers if the 

proposed rule change is adopted, or 

whether some other timeline would be 

more appropriate. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

18. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM. 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadline for 

comments on the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

Need For, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

19. In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposes to expand the TRS Fund 

contribution base for VRS and IP Relay 

to require contributions based on a 

percentage of interstate, international, 

and intrastate end-user revenues. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how it should proceed in the event that 

a state requests certification to include 

VRS or IP Relay in a state TRS program. 

Legal Basis 

20. The authority for the proposed 

rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2, 

and 225 of the Act, as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 152, 225. 

Small Entities Impacted 

21. If the proposed rule amendments 

are adopted, various categories of 

providers of telecommunications and 

VoIP services may have to increase their 

contributions to the TRS Fund, 

including Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, Telecommunications Resellers, 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite), and All Other 

Telecommunications. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

22. Because TRS Fund contributors’ 

intrastate end-user revenues are 

currently included in the contribution 

base for IP CTS, the Commission’s 

existing rules require 

telecommunications carriers and VoIP 

providers that provide intrastate 

telecommunications services to register 

with the TRS Fund administrator and 

submit contribution payments to the 

TRS Fund. The NPRM proposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements. 

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

23. If the Commission adopts its 

proposal to require TRS Fund 

contributions from intrastate end-user 

revenue to support VRS and IP Relay, 

the contributions required from 

interstate and international end-user 

revenue would be correspondingly 

reduced. As a result, while some small 

entities may be required to make 

increased payments to the TRS Fund, 

other small entities would experience a 

reduction in TRS Fund contributions. 

The proposal would not increase the 

total contributions required, and the 

additional costs incurred by some small 

entities would be offset by cost 

reductions for other small entities and 

by the benefits of appropriately 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14862 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

allocating the funding of the provision 

of VRS and IP Relay among all 

telecommunications carriers and VoIP 

providers. By including intrastate 

revenues in the contribution base, the 

VRS and IP Relay programs, including 

the providers and users, would be 

supported by a broader, more 

sustainable contribution base. 

24. The Commission seeks comment 

from all interested parties. Small 

entities are encouraged to bring to the 

Commission’s attention any specific 

concerns they may have with the 

proposals outlined in the NPRM. The 

Commission expects to consider the 

economic impact on small entities, as 

identified in comments filed in response 

to the NPRM, in reaching its final 

conclusions and taking action in this 

proceeding. 

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals 

25. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Individuals with disabilities, 

Telecommunications, 

Telecommunications relay services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend Title 47 

part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless 

otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. P, sec. 

503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

§ 64.604 [AMENDED] 

■ 2. Amend § 64.604 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(5)(ii) and (c)(5)(iii)(A) to 

read as follows: 

§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Cost recovery. Costs caused by 

interstate TRS shall be recovered from 

all subscribers for every interstate 

service, utilizing a shared-funding cost 

recovery mechanism. Except as noted in 

this paragraph, costs caused by 

intrastate TRS shall be recovered from 

the intrastate jurisdiction. In a state that 

has a certified program under § 64.606, 

the state agency providing TRS shall, 

through the state’s regulatory agency, 

permit a common carrier to recover 

costs incurred in providing TRS by a 

method consistent with the 

requirements of this section. Costs 

caused by the provision of interstate and 

intrastate IP CTS, VRS, and IP Relay, if 

not provided through a certified state 

program under § 64.606, shall be 

recovered from all subscribers for every 

interstate and intrastate service, using a 

shared-funding cost recovery 

mechanism. 

(iii) * * * 

(A) Contributions. Every carrier 

providing interstate or intrastate 

telecommunications services (including 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

pursuant to § 64.601(b)) and every 

provider of non-interconnected VoIP 

service shall contribute to the TRS 

Fund, as described herein: 

(1) For the support of TRS other than 

IP CTS, VRS, and IP Relay, on the basis 

of interstate end-user revenues; and 

(2) For the support of IP CTS, VRS, 

and IP Relay on the basis of interstate 

and intrastate revenues. Contributions 

shall be made by all carriers who 

provide interstate or intrastate services, 

including, but not limited to, cellular 

telephone and paging, mobile radio, 

operator services, personal 

communications service (PCS), access 

(including subscriber line charges), 

alternative access and special access, 

packet-switched, WATS, 800, 900, 

message telephone service (MTS), 

private line, telex, telegraph, video, 

satellite, intraLATA, international, and 

resale services. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–04484 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 12, and 52 

[FAR Case 2013–022, Docket No. FAR– 

2013–0022, Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AM69 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

Extension of Limitations on Contractor 

Employee Personal Conflicts of 

Interest 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

withdrawing the proposed rule to 

amend the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) titled: Extension of 

Limitations on Contractor Employee 

Personal Conflicts of Interest. The 

decision not to proceed with a final rule 

was made on the basis that the 

requirements of the underlying statute 

that directed consideration of a FAR 

change have been met. Accordingly, this 

proposed rule is withdrawn, and the 

FAR case is closed. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

April 2, 2014, at 79 FR 18503 is 

withdrawn as of March 19, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement 

Analyst, at 703–605–2868 or 

mahruba.uddowla@gsa.gov. Please cite 

‘‘FAR Case 2013–022’’. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

2, 2014, DoD, GSA, and NASA proposed 

to amend the FAR to implement a 

recommendation made by DoD pursuant 

to section 829 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(79 FR 18503). The proposed rule 

considered extending the limitations at 

FAR subpart 3.11 on contractor 

employee personal conflicts of interest 

to individuals performing any function 

that is closely associated with 

inherently governmental functions and 

certain individuals performing contracts 

for personal services. 

A decision was made not to proceed 

with finalization of the proposed rule. 

Because of the passage of time since the 

proposed rule was issued in 2014, and 

the fact that section 829 did not require 

any changes to the FAR, the FAR 

Council believes further consideration 

of any amendments to the FAR related 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS