Work-in-Progress Draft Report of the 

Internet of Things (IoT) Advisory Board 

(IoTAB)

August 18, 2023 Updated Pre-Read Draft
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 2 of 123

IoT Advisory Board Members

Benson M. Chan (IoT Advisory Board Chair), Chief Operating Officer, Strategy of Things Inc.

Daniel W. Caprio Jr. (IoT Advisory Board Vice Chair), Co-founder and Chair, The Providence 

Group

Michael J. Bergman, Vice President, Technology and Standards, Consumer Technology 

Association

Ranveer Chandra, Managing Director of Research for Industry and Chief Technology Officer of 

Agri-Food, Microsoft

Nicholas Emanuel, Head of Product U.S., CropX

Steven E. Griffith, Senior Industry Director, National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Tom Katsioulas, Chair, Global Semiconductor Alliance

Kevin T. Kornegay, Professor and IoT Security Endowed Chair, Morgan State University

Debra Lam, Managing Director of Smart Cities and Inclusive Innovation, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

Ann Mehra

Robby Moss, President and Principal Consultant, TGL Enterprises LLC

Nicole Raimundo, Chief Information Officer, Town of Cary, North Carolina

Maria Rerecich, Senior Director of Product Testing, Consumer Reports

Debbie A. Reynolds, Founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Data Privacy Officer, Debbie 

Reynolds Consulting

Arman Shehabi, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Peter Tseronis, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Dots and Bridges LLC
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 3 of 123

Contents

IoT Advisory Board Members ................................................................................................. 2

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5

2. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5

3. Background......................................................................................................................... 5

3.1. Charter and Scope....................................................................................................... 6

4. Summary of Recommendations of the Advisory Board ....................................................... 7

5. Methodology ......................................................................................................................22

5.1. Approach ....................................................................................................................22

5.2. Description of IoT in the Context of this Report...........................................................22

6. Commentary and Discussion Topics Related to IoT Adoption............................................23

6.1. IoT Technology ...........................................................................................................23

6.2. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Considerations .....................................................................23

6.3. Consumers (appliances, TVs, wearables, etc.) ...........................................................23

6.4. Smart Homes (HVAC, security, lighting, etc.)..............................................................23

6.5. Regulations.................................................................................................................23

6.6. Standards ...................................................................................................................23

6.7. IoT Personas ..............................................................................................................23

7. Cross Market and Development Topic Areas .....................................................................27

7.1.1. Overview..............................................................................................................27

7.1.2. Opportunities and benefits of solving challenges for each theme (for personas)..27

7.1.3. Barriers to those opportunities (faced by personas) .............................................27

8. Topic-specific Findings of the Advisory Board....................................................................28

8.1. Smart traffic and transit technologies ..........................................................................28

8.2. Augmented logistics and supply chains.......................................................................29

8.3. Sustainable and critical infrastructure .........................................................................29

8.4. Precision agriculture ...................................................................................................29

8.5. Environmental monitoring ...........................................................................................29

8.6. Public safety ...............................................................................................................29

8.7. Healthcare ..................................................................................................................29

9. Recommendations .............................................................................................................30

Key Recommendation 1.0: National Data Protection Framework ..............................................32

Key Recommendation 2.0: Standardize IoT Implementation.....................................................37
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 4 of 123

Key Recommendation 3.0: IoT Cybersecurity (including Critical Infrastructure).........................43

Key Recommendation 4.0: IoT Connectivity Improvement and Expansion................................51

Key Recommendation 5.0: Address Privacy Considerations for IoT..........................................55

Key Recommendation 6.0: Sustainable Infrastructure...............................................................57

Key Recommendation 7.0: Workforce.......................................................................................65

Key Recommendation 8.0: Smart Traffic and Transit ................................................................71

Key Recommendation 9.0: Augmented Logistics and Supply Chains........................................73

Key Recommendation 10.0: Precision Agriculture...................................................................111

Key Recommendation 11.0: Environmental Monitoring...........................................................115

Key Recommendation 12.0: Public Safety ..............................................................................117

Key Recommendation 13.0: Health Care ................................................................................118

Key Recommendation 14.0: International Considerations .......................................................119

10. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................120

11. References...................................................................................................................121

12. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................121

13. Appendices ..................................................................................................................121

14. Compliance Matrix........................................................................................................122
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 5 of 123

1. Executive Summary

[this will be drafted after other sections are complete]

2. Introduction

[this will be a greeting and introduction from the IoT Chair and Vice-Chair]

3. Background

In January 2020, the Congress enacted the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law No. 116-283). Section 9204(b)(5) of this act 

established the Internet of Things Advisory Board (IoTAB) within the Department of Commerce. 

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C., App., the IoT Advisory 

Board (IoTAB) was chartered in December 2021.

The IoTAB is chartered to provide advice to the Internet of Things Federal Working Group 

(IoTFWG). In support of the working group charter to develop a report to congress, the IoTAB 

will assist with:

• the identification of any Federal regulations, statutes, grant practices, programs, 

budgetary or jurisdictional challenges, and other sector-specific policies that are 

inhibiting, or could inhibit, the development of the Internet of Things; 

• situations in which the use of the Internet of Things is likely to deliver significant and 

scalable economic and societal benefits to the United States, including benefits from or 

to—

o smart traffic and transit technologies;

o augmented logistics and supply chains;

o sustainable infrastructure;

o precision agriculture;

o environmental monitoring;

o public safety; and

o health care;

• whether adequate spectrum is available to support the growing Internet of Things and 

what legal or regulatory barriers may exist to providing any spectrum needed in the 

future; 

• policies, programs, or multi-stakeholder activities that—

o promote or are related to the privacy of individuals who use or are affected by the 

Internet of Things; 

o may enhance the security of the Internet of Things, including the security of 

critical infrastructure; 

o may protect users of the Internet of Things; and

o may encourage coordination among Federal agencies with jurisdiction over the 

Internet of Things;
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 6 of 123

o the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of Internet of Things 

technology by small businesses; and 

o any international proceeding, international negotiation, or other international 

matter affecting the Internet of Things to which the United States is or should be 

a party. 

o The IoTAB shall submit to the IoTFWG a report that includes any findings and 

recommendations. The IoTFWG will be providing that report in its entirety to 

Congress.

The membership of the IoTAB consists of sixteen members and a chairperson (listed on the 

internal cover). The Secretary of Commerce appointed all members of the IoTAB and the Board 

has met on a regular schedule as necessary to complete the report .

[Additional text will share the objectives of the report, and what the Board foresees as the 

outcome after the conclusion of its efforts. (Mention that this report is intended to highlight ways 

that IoT can be expanded and strengthened in ways that will bring economic prosperity and 

other benefits to the Nation and the World with a focus on increasing competitiveness, 

economic prosperity, and national security. Also highlight topics for the federal working group 

including ongoing efforts).]

3.1.Charter and Scope

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) description, charter and scope

Scope and objectives of this report, and what the Board foresees as the outcome after the 

conclusion of its efforts. (Mention that this report is intended to highlight ways that IoT can be 

expanded and strengthened in ways that will bring economic prosperity and other benefits to the 

Nation and the World with a focus on increasing competitiveness, economic prosperity, and 

national security. Also highlight topics for the federal working group and highlight ongoing 

efforts)].

Note: Not sure this and the background info are needed
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 7 of 123

4. Summary of Recommendations of the Advisory Board

After the recommendations are compiled, this will be a text-based summary, at a high-level, of what the Board recommends.

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

National Data Protection Framework

Key 

Recommendation 

1.0

The U.S. should establish a framework or model by which data 

related to the Internet of Things may be protected and used to 

benefit all. The model would consider a schema for describing 

IoT-related data and methods for both use and protection.

--

Policy/Guidance

R&D

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.1

The federal government should facilitate/support the 

development of a National Data/Privacy Framework that 

clearly delineates the different aspects of data (i.e., machine 

versus personal) and how they should or shouldn’t be utilized 

in smart transportation technologies.

STT-R01

Policy/Guidance

R&D

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.2

The government should develop an IoT Privacy Framework for 

Innovation and Data Protection specifically tailored to the 

unique challenges posed by IoT devices.

PRV-R03

Policy/Guidance

R&D

Supporting 

Recommendation 

1.3

Conformance to any specific set of requirements should be 

voluntary.

Adjusted from: Keep IoT Product Certification Programs 

Voluntary. Conformance to any specific set of requirements 

should be voluntary.

CYB-R02

Tech Transfer

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.4

(Under review) The government should examine opportunities 

to use the notional IoT Data Framework to support and 

document privacy considerations.

Status?

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

1.5

Federal agencies can establish templates for clear and robust 

policies regarding data sharing and data usage involving third 

parties in the IoT ecosystem. Where practical, agencies can 

help to foster voluntary, industry-led adoption of such policies 

to enhance transparency leading to improved user trust in IoT 

devices and services.

PRV-R02

Policy/Guidance

R&D
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 8 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.6

The government can encourage and foster data policies that 

drive economic growth, such as through this framework.

This may 

overlap 

with SSCR19

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Standardization / Interoperability

Key 

Recommendation 

2.0

The Federal Government should establish methods to foster 

interoperability for IoT technology, including through the use 

of consistent models, protocols, and schemas.

--

R&D

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.1

The government should promote standards and protocols for 

IoT technology in supply chain management to provide 

assurance of interoperability, reliability, and security across 

various IoT systems and devices.

SSC-R02

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.2

Agencies can support research and industry-led standards in 

areas such as telematics and sensor technologies for 

autonomous vehicles. These standards should be based on 

high-level safety guidelines (perhaps as determined by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or another 

federal organization).

STT-R02

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.3

The federal government should promote and adopt industry 

led standards for minimum baseline interoperability and 

cybersecurity requirements for smart transportation 

technologies and corresponding transportation infrastructure 

(i.e., sensors in roads, cameras at intersections).

STT-R04

R&D 

Coordination

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.4

The federal government can facilitate and support the 

adoption of smart city and sustainable infrastructure 

standards.

Issues: This recommendation has some overlap with SUS-R05

SUS-R07

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.5

The federal government should promote the development and 

adoption of existing industry standards activities with respect 

to energy efficient, clean, and renewable energy technologies 

that are used in sustainable infrastructure.

Updated

SUS-R13

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 9 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.6

Agencies should advocate for the implementation and 

adoption of interoperable data standards for public safety IoT. 

May Issues: The recommendation needs clarity on the scope of 

devices to be addressed. More broadly every Board 

recommendation may need clauses to clarify included and 

excluded scope; this is a topic for the chairs to address.

PSF-R01

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

2.7

(Under Review) Agencies can promote and, if necessary, 

develop a protocol for data exchange standards for IoMT 

(Internet of Medical Things) for interoperability, and promote 

the adoption of these standards. Solutions might include 

protection for medical data in mobile apps and IoT devices that 

is similar to the current Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability (HIPAA) Act provisions.

Issues: Recommendation should focus on data interoperability 

as a goal, rather than data exchange standards as the means to 

that goal

This was discussed in May but not included herein: HCR-R03 

Enact HIPAA-like protection for users’ medical data in mobile 

applications and IoT devices. Consider medical data as a 

category for defined data protections. Issues: Need to clarify 

the scope of applicability and examine the potential for 

unintended consequences.

HCR-R02

R&D 

Coordination

Policy/Guidance

Cybersecurity

Key 

Recommendation 

3.0

The Federal Government should provide specific and 

consistent guidance for providers and adopters to ensure 

secure operations. While not the exclusive source of 

cybersecurity guidance, federal entities should continue to 

support NIST as a developer of outcome-based requirements 

that inform industry consensus standards, and industry as the 

developer of those standards.

--

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 10 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.1

The Federal Government should consider upgrading legacy 

federal owned or operated buildings that have inadequate 

security in their connected systems. 

CYB-R05

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Funding?

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.2

The government should strengthen cybersecurity measures 

focused on IoT across supply chain networks to address 

concerns around data privacy, security, and potential risks 

associated with increased connectivity and interdependence of 

IoT systems. 

SSC-R06

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.3

The government should prioritize broad and active industry 

engagement when developing and maintaining the 

government-sponsored portion of the U.S. national 

cybersecurity label for connected devices.

CYB-R01

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.4

The federal government should continue to support NIST as 

the developer of outcome-based requirements that inform 

industry consensus standards, and industry as the developer of 

those standards.

CYB-R03

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.5

The Administration should encourage Congressional support to 

deploy IoT cybersecurity labeling initiatives, including 

establishing incentives for manufacturers to participate.

CYB-R04

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.6

(Under Review) The Federal Government should update 

Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21) Critical Infrastructure 

Security and Resilience requiring a sector-specific Internet of 

Things (IoT) data strategy.

From May: Issues: More information is needed to resolve the 

relationship of sustainable infrastructure to critical 

infrastructure and smart cities.

SUS-R09

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.7

(Under Review?) The Sector Risk Management Agencies 

(SRMAs) should collaborate with sector partners and develop 

IoT performance metrics intended to strengthen critical 

infrastructure security and resilience.

SUS-R10

Policy/Guidance

Coordination
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 11 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Note: As SRMAs are associated with critical infrastructure 

sectors, the resolution of questions around the relationship of 

sustainable infrastructure to critical infrastructure is needed to 

resolve how this recommendation applies.

Supporting 

Recommendation 

3.8

(Proposed / Updated) The federal government should 

facilitate/promote and support the development of an 

overarching guideline framework developed in a multistakeholder process that more clearly distinguishes the major 

sectors of the IoT for use when dealing with concerns such as 

cybersecurity. This framework could include definitions for the 

major sectors of the IoT under which relevant overarching 

guidelines would apply. 

NEW

CYB-R06

Connectivity

Key 

Recommendation 

4.0

The federal government should expand and improve programs 

that ensure reliable and sufficient connectivity among and 

between IoT devices in all areas of the country. The 

government should further promote accelerated innovation to 

ensure improved communications by ensuring the availability 

of suitable and sufficient spectrum resources, the development 

of wide-area networking technologies, and enhancing 

interoperability. 

--

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Grants/funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

4.x

(Proposed) To promote continued U.S. leadership on spectrum 

policy, the government should continue to free up spectrum 

for licensed and unlicensed use via spectrum sharing and 

repurposing underutilized federal spectrum.

NEW

Policy/Guidance

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Supporting 

recommendation 

4.1

The federal government should consider increasing funding 

and accelerating implementation of broadband deployment 

across rural America.

Note: This was presented in the July meeting as Sustainable 

Infrastructure Recommendation 3.

PRA-R03

Grants/funding
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 12 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

recommendation 

4.2

The federal government should actively promote and support 

the adoption of satellite narrowband IoT systems for 

agricultural IoT, with the aim of improving connectivity, data 

collection, and decision-making in rural and remote agricultural 

areas. 

Issues: Government doesn’t usually play a role in harmonizing 

standards; possibly should be broader than satellite 

communications;

Note: This was presented in the July meeting as Sustainable 

Infrastructure Recommendation 4.

PRA-R04

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Grants/funding

Privacy

Key 

Recommendation 

5.0

The Federal Government should address privacy specific 

considerations for IoT. The successful adoption of IoT 

technology depends heavily on gaining the trust and 

confidence of the organizations, agencies, consumers, and 

others that will implement and expand its use. 

--

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Supporting 

recommendation 

5.1

Develop and implement a privacy transparency system for IoT 

devices, using the “U.S. Cyber Trust Mark” for business, 

government, and consumer data for Connected Devices and 

other transparency programs as a guide.

PRV-R05

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

recommendation 

5.2

Promote the implementation of Privacy-Enhancing 

Technologies (PETs) in IoT systems. PRV-R07

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

recommendation 

5.3

Use Plain Language in IoT Privacy Policies as part of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements per the Internet of 

Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020.

PRV-R01

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Sustainable Infrastructure
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 13 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Key 

Recommendation 

6.0

The Federal Government should lead in the adoption and 

integration of sustainable infrastructure and emerging 

technologies into the US economy and infrastructure.

--

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.1

The federal government should specify and utilize energy 

efficient and sustainable technologies into infrastructure and 

other projects that are funded in full, or partially, with federal 

funding.

Issues: May need to be reconciled or combined with 10.4.

SUS-R12

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding?

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.2

The federal government should consider new models for 

sustaining and support in considering project feasibility. SUS-R03

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.3

The Federal Government should establish an Emerging 

Technology (EmT) office within each of the federal agencies. 

Updated

SUS-R08

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.4

The Federal Government should establish a national Emerging 

Technologies Program Office within the Executive office of the 

President to ensure that the federal government, state, and 

local government entities can effectively plan, implement, and 

manage emerging technology initiatives across the United 

States.

Updated

SUS-R11

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.5

The federal government should consider the development of 

Smart City and Sustainability Extension Partnerships (SCSEP).

SUS-R01

Status?

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.6

The federal government should consider the specification and 

utilization of IoT and “smart” technologies into infrastructure SUS-R02

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 14 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

and other projects that are funded in full, or partially, with 

federal funding.

Issues: May need to be reconciled or combined with 6.1.

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.7

The federal government should encourage other models to 

help select adopting organizations sustain and support in 

evaluating project feasibility.

Maybe missing: SUS-R06: The federal government should 

consider offering grants to support smart city projects that 

target small and midsize cities and agencies.

SUS-R03

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

6.8

The federal government should facilitate and support the 

development and use of smart city and sustainable 

infrastructure reference models.

Issues: This recommendation has some overlap with 

Recommendation 2.4.

SUS-R05

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

recommendation 

6.9

The federal government should promote development and 

adoption procedures that accelerate and streamline planning, 

permitting, and interconnection aspects related to energy 

efficient technologies.

Updated

SUS-R15

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

recommendation 

6.10

Accelerate the promotion and adoption of procedures and 

methods to make the electric grid more reliable and resilient.

Updated

SUS-R16

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Workforce / Education

Key 

Recommendation 

7.0

The federal government should invest in and promote 

education and workforce. Workforce and education are broad 

topics. Specialized training programs could start as early as 

high school and include cybersecurity topics. Inclusion of yearly 

certifications is encouraged.

--

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Workforce

Funding
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 15 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

Recommendation 

7.1

The federal government should consider “student loan 

forgiveness” programs in exchange for providing critical 

emerging technology (IoT, data science, cybersecurity, etc.) 

skills to municipalities and agencies.

SUS-R04

Coordination

Policy/Guidance

Workforce

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

7.2

(Updated) The federal government promote Continuing 

Education, Professional Development, and Vocational Training 

for IoT Integration in Supply Chain Management.

SSC-R05

Coordination

Policy/Guidance

Workforce

Funding

Supporting 

recommendation 

7.3

(proposed) The federal government should invest and promote 

education and workforce development in smart transportation 

technologies.

STT-R05

Coordination

Policy/Guidance

Workforce

Funding

Supporting 

recommendation 

7.4

Develop educational initiatives that include IoT, targeting 

workforce development, and enhancing business, government, 

and consumer data privacy and trust.

PRV-R06

Coordination

Policy/Guidance

Workforce

Supporting 

recommendation 

7.5

The federal government should develop and facilitate 

programs and grants to reskill existing workers, train future 

workers across manufacturing, construction, and clean 

technology / renewable industries.

Updated

SUS-R14

R&D

Coordination

Policy/Guidance

Workforce

Smart Traffic / Transit

Key 

Recommendation 

8.0

[Smart Traffic/Transit recommendation text is still being 

developed.] --

Supporting 

Recommendation 

8.1

The federal government should consider developing programs 

and grants to allow underserved and less developed 

communities as well as rural areas to adopt smart 

transportation technologies.

STT-R03

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 16 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

Recommendation 

8.2

The Federal Government should provide overarching 

regulatory guidance for the drone industry. The Federal 

Government should also provide funding for the drone industry 

for additional research in order that existing technical 

obstacles can be overcome.

STT-R06

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Augmented Logistics and Supply Chains

Key 

Recommendation 

9.0

[Full recommendation for supply chain still being developed.] --

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.1

Establish a comprehensive national IoT strategy that outlines 

clear goals and objectives for IoT adoption in supply chain 

management.

SSC-R01

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.2

Establish and provide financial incentives to encourage 

businesses to adopt IoT technologies in their supply chain 

operations by reducing the initial investment costs and 

perceived risks associated with the implementation of IoT 

solutions.

SSC-R03

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.3

Federal entities can also help establish and foster publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) focused on IoT adoption to 

facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing between 

government agencies, businesses, technology providers, and 

academia.

SSC-R04

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.4

Promote international collaboration in IoT adoption across 

global supply chains to share knowledge, best practices, and 

resources between countries & regions, driving innovation & 

accelerating widespread adoption of IoT technologies in supply 

chain operations worldwide.

SSC-R07

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.5

The government should provide an intentional process to 

monitor and evaluate progress to provide assurance that IoT 

adoption efforts in supply chain logistics are on track, 

SSC-R08

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 17 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

effectively addressing identified challenges and opportunities, 

and delivering desired outcomes. 

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.6

The federal government should select the most appropriate 

mix of policies, incentives, and requirements to support 

sustainable and scalable growth in the domestic IoT 

manufacturing supply chain.

SSC-R09

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.7

The government should promote the development and use of 

standards for supply chain logistics, traceability, and assurance.

Traceability 

R01

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.8

Agencies should support creation of cryptographically strong 

architectures and infrastructure that enable supply 

provenance, traceability, and lifecycle management by linking 

HBOM, SBOM to the design & manufacturing processes and 

data into a foundation of trust enabling IoT services.

Traceability 

R02

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.9

The government should establish incentives for industries to 

adopt capabilities for tracing design, manufacturing, and 

supply chain workflows that cryptographically link parts, 

personas, and data to deliver traceable products and IoT 

systems that function as originally intended.

Traceability 

R03

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.10

As foundations of trust evolve and IoT devices are deployed, 

get connected to networks, and used in the field, the 

government should promote traceable and interoperable IoT 

ecosystems across value chains amongst devices, personas, 

and infrastructure. 

Traceability 

R04

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.11

Promote the use of digital threads among enterprises in 

disaggregated supply chains, to enable the creation of 

connected IoT value chains. Leverage digital threads of data 

across value chains to enable marketplaces of trusted data 

producers and data consumers.

Traceability 

R05

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 18 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.12

As digital threads and data platforms emerge, the government 

should incentivize the enablement and use of data 

marketplaces to increase visibility and economic growth with 

data enabled services while protecting proprietary IP and PII of 

stakeholders.

Traceability 

R06

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.13

The government should encourage Private-Public partnerships 

to finance a unified infrastructure for the digitalization of 

enterprise business processes including design, production, 

procurement, distribution, etc. to accelerate adoption of digital 

threads.

Traceability 

R07

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.14

To speed up the creation of connected value chains the 

government should promote PPPs that facilitate the adoption 

of end-to-end digital threads using consistent digitalization 

methods capturing receivables, processes, and certified 

deliverables.

Traceability 

R08

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.15

As digital threads drive growth of data among marketplaces, 

policies will be needed regarding data privacy, confidentiality, 

ownership, control, management, access, licensing, and trust 

for data use in applications, to minimize security risks and 

maximize economic value.

Traceability 

R09

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.16

As data produced in supply chains and during field use 

becomes the “new gold”, the government should raise 

awareness about the value of data marketplaces and 

incentivize the creation business ecosystems and data-driven 

networks of products, businesses, and value chains.

Traceability 

R10

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

9.17

Considering the rapid growth of AI, the federal government 

should assess the supply chain risks of intrusions and attacks as 

well as opportunities to speed up adoption, as AI will have 

profound impact risk management, security, resilience, and 

economic growth.

Traceability 

R11

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 19 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Precision Agriculture

Supporting 

Recommendation 

10.0

Develop a comprehensive national strategy for agricultural IoT 

to establish a clear vision and roadmap for the integration of 

IoT in agriculture, addressing current challenges, fostering 

innovation, and promoting long-term sustainability and 

competitiveness of the agricultural sector.

Issues: This recommendation needs refinement. While it is too 

generic, it could perhaps be combined with similar 

recommendations from other subgroups;

Note: This was presented in the July meeting as Sustainable 

Infrastructure Recommendation 6.

PRA-R06

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supplemental 

Recommendation 

10.1

The federal government should consider subsidizing the use of 

IoT in farms.

Note: This was presented in the July meeting as Sustainable 

Infrastructure Recommendation 1.

PRA-R01

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supplemental 

Recommendation 

10.2

The federal government should consider fully funding the 

deployment of a “farm of the future” setup in every land grant 

university nationwide. This nationwide test-farm IoT network 

should span different forms of agriculture, including, but not 

limited to broadacre, horticulture, livestock, and aquaculture.

Note: This was presented in the July meeting as Sustainable 

Infrastructure Recommendation 2.

PRA-R02

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Funding

Supporting 

recommendation 

10.3

The federal government should actively promote and support 

the adoption of Generative AI applications for agricultural IoT, 

with the aim of improving decision-making, optimizing 

resource utilization, and enhancing productivity in the 

agricultural sector through innovative and data-driven 

solutions.

Issues: Concerns regarding privacy, maturity of the AI 

technology; premature for government to “promote” use of 

this technology

PRA-R05

Coordination

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 20 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

Note: This was presented in the July meeting as Sustainable 

Infrastructure Recommendation 5.

Environmental Monitoring

Key 

Recommendation 

11.0

[Key recommendation text for environmental monitoring is still 

being developed.] --

Supplemental 

Recommendation 

11.1

The federal government should establish or encourage IoT 

environmental data repositories in support of open, available 

data. Promoting the open availability of data would promote 

research, improve transparency, and encourage proactive 

improvement by industry participants. 

ENV-R02

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Supplemental 

Recommendation 

11.2

The federal government should facilitate and support the 

research, development and deployment of low-cost air quality 

sensors. (Could we expand to additional types of monitoring?)

ENV-R01

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Public Safety

Key 

Recommendation 

12.0

[Recommendation text for public safety is still being 

developed.] --

Supporting 

Recommendation 

12.1

The federal government should create a stockpile of public 

safety IoT devices that is available for immediate access. PSF-R02

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement

Policy/Guidance

Health Care

Key 

Recommendation 

13.0

[Recommendation text for health care is still being developed.] --

Supporting 

Recommendation 

13.1

(Under Review) Raise Priority for IoMT to Healthcare Facilities’ 

Executive Leadership Teams HCR-R01

Coordination

R&D

Outreach/Engagement
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 21 of 123

Recommendation # Recommendation Description Subteam #s Legends

Personas

(Future)

May Issue: More research needs to be done on how 

establishing a Federal Chief IoT Officer would transfer to the 

desired outcome in healthcare organizations Note: I think IoT 

officer references have been removed.

Policy/Guidance

International

Supporting 

Recommendation 

14.1

(Proposed) The IoTAB strongly supports the voluntary 

public/private partnership that created the US Cyber Trust 

Mark.

NEW

Outreach/Engagement

Coordination

Policy / Guidance

Supporting 

Recommendation 

14.2

(Proposed) The government should create an international 

data minimization framework related to IoT devices, aligning 

with the NIST Privacy Framework principles.

NEW

Outreach/Engagement

Coordination

Policy/Guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 22 of 123

5. Methodology

5.1.Approach

Describe the approach taken – the regular meetings, sub-group approach, draft 

recommendations collected and discussed in the teams, the presentation to the Board for formal 

consideration and approval, integration into the report.

5.2.Description of IoT in the Context of this Report

Since there has been a great deal of discussion about defining IoT, we will simply describe what 

constitutes IoT for the purposes of this report and the recommendations. Observations and 

Commentary for Related Topics and Technology
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 23 of 123

6. Commentary and Discussion Topics Related to IoT Adoption

6.1.IoT Technology

What is the current state

○ Discussion of free open-source designs (goes to ease of implementation, but 

“wild wild west” of cyber, Intellectual Property, etc.)

○ Discussion of microcontrollers and microprocessors (goes to complexity, supply 

chain, etc.)

○ Discussion of connectivity (Wi-Fi, BT, 5G, LoRa, Matter, etc.)

○ Discussion of applications

What is the future state

○ Examine the use of current and emerging technologies (inclusive of Artificial 

Intelligence and the way data could be aggregated and combined from different 

technologies)

○ Identify as a Board what areas might also constitute a future state and how we 

might get there using possibly scenarios involving personas

○ How we look at future proofing the Report, so that it’s use extends beyond its 

initial release

6.2.Artificial Intelligence (AI) Considerations

6.3.Consumers (appliances, TVs, wearables, etc.)

6.4.Smart Homes (HVAC, security, lighting, etc.)

6.5.Regulations

6.6.Standards

6.7.IoT Personas

Brief background about the personas and their value in ensuring that the relevant and 

appropriate stakeholder groups are considered and, where applicable, included in the 

recommendations.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 24 of 123

● End users (consumers, enterprise, government, etc.)

○ Brief description of what this persona is, their “involvement” with IoT

● Implementers (integrators, installers, etc.)

● Channel (resellers, distributors, retailers, etc.)

● OEMs (those who incorporate IoT into their products)

● Technology/solutions developers (technology, apps developers, telecommunications 

companies)

Persona Categories

• Manufacturer

• Developer

• Implementer

• Administrator

• Operator

• Consumer

(Some slides are included in this initial version to illustrate content to be expanded on)
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 25 of 123
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 26 of 123
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 27 of 123

7. Cross Market and Development Topic Areas

Introductory text explaining the importance of the cross market and development topic areas. 

(Section 8.1 serves as an example to be iterated throughout the remaining subsections)

• Enhance and modernize the infrastructure for IoT (this can be related to things like 

connectivity, computing, power, legacy infrastructure, etc.)

• Create trust in IoT (security, privacy, transparency, data ownership, etc.)

• Supply chain integrity and resilience (in this case, Tom’s version of supply chain, and not 

Robby’s. We can put Robby’s into the industry-specific section).

• Develop, grow, and maintain a workforce to support the IoT economy.

• Address challenges of IoT in a global ecosystem and economy

• Develop government capability to support and sustain a IoT economy (this is where the 

emerging technology office recommendations come in. We could also put in the 

recommendations from sustainable infrastructure

• about government procuring IoT for its own use in its facilities, etc.). 

• Facilitate industry adoption (including govt, small business adoption and value 

realization of IoT. this theme can be moved to the topic specific section, if we think it is 

appropriate).

• Facilitate IoT technology leadership (R&D, etc.). This one could potentially be combined 

with 6 although 6 is about govt leadership. whereas this one is about facilitating industry 

R&D...

7.1.1. Overview

• Definition of this theme area

• Why is this important and why does this need to be addressed?

7.1.2. Opportunities and benefits of solving challenges for each theme (for 

personas)

• Description of opportunity/market characteristic, etc

• Examples of representative opportunities

• Summary of key representative ongoing industry/government/academia efforts in this 

area 

7.1.3. Barriers to those opportunities (faced by personas)

• Description of barrier and examples

• Who is impacted

• Impact/significance of this barrier (descriptive, or quantitative)

• Summary of barriers
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 28 of 123

8. Topic-specific Findings of the Advisory Board

[This section will provide topical details on the work and findings of the Board. These are 

presented in the order they were listed in Section 9204 with additional topics added thereafter. 

Section 8.1 serves as an example to be iterated throughout the remaining subsections.]

The Advisory Board explored the many areas described in Section 5(B)(ii) to explore, discuss, 

and consider “situations in which the use of the Internet of Things is likely to deliver significant 

and scalable economic and societal benefits to the United States. Discussions included 

presentations from speakers who brought a unique perspective in these areas, or who 

represented groups that are continuing research on similar topics.

8.1.Smart traffic and transit technologies

[text will be fleshed out – these are the bullets from Board meeting slides]

Systems- security, intelligence, monitoring, management

Hardware- traffic signals, cameras, sensors, off-road equipment, busses, trains, vehicles with 

varying levels of autonomy (drones, shuttles), Electric Vehicle (EV) charging equipment, 

micromobility

Software- route planning

Connectivity- Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X), 5G, autonomous navigation (edge and 

cloud)

Edge Computing (self driving vehicles)

Artificial Intelligence

Linkage to IoT AB Subgroup on Smart and Critical Infrastructure

Safety Applications

Improving Road Safety/Protecting Vulnerable Road Users

Use Cases

emergency vehicle traffic preemption

entering school or work zone 

pedestrian crossing ahead;

Support Functions
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 29 of 123

Package, Food and Medicine Delivery

Congestion Mitigation/Environmental Benefits

Orderly flow of traffic

Less time idling

Increase Productivity

Less time stuck in traffic

8.2.Augmented logistics and supply chains

8.3.Sustainable and critical infrastructure

8.4.Precision agriculture

8.5.Environmental monitoring

8.6.Public safety

8.7.Healthcare
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 30 of 123

9. Recommendations

The global Internet has rapidly progressed from a simple interconnection among a few 

computing centers to a ubiquitous digital environment that touches every aspect of our lives. A 

key part of 21st Century digitization is the continued IoT implementation within public and 

private-sector organizations.

The IoTAB recommends that the IoTFWG consider (and where appropriate, act to implement) 

the findings and recommendations below. The Board remains in place until [date] to clarify any 

points for the IoTFWG or to answer any questions about these recommendations.

[describe the fact that some of these recommendations are broad and cross-sector in support of 

national adoption. Others are topic-specific and are more focused on particular technical 

considerations, including many of the areas specified in the NDAA legislation.]

[describe that the first (seven) are broad, cross-sector recommendations, while the remaining 

are topic-specific and address the sectors specifically called out in the legislation.]
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 31 of 123

The global Internet has rapidly progressed from a simple interconnection among a few 

computing centers to a ubiquitous digital environment that touches every aspect of our lives. A 

key part of 21st Century digitization is the continued IoT implementation within public and 

private-sector organizations.

The IoTAB recommends that the IoTFWG consider (and where appropriate, act to implement) 

the findings and recommendations below. The Board remains in place until [date] to clarify any 

points for the IoTFWG or to answer any questions about these recommendations.

During discussions, seven topics surfaced repeatedly as areas that affected a broad range of 

IoT topics. Because this initial set represents cross-sector needs, the Board has described 

recommendations on those topics first in the report. The remaining recommendations are topicspecific and follow those cross-cutting discussions.

[Note: the Board has suggested the addition of visual icons / legends to highlight the types of 

recommendations being made. These are a starter set of icons that might be included before 

each recommendation as a simple cue. ]

Research & Development

Technology transfer

Outreach & engagement

Workforce/training

Coordination

Grants/funding

Policy/guidance
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 32 of 123

Key Recommendation 1.0: National Data Protection Framework

The U.S. should establish a framework or model by which data related to the Internet of Things 

may be protected and used to benefit all. The model would consider a schema for describing 

IoT-related data and methods for both use and protection.

Summary of Supporting Recommendations:

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.1

The federal government should facilitate/support the development of 

a National Data/Privacy Framework that clearly delineates the 

different aspects of data (i.e., machine versus personal) and how they 

should or shouldn’t be utilized in smart transportation technologies.

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.2

The government should develop an IoT Privacy Framework for 

Innovation and Data Protection specifically tailored to the unique 

challenges posed by IoT devices.

Supporting 

Recommendation 

1.3

Conformance to any specific set of requirements should be voluntary.

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.4

(Under review) The government should examine opportunities to use 

the notional IoT Data Framework to support and document privacy 

considerations.

Supporting 

Recommendation 

1.5

Federal agencies can establish templates for clear and robust policies 

regarding data sharing and data usage involving third parties in the IoT 

ecosystem. Where practical, agencies can help to foster voluntary, 

industry-led adoption of such policies to enhance transparency leading 

to improved user trust in IoT devices and services.

Supporting 

recommendation 

1.6

The government can encourage and foster data policies that drive 

economic growth, such as through this framework.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 33 of 123

An element of this IoT Data Protection Framework might include definition of specific 

information / data types, along with recommended starting considerations for protection. A 

similar model exists for federal information systems. NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-60, for 

example, describes several hundred types of information along with recommended 

considerations about the consequences of a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of that 

information. A similar model could be used for IoT-related data.

The framework would also support privacy-related considerations. During IoTAB discussions, 

the Board heard that privacy concerns inhibit adoption of IoT by consumers, so resolving trust 

concerns from potential users is an important objective.

The framework might provide states and local jurisdictions the ability to specify criteria, such as 

data retention or destruction requirements, anonymization methods, and guidance for effective 

data applications.

Supporting recommendation 1.1: The federal government should facilitate/support the 

development of a National Data/Privacy Framework that clearly delineates the different aspects 

of data (i.e., machine versus personal) and how they should or shouldn’t be utilized in smart 

transportation technologies.

Through engagement with key stakeholders (including vehicle manufacturers, infrastructure 

providers, and transportation agencies), the U.S. can lead by example in establishing practical 

use cases for data usage.

Example use cases include the following:

● Data from a Traffic Camera at an intersection could be used to determine who was 

responsible for an accident and allow for more efficient insurance claims.

● Data generated from a connected vehicle and its corresponding roadside infrastructure 

can be utilized to transmit basic safety information to the vehicle's driver such as 

entering a school or work zone.

● Emergency Vehicles and corresponding roadside infrastructure can generate data to 

preempt traffic signals so the vehicles can get to their destination sooner.

While the vast amount of data that would be provided will significantly improve safety and 

convenience, the criticality and sensitivity of such data requires adequate protection that can be 

specified through this new framework.

Implementation considerations: In conjunction with supporting a National Privacy Framework, 

the federal government should consider setting high-level policy guidelines for data ownership, 

retention and usage that includes specific guidance for data that has personal information. 

These guidelines should leverage existing legislative or regulatory language and provide 

incentives for state and local jurisdictions to adopt them. Creation of a model and guidelines for 

data ownership, retention and usage would provide states and local jurisdictions the ability to 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 34 of 123

develop criteria for how long data should be retained, how personal information should be 

stripped from any such data, and how to effectively utilize that data in their operations.

As the framework is implemented broadly, constituents could share lessons learned from pilot 

projects and successful case studies, further supporting training and education on proper data 

retention and usage procedures.

Potential barriers: Funding and resource constraints may hinder implementation of this 

recommendation since some state and local jurisdictions/agencies may not have funding or staff 

to effectively implement these programs. Coordination across multiple jurisdictions will be 

challenging, since each jurisdiction has unique and challenging circumstances, and many have 

existing or pending data protection and privacy legislation. 

Notably, it may be challenging to consistently identify and separate data that has personal or 

private information.

Supporting recommendation 1.2: The government should develop an IoT Privacy Framework 

for Innovation and Data Protection specifically tailored to the unique challenges posed by IoT 

devices.

[Ed. Note: The above recommendation (1.1) focuses on data protection but is not IoT-specific. 

The board could tailor that framework to include specifics related to the unique challenges 

posed by IoT devices. The framework would need to balance the need for data privacy and 

security with fostering innovation in the IoT sector - that makes it both complementary and 

separate from above. Notably, the framework would still need to be used as a voluntary 

guideline across any sector that develops or implements IoT. Doing so would provide a 

consistent, unified approach to Data Privacy and security in the IoT sector, reducing confusion 

and fragmentation for business, government, and consumers. This consistency would 

encourage innovation by providing clear guidelines and expectations for IoT device 

manufacturers, fostering a competitive and growth-oriented environment.

Implementation considerations: Considerations for this IoT model would incorporate lessons 

learned from existing privacy regulations, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), to create a more effective and efficient 

framework.

The team creating and maintaining the framework would need to implement safeguards to 

ensure that the resulting product remains adaptable and scalable to accommodate the rapidly 

evolving nature of IoT technology and the Data Privacy Landscape.

Potential barriers: The data protection needs of business, government, and consumers can 

vary greatly. The IoT Data Privacy Framework would need to achieve a careful balance among 

those considerations. The government would also need to identify the means of providing 

resources, guidance, and support to constituents for the adoption and implementation of the IoT 

Privacy Framework.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 35 of 123

Those creating this IoT Privacy Framework would need to ensure the means by which the 

model would be continually reviewed and updated to ensure it remains relevant and effective in 

addressing emerging Data Privacy challenges and technological advancements.

Supporting Recommendation 1.3: Conformance to any specific set of requirements should be 

voluntary.

There is general consensus that conformance to any specific set of requirements should 

continue to be voluntary. Market incentives continue to grow, and there is increasing interest in 

this program based on the participation by industry, consumer advocates and academia. Further 

incentives from the U.S. Government will drive more participation. On the other hand, a pivot 

from voluntary cooperation to obligatory mandates may diminish support. changing the focus in 

industry from one of supporting development to debate over authority. Such a debate will likely 

stall progress despite current momentum in industry.

Implementation considerations: None identified

Potential barriers: None identified

Supporting recommendation 1.4: (Under review) The government should examine 

opportunities to use the notional IoT Data Framework to support and document privacy 

considerations.

Using the framework model, the nation could create a set of "data use" basics that could be 

included in privacy policies for IoT devices. These could, for example, be expressed in a similar 

way to how security considerations are listed in NIST SP 800-60 (as referenced above). 

Consistent understanding of the data produced by various technologies, including example use 

cases that describe the data implementation, could enhance consistency of data protection. 

That consistency may improve confidence in IoT products and foster adoption of more 

trustworthy technology since adopters will have a baseline of information on which to make 

decisions and comparisons.

Implementation considerations: None identified

Potential barriers: None identified

Supporting Recommendation 1.5: Federal agencies can establish templates for clear and 

robust policies regarding data sharing and data usage involving third parties in the IoT 

ecosystem. Where practical, agencies can help to foster voluntary, industry-led adoption of such 

policies to enhance transparency leading to improved user trust in IoT devices and services.

Such templates and policies are vital due to the significant privacy and data protection risks 

presented by IoT’s increased interconnectivity and data sharing capabilities. Since these risks 

may discourage IoT adoption, clear policies that safeguard users' personal data and ensure 

transparency would foster trust and expanded IoT use.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 36 of 123

Implementation considerations: The government should create guidelines on how to 

effectively communicate third-party data sharing and data use in privacy policies, in alignment 

with other recommendations from this report. Those guidelines and policies would be supported 

by public awareness campaigns to educate users about their data rights and to share 

information about how to properly share and protect IoT data.

Potential barriers: Some organizations, including those who rely on third-party data sharing for 

business operations, may not be fully supportive of restrictions on data sharing and data usage. 

There may also be challenges in aligning these policies with existing privacy regulations and 

international data protection standards. While such challenges are not insurmountable, privacy 

and data protection requirements vary greatly by region and can be difficult to reconcile across 

cultural and geographic boundaries.

Supporting recommendation 1.6: The government can encourage and foster data policies

that drive economic growth, such as through this framework.

Data policies can have a major impact on privacy, security, innovation, and monetization. 

Importantly, the lack of data policies can create uncertainty and hinder the growth of digital 

economies. Identifying opportunities to monetize data further enables business growth and can 

fuel synergistic ecosystems.

The federal government can apply policies to facilitate data protection, sharing, licensing, and 

analytics can minimize risk and maximize economic value.

Specifically, agencies should consider the potential impact of data policies and provide 

guidelines for data use and monetization. Citizens will benefit from the promotion of 

interoperability for data sharing, and from improved collaboration and information sharing 

among agencies and industry.

Implementation considerations: Implementation of this recommendation would include 

programs to promote the necessary infrastructure for data security and privacy, including 

aspects of data sharing, ownership, analytics and control. Agencies would need to establish and 

maintain data policies that ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, in consultation with 

industry, academia, and government agencies.

Potential barriers: Lack of knowledge about the data policies and resistance to change will 

likely both hinder adoption. Lack of data policy would hinder growth of digital economies, and 

even where policies are created, any lack of clarity on how data policies on confidentiality and 

security will impact stakeholders might result in reduced trust or effectiveness. There may also 

be challenges from costs of establishing the administrative and technical infrastructure needed.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 37 of 123

Key Recommendation 2.0: Standardize IoT Implementation

The Federal Government should establish methods to foster interoperability for IoT technology, 

including through the use of consistent models, protocols, and schemas.

There exist many standards today and there may be a better method for determining which 

standards should be used under specific conditions. In some cases, formal standards may be 

needed, such as those from a standards development organization or from a technical 

engineering organization (e.g., Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)). It is 

likely that wholly new standards and models will not need to be created “from scratch” but 

rather, industry collaboration is likely to advance existing communications and interoperability 

protocols that can rapidly be encouraged and adopted. The board highly recommends not to 

mandate any formal or informal standard or protocol, but rather to encourage voluntary 

conformance in the interest of improved interoperability.

Discussions at board meetings indicated that concerns about getting “locked-in” to a particular 

vendor’s proprietary technology currently act as an impediment to IoT adoption. No company or 

agency wants to invest in infrastructure that will rapidly become obsolete. Quite the opposite is 

true – in many cases, IoT infrastructure may need to operate for many decades. Parallel 

examples such as Wi-Fi (supported through IEEE 802 series technical standards) and cellular 

industry consortium standards demonstrate that interoperability and standardization do not 

reduce a vendor’s ability to innovate. Quite the opposite seems to be true – the ability for 

products to work together has great possibilities for both established manufacturers and 

newcomers. 

Before the government can foster specific standards, it may be helpful for one or more agencies 

to perform a survey of available and relevant standards, protocols, and models. Such a survey 

would be helpful, for example, if agencies wish to include open standards and consortium 

developed standards as part of the requirements for federal funded projects. Federal 

recommendations (or requirements) for a given set of standards will promote industry adoption 

and foster standardization. 

Supporting Recommendation 2.1: The government should promote standards and protocols 

for IoT technology in supply chain management to provide assurance of interoperability, 

reliability, and security across various IoT systems and devices.

Doing so would foster innovation and competition among all parts of the supply chain, simplify 

integration and maintenance for supply chain partners, examine the cybersecurity and privacy 

risks, scalability over time, provide cost savings, and potentially meet regulatory compliance.

By establishing a set of common standards and protocols, businesses can seamlessly integrate 

IoT solutions into their existing supply chain operations, facilitating data exchange, and enabling 

more efficient and informed decision-making processes.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 38 of 123

Developing industry standards and protocols involves collaboration between government 

agencies, industry stakeholders, technology providers, and researchers to identify the key 

requirements and specifications for IoT systems in supply chain management. This may include 

addressing issues such as data formats, communication protocols, security measures, and 

device compatibility, among others.

In addition, the government should promote the adoption of these standards and protocols 

through education and awareness campaigns, providing businesses with the necessary 

resources and guidance to successfully implement IoT solutions in their supply chain 

operations. By creating industry standards and protocols, the government can help to create a 

stable and unified foundation for IoT technology, driving its widespread adoption, and 

maximizing its potential benefits for businesses and consumers alike.

Implementation considerations: The range of stakeholders should be considered from 

diverse persona groups including businesses, technology providers, academia, government 

agencies. There should be a prioritization on critical areas first (e.g., exchanging data, device 

interoperability, security). There should be a focus on building on existing standards ahead of 

creation of new ones.

Potential barriers: There could be a resistance to standardization given the current landscape 

and multitude that exists. There could be fragmentation of existing standards and a resistance 

to creating more standards given the current landscape and multitude that exists. There could 

be cost and resource constraints and a considerably different landscape given rapid 

technological advancements.

Supporting Recommendation 2.2: Agencies can support research and industry-led standards 

in areas such as telematics and sensor technologies for autonomous vehicles. These 

standards should be based on high-level safety guidelines (perhaps as determined by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or another federal organization).

The autonomous vehicle (AVs) market in some respects is still emerging. AVs exist in states like 

California and Arizona, however in other areas of the country they are only found in designated 

geo-fenced areas like a university campus. It will be some time before these exist on current 

highways / streets that have vehicles with human drivers. Research is needed to determine how 

AVs will interact with these vehicles, with roadside infrastructure, and with pedestrians. In 

addition, research is needed to show how these interactions change in times of bad weather. 

Adoption of vehicle-related standards would promote improved safety and reliability through 

better vehicle and infrastructure communications and interoperability. Consistent 

communications standards will promote innovation as vendors work (and compete) to develop 

products and services that will work together. This increased production and adoption is 

expected to drive cost savings, further advancing adoption and benefits.

High-level safety guidelines will need to be finalized by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration as there are still open liability questions particularly regarding a determination of 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 39 of 123

fault in the event of an accident. Spurred by these guidelines, industry can develop appropriate 

performance and safety standards in a market that is still emerging while avoiding the possibility 

of market fragmentation. It’s important that all key stakeholders in the autonomous vehicle 

ecosystem participate in these safety discussions and standards development activities. 

Vehicle safety and data protection are key concerns in both the U.S. and international 

communities, so there will likely be extensive oversight and regulatory guidance needed in the 

short term. The benefits to be gained, including improved safety, convenience, and operational 

cost reduction are likely to largely offset the burden of regulatory conformance.

Implementation considerations: There should be inclusiveness to involve a diverse range of 

stakeholders including autonomous vehicle manufacturers, roadside infrastructure 

manufacturers, communication technology providers, software developers, academia, and 

government agencies. This ensures that the resulting standards and guidelines are 

comprehensive, practical, and aligned with the needs and priorities of all relevant parties.

There is a need to prioritize safety. Deaths from traffic accidents continue to increase and 

standards/guidelines need to address how these technologies can help to decrease these. 

There is a need to build on existing standards first such as leveraging existing industry 

standards and best practices as a starting point. In particular there is a need for how connected 

vehicles that have a human driver present should interact with transportation infrastructure.

There is a need to design standards and protocols such that they are flexible and able to be 

adapted with time to accommodate new technologies, emerging threats, and evolving industry 

needs. There must be encouragement and incentive for widespread adoption of standards and 

protocols through education, outreach, and support programs. And there is a need to develop 

mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with the established standards and protocols, 

including certifications, audits, and penalties for non-compliance.

Potential barriers: The autonomous vehicle market needs to have sufficient time to develop. 

There are technical challenges that exist in areas such as radar interference, driving in extreme 

weather conditions. Developing standards and guidelines too early may hinder its growth. AVs 

will require certain infrastructure aspects like clear lane striping and a means to charge if they 

are electric.

Developing and implementing industry standards and protocols can be resource-intensive, 

requiring significant investments in time, money, and expertise. There is a current lack of 

regulatory guidance and high-level guidance is needed from applicable government agencies to 

set the safety requirements for autonomous vehicles. The board notes there is still an open 

issue of liability concerns that needs resolution. There are also public concerns that warrant the 

need for consumer education on autonomous vehicle technology.

Supporting Recommendation 2.3: The federal government should promote and adopt 

industry led standards for minimum baseline interoperability and cybersecurity requirements for 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 40 of 123

smart transportation technologies and corresponding transportation infrastructure (i.e., sensors 

in roads, cameras at intersections).

Industry standards and protocols ensure that devices from different manufacturers can 

communicate and work together seamlessly. The federal government should promote and adopt 

industry led standards that provide minimum interoperability and cybersecurity requirements for 

smart transportation technologies and corresponding transportation infrastructure. In particular, 

smart transportation systems focus on safety, so standardization (especially for security and 

interoperability needs) is vital to ensuring that devices can communicate basic safety 

information to other vehicles and to/from infrastructure. 

There must be a way to address cybersecurity risks such that industry standards that describe 

minimum cybersecurity requirements of relevant technologies (i.e., having a unique set of keys 

for traffic controller cabinets) will help to provide implementing agencies some level of 

assurance that these risks are mitigated. Standards and protocols can set a path forward for 

subsequent government regulations or policies and are particularly relevant if industry led 

standards are attempting to address known gaps and market fragmentation issues. This is 

particularly important when dealing with multiple states and local jurisdictions. 

Standards can stimulate innovation and competition by providing a level playing field for 

businesses and developers as well, regardless of their size or market share. With a level 

baseline companies can now build upon it and tailor their own solutions. Standardization can 

lead to cost savings for businesses by reducing the need for customized solutions and 

simplifying the procurement process. There are likely some areas where adopting or promoting 

standards can occur more readily such as sensors in roads that can detect defects and traffic 

cameras at intersections. 

Implementation considerations: Same as Supporting Recommendation 2.2.

Potential barriers: Cybersecurity threats are constantly evolving, so standards and guidelines 

could be outdated rather quickly. There is concern over organization intellectual property (IP) 

whereas some organizations may have their own IP different from what’s described in a 

baseline standard and not want to participate in activities that would deviate or reveal their IP. 

There are also cost and resource constraints to developing and implementing industry 

standards.

Supporting Recommendation 2.4: The federal government can facilitate and support the 

adoption of smart city and sustainable infrastructure standards.

Smart city infrastructure relies upon IoT technology to consistently operate. The Board 

recommends that the Working Group address funding and implementation considerations for 

smart cities. For example, municipalities may not have the budget to modernize IoT solutions 

that better integrate with those in other cities. Therefore, the government may need to develop 

creative solutions to help local, regional, and state entities to future proof their infrastructure.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 41 of 123

Implementation considerations: Same as Supporting Recommendation 2.2

Potential barriers: There could be a resistance to standardization given the current landscape 

and multitude that exists. There could be fragmentation of existing standards and a resistance 

to creating more standards given the current landscape and multitude that exists. There could 

be cost and resource constraints and a considerably different landscape given rapid 

technological advancements.

Supporting Recommendation 2.5: The federal government should promote the development 

and adoption of existing industry standards activities with respect to energy efficient, clean, and 

renewable energy technologies that are used in sustainable infrastructure.

The federal government should consider interoperability to address the many technologies, 

some of which are proprietary technologies and the consideration for scalability over time. 

There needs to be innovation and competition, mitigation for any cybersecurity risks that exist, a 

way to save on costs through simplified procurement, a foundation for future policies through 

mechanisms of regulatory compliance, and the need to facilitate market entry. 

Implementation considerations: Implementation considerations include: encouraging 

inclusiveness, prioritizing identified gaps, building on existing standards, encouraging flexibility 

and adaptability, promoting adoption, global collaboration, procurement and grants, and working 

with the states. 

Potential barriers: Potential barriers include: that it may be time consuming and resourceintensive efforts to achieve consensus, there may be technological advancements, international 

harmonization may create more complexity and time, fragmentation may exist, and/or states 

may not all agree on adoption of standards.

Supporting Recommendation 2.6: Agencies should advocate for the implementation and 

adoption of interoperable data standards for public safety IoT. 

The proliferation of IoT devices without interoperable data will make it difficult to achieve 

interoperability the longer it diverges. In public safety, the interoperability of IoT device data will 

enhance incident responses and coordination among responder teams, providing safety 

benefits that would encourage the adoption of IoT. Solutions might include facilitation of 

adoption by funding grants for jurisdictions/agencies for procurement of interoperable IoT 

solutions. Support could also include development of education/training materials to help 

jurisdictions/agencies apply best practices for interoperability.

Implementation considerations: Compiling guidelines and best practices for entities from 

what currently exists as a starting point (e.g., NISTIR-8255:Interoperability Real-Time Public 

Safety Data, CISA SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, etc.), prioritizing solutions which 

adhere to interoperability guidelines in government contracts for public safety IoT (e.g., bulk 

purchase pricing a la General Services Administration (GSA) catalog). From a high level, the 

consideration of tax incentives that would encourage companies to implement public safety IoT 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 42 of 123

with interoperable data standards and the education and promotion of interoperable data 

guidelines for public safety IoT across different jurisdictions (e.g., local and regional).

Potential barriers: There may be barriers to prioritizing data interoperability when procuring 

public safety IoT devices include limited budgets but also lack of understanding of what to 

require, there may be resistance from jurisdictions and public safety agencies that have already 

invested in an IoT solution, and there may be resistance from industry manufacturers because 

of concerns about their proprietary solutions.

Supporting Recommendation 2.7: (Under Review) Agencies can promote and, if necessary, 

develop a protocol for data exchange standards for IoMT (Internet of Medical Things) for 

interoperability, and promote the adoption of these standards. Solutions might include protection 

for medical data in mobile apps and IoT devices that is similar to the current Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act provisions.

Data exchange standards for IoMT would result in data interoperability, which would result in 

efficiencies and provide safety benefits that would encourage the adoption of IoT. This 

standardization would support coordination among relevant stakeholders, including product 

manufacturers and healthcare organizations, to ensure widespread adoption.

Implementation considerations: As data exchange standards for IoMT are developed and 

refined, agencies could prioritize the (in federal procurements and government contracts) 

solutions which adhere to or implement those solutions. Simply promoting the benefits (e.g., 

improved interoperability, potential cost reductions, avoiding vendor lock-in) to the community 

and education for healthcare organizations could increase adoption..

The federal government could also incentivize (e.g., through tax incentives) companies to 

implement the IoMT data exchange standard.

Potential barriers: There may be some resistance from healthcare organizations that have 

already invested in an IoT solution, or from industry manufacturers because of concerns about 

their proprietary solutions and captive user base.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 43 of 123

Key Recommendation 3.0: IoT Cybersecurity (including Critical 

Infrastructure)

The Federal Government should provide specific and consistent guidance for providers and 

adopters to ensure secure operations. While not the exclusive source of cybersecurity guidance, 

federal entities should continue to support NIST as a developer of outcome-based requirements 

that inform industry consensus standards, and industry as the developer of those standards.

Until now, NIST’s role has been to develop recommended baselines and outcomes for the entire 

IoT ecosystem. Industry subject-matter experts have participated in developing requirements for 

their specific sectors that align with NIST criteria. NIST’s overall cybersecurity expertise is wellknown, as is that of the sector-specific experts. By tasking NIST with developing required 

outcomes, and industry with specific requirements to meet those outcomes, each side works in 

an area of strength. These roles are working and should continue.

Supporting Recommendation 3.1: The Federal Government should consider upgrading 

legacy federal owned or operated buildings that have inadequate security in their connected 

systems. 

By upgrading these buildings, they can set an example for private industry to follow. They could 

then promote conversion in other market segments such as industrial factories or power plants. 

Credibility and assurance can be provided to the private sector when the Federal Government 

leads by example.

Many government buildings are reliant on building control systems which provide the functional, 

operational, and safety needs of a building. These can serve as gateways for malicious actors 

who can take control of critical applications (including life and safety-related services) within a 

building (i.e., heating, air conditioning, physical access).

While such upgrades may be costly, it is possible that some of those costs could be offset by 

reduced cybersecurity insurance premiums and other fiscal benefits.

It is also notable that a great deal of data in an unprotected building control system may contain 

significant amounts of personal and confidential information.

Implementation considerations: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a program 

for Energy Star Building Certifications and there could be a similar program that addresses 

cybersecurity within a building. There are some efforts already underway within the commercial 

real estate sector that could be leveraged (https://buildingcybersecurity.org/). There are also 

parallels that could be explored such as the National Cyber Labeling Program for Consumer IoT 

versus Energy Star on appliances.

Implementation could occur through updated requirements, such as in the GSA Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR). 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 44 of 123

Owners of buildings used by federal organizations should, at a minimum, use basic cyber 

hygiene best practices (i.e., changing default passwords, segmentation of networks by using 

items such as firewalls, installing patches) as directed within requirements.

Potential barriers: Funding to upgrade the existing legacy base could be considerable. Also, if 

additional validation/certifications are needed for a particular building there is an additional 

upfront cost.

Building owners and managers may have limited knowledge of how to protect against 

cybersecurity attacks, especially in today’s fast-moving technical environments, so lack of 

knowledge (or insufficient training) may be a barrier to such updates. These considerations 

would also be quite different depending upon the facility in question. For example, a medical 

building may have different needs and associated risks from a commercial office building.

Due to the evolving threat landscape, there may be frustration with changing requirements. As 

the threat landscape is constantly evolving, concerns may exist if a building has been updated 

with cybersecurity systems and malicious actors can still gain access to it. This condition is 

often the case, though, and should not impede whatever improvements can be made.

Supporting Recommendation 3.2: The government should strengthen cybersecurity 

measures focused on IoT across supply chain networks to address concerns around data 

privacy, security, and potential risks associated with increased connectivity and 

interdependence of IoT systems. 

Since supply chain security concerns can be a hindrance to IoT adoption, security provisions 

will enhance competitiveness and innovation, and will reduce resistance to information sharing. 

A more secure supply chain will help to protect sensitive data and provide operational 

assurance, as well as supporting compliance with various security regulations.

Implementation considerations: 

The government can support better supply chain security through:

● Expanded research and development;

● Promotion of security-by-design principles;

● Allocation of resources to facilitate training and awareness;

● Encouragement of collaboration among industry stakeholders and government agencies; 

and,

● Improved maintenance of cybersecurity policies, regulations and best practices that 

adapt to an evolving threat landscape.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 45 of 123

Potential barriers: Agencies have limited resources for implementing and maintaining the 

improvements described. Further, the complexity of supply chain logistics, resistance to 

information sharing among supply chain participants, and an evolving risk landscape add further 

to these concerns.

Supporting Recommendation 3.3: The government should prioritize broad and active industry 

engagement when developing and maintaining the government-sponsored portion of the U.S. 

national cybersecurity label for connected devices.

As the NSC-hosted workshop (Oct. 2022) demonstrated, it is possible to establish a national 

label program quickly and at scale, provided existing ecosystem mechanisms are used.

Efficiently using these processes requires taking advantage of industry expertise. Continued 

industry engagement as the program is scoped, planned, and executed will be critical to the 

program’s success. Existing label programs vary; the more flexible the government can be in 

qualifying the process rather than dictating it, the better.

Process qualification should be outcome-based rather than centrally determined. These 

outcomes determine the need for trust mechanisms such as meeting the NISTIR 8425 Criteria 

and having industry-accredited processes.

The Administration should encourage Congressional support to deploy this program, including 

establishing incentives for manufacturers to participate. Increasing market incentives will be 

enhanced by introduction of the label program, but only if manufacturers participate. There is 

strong interest now, but the Administration and Congress can accelerate adoption with earned 

safe harbors, preemption of mismatched state laws for program participants, negotiation of 

mutual recognition or “equivalence” opportunity across borders and coordinate agency efforts 

with regard to consumer education.

Incentives may require legislation. However, there are a range of other options. Authorities of 

the responsible agencies may need adjustment.

Implementation considerations: Existing label programs vary; the more flexible the 

government can be in qualifying the process rather than dictating it, the better. Process 

qualification should be outcome-based rather than centrally determined. These outcomes 

determine the need for trust mechanisms such as meeting the NISTIR 8425 criteria and having 

industry-accredited processes.

Potential barriers: There may be a perceived advantage in defining a uniform U.S. government 

scheme rather than defining the necessary outcomes from various industry schemes.

Supporting Recommendation 3.4: The federal government should continue to support NIST 

as the developer of outcome-based requirements that inform industry consensus standards, and 

industry as the developer of those standards.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 46 of 123

NIST’s role has historically been to develop recommended baselines and outcomes for the 

entire IoT ecosystem. Industry subject-matter experts have participated in developing 

requirements for their specific sectors that align with NIST criteria. NIST’s overall cybersecurity 

expertise is well-known, as is that of the sector-specific experts. By tasking NIST with 

developing required outcomes, and industry with specific requirements to meet those outcomes, 

each side works in an area of strength. These roles are working and should continue.

Implementation considerations: None identified

Potential barriers: None identified

Supporting Recommendation 3.5: The Administration should encourage Congressional 

support to deploy IoT cybersecurity labeling initiatives, including establishing incentives for 

manufacturers to participate.

Participation in the U.S. cybersecurity label program began strong, but with the expectation that 

certain issues would be addressed over time. Manufacturers cite concerns over perceived new 

liabilities incurred by adding the label to the product, as well as concerns over the existing 

possibility of enforcement action by relevant agencies in the event of a device hack. Relief from 

this concern could be via an earned safe harbor provision. Other potential incentives include 

relief from a patchwork of state requirements via a federal preempt and a successful negotiation 

of mutual recognition of U.S. marks with other nations and the EU. Coordinating agency 

messaging to ensure “one voice” on these label and certification programs to the private sector 

is also important.

Increasing market incentives will be enhanced by introduction of the label program, but only if 

manufacturers participate. There is strong interest now but the Administration and Congress can 

accelerate adoption with earned safe harbors, preemption of mismatched state laws for program 

participants, negotiation of mutual recognition or “equivalence” opportunity across borders, and 

coordinate agency efforts with regard to consumer education.

Implementation considerations: Existing label programs vary; the more flexible the 

government can be in qualifying the process rather than dictating it, the better.

Process qualification should be outcome-based rather than centrally determined. These 

outcomes determine the need for trust mechanisms such as meeting the NISTIR 8425 Criteria 

and having industry-accredited processes.

Potential barriers: There may be a perceived advantage in defining a uniform U.S. government 

scheme rather than defining the necessary outcomes from various industry schemes.

Supporting Recommendation 3.6: (Under Review) The Federal Government should update 

Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21): Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience 

requiring a sector-specific Internet of Things (IoT) data strategy.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 47 of 123

Existing Presidential Policy Directives are outdated and should be updated to reflect the current 

risk associated with critical infrastructure reliability, resilience, security, and sustainability. 

Most of the critical infrastructure assets/systems are owned and operated by private sector 

entities, thus, requiring crucial conversations with said infrastructure owners/operators. The 

Board feels development of the language and context should include input from the National 

Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and Intelligence Communities. Once 

developed, the language could/should be shared with additional communities of interest/practice 

(e.g., North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), and national information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs)).

Continuous and comprehensive asset visibility is a basic precondition for any organization to 

effectively manage critical infrastructure risk. Accurate and up-to-date accounting of assets 

residing on federal networks is also essential. Implementation would include enhancing visibility 

into agency assets and associated vulnerabilities, focusing on two core activities essential to 

improving operational visibility for a successful cybersecurity program: asset discovery and 

vulnerability enumeration.

Implementation considerations: None additional

Potential barriers: Consensus on language and processes to update will be difficult to 

coordinate among key stakeholders, based on disparate missions and competing priorities.

The fact that most critical infrastructure assets/systems are owned and operated by private 

sector entities will require crucial conversations with said infrastructure owners/operators.

Supporting Recommendation 3.7: The Sector Risk Management Agencies (SRMAs) should 

collaborate with sector partners and develop IoT performance metrics intended to strengthen 

critical infrastructure security and resilience.

The expansive development and adoption of IoT assets and systems should map to IoT 

performance metrics intended to strengthen critical infrastructure security and resilience. 

Agency Chief Technology Officers and other officers and associated program offices could 

serve as the nexus for convening peer stakeholders. Performance metrics will need to be 

defined in conjunction with owners/operators of critical infrastructure assets/systems (both 

Information Technology (IT) and Operations Technology (OT)). The Board also recommends 

that the SCO in each agency will participate in a Community of Practice, like the Federal Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) Council format, which, in turn, will serve to convene officers across all 

agencies.

Supporting Recommendation 3.8: (Proposed Update) The federal government should 

promote and support the development of an overarching guideline developed in a multistakeholder process that more clearly distinguishes the major sectors of the IoT for use when 

dealing with concerns such as cybersecurity.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 48 of 123

This overarching guideline would serve as a reference tool to distinguish the operating 

environments for the major sectors of the IoT and how cybersecurity concerns or issues would 

be addressed in a particular sector. For the guideline to be relevant it needs to be developed in 

a multi-stakeholder process that is open and includes industry participation across the various 

sectors (i.e., consumer, industrial, healthcare, finance, transportation). This guideline would not 

necessarily define the major IoT sectors, it is better used as guidance when cybersecurity 

legislation or regulations are being considered.

An example of a high-level writeup that would be included in this guideline that targets the 

industrial IoT sector is provided below: The Industrial IoT or OT sector leverages existing 

cybersecurity standards such as the IEC 62443 series of international standards that define 

requirements and processes for implementing and maintaining electronically secure industrial 

automation and control systems. Industrial automation and control systems are used in nearly 

every industrial sector such as manufacturing, transportation, energy, and water treatment 

industries. There are also several conformity assessment and certification programs that exist 

for these standards. When legislative or regulatory language is developed targeting this sector, 

ideally it should reference these standards.

Justification:

The justification an overarching guideline that distinguishes the major sectors of the IoT with 

respect to cybersecurity concerns is provided below.

● Use/Scope: Consumer IoT devices are typically used for personal and home use, 

whereas Industrial IoT (IIoT) devices are used in industrial settings for manufacturing, 

transportation, energy, and other critical infrastructure.

● Utility: Consumer IoT devices are generally used for convenience and entertainment 

purposes, whereas IIoT devices are used for enhancing productivity, improving 

efficiency, and reducing costs in industrial processes

● Applications: Consumer IoT devices are used for a range of applications such as home 

automation, health monitoring, and entertainment, whereas IIoT devices are used for 

industrial applications such as monitoring and control of machinery, inventory 

management, and supply chain optimization.

● Impact: Cybersecurity breaches in consumer IoT devices may result in loss of personal 

data and privacy violations, whereas security breaches in IIoT devices can cause 

significant damage to critical infrastructure, including production downtime, supply chain 

disruptions, and safety risks.

● Life Support: Some IIoT devices such as medical devices and aerospace systems may 

involve human safety, and their cybersecurity vulnerabilities can lead to fatal outcomes.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 49 of 123

● Automation: IIoT devices are often automated and may interact with other machines and 

systems, whereas consumer IoT devices are interact primarily with their human users 

and other consumer IoT devices.

● Reliability: IIoT devices must operate reliably and continuously in harsh environments, 

whereas consumer IoT devices typically operate in more controlled environments.

● Privacy: Consumer IoT devices may collect and transmit personal data, and protecting 

user privacy is a critical cybersecurity concern. IIoT devices may also collect sensitive 

data, but the privacy concerns may differ based on the application.

● Interoperability: IIoT devices are often part of larger systems and must be interoperable 

with other devices and systems, whereas consumer IoT devices are often standalone 

and may not require interoperability (although there is a trend towards increased 

interoperability in certain scenarios)

● Scalability: IIoT systems often involve a large number of devices and must be scalable to 

accommodate growth, whereas Consumer IoT systems may be smaller in scale

● Regulation: Legislation or regulations that are developed targeting a particular sector do 

not necessarily apply across all sectors. IIoT devices may be subject to industry-specific 

regulations or are already heavily regulated (i.e., healthcare). Consumer IoT devices 

may be subject to general data privacy regulations.

● Attack Surface: IIoT devices have a larger attack surface due to their connectivity and 

may be vulnerable to various types of cyber threats such as hacking, malware, and 

ransomware. Consumer IoT devices may also be vulnerable to similar threats, but the 

attack surface may be smaller.

● Criticality: The cybersecurity of IIoT devices is critical for the operation of critical 

infrastructure, whereas consumer IoT devices may not be as critical

● Distinction: IIoT devices are starting to incorporate Consumer IoT devices (i.e., sensors, 

cameras) and the distinction between IIoT and Consumer IoT is blurring. 

Implementation Considerations:

● Multi-Stakeholder process: It’s critical that this guideline development has participation 

and representation across the relevant IoT Sectors. NIST could convene workshops 

similar to the process they use with respect to the Cybersecurity Framework (CSF)

● Use the CSF: The CSF guidelines could be extended to distinguish these major IoT 

Sectors. 

● Use Cases and Examples: For each Sector that the guideline addresses it needs to rely 

on existing information from the corresponding sectors (i.e., National Label Program for 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 50 of 123

Consumer Devices-Consumer Sector, FDA requirements for new internet-connected 

medical devices-Healthcare Sector). The guideline could also include examples from 

each sector of how they utilize best practices/industry standards to mitigate 

cybersecurity threats.Harmonization: The guideline could help to promote international 

harmonization.

Potential barriers:

● Resource constraints: Staff resources would be needed to put this together are likely 

significant.

● Coordination across government agencies: Having government agencies reference or 

point to this guideline could be challenging. Education and outreach would definitely be 

needed.

● Existing regulations/legislation/frameworks: Some states like California and other nations 

like Europe already have existing material and there would be a question of how this 

guideline would align with them.

● Evolving threat landscape: As the threat landscape is constantly evolving there are 

concerns with this becoming outdated and in need of updating.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 51 of 123

Key Recommendation 4.0: IoT Connectivity Improvement and Expansion

The federal government should expand and improve programs that ensure reliable and 

sufficient connectivity among and between IoT devices in all areas of the country. The 

government should further promote accelerated innovation to ensure improved communications 

by ensuring the availability of suitable and sufficient spectrum resources, the development of 

wide-area networking technologies, and enhancing interoperability. 

By definition, IoT technology must be able to internetwork through some physical, ad hoc/mesh, 

or wireless capability. While communications technologies (e.g., satellite, cellular, 

broadband/Wi-Fi, and other traditional licensed communications technologies) have expanded 

in both geographic scope and capacity to accommodate higher data loads in recent years, the 

capabilities are not unlimited. This condition is exacerbated by the fact that, in many cases, the 

very places where some IoT sensors are needed, such as for remote security and 

environmental monitoring, are locations with limited connectivity. Scalability represents another 

IoT challenge: the communications infrastructure must simultaneously support hundreds of 

billions of digital conversations.

The rapid evolution of communications technology in recent history demonstrates the significant

promise and opportunity for the nation to improve IoT connectivity. Current capabilities that were 

science fiction in the past are now routine in our daily lives. The U.S. must continue such 

advances to ensure that IoT can securely and reliably communicate and interoperate wherever 

devices are applied.

Supporting Recommendation 4.x: (Proposed) To promote continued U.S. leadership on 

spectrum policy, the government should continue to free up spectrum for licensed and 

unlicensed use via spectrum sharing and repurposing underutilized federal spectrum.

The government, through collaboration between the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has 

successfully identified a significant amount of under-utilized federal spectrum that could be 

made available for private sector use, including for IoT applications. This policy should be 

continued and should continue to support both licensed and unlicensed applications.

As has been noted, IoT applications are expanding and continued growth is expected.1

1 The 

technology industry uses both licensed and unlicensed spectrum to enable this growth. 

Spectrum availability should not become a choke point in this growth.

• Licensed spectrum usage through 5G (discussion of 5G)

• Whereas unlicensed spectrum typically (discussion of unlicensed) ...

1 Op cit the prior background discussion on billions of IoT devices in coming years.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 52 of 123

• A comprehensive report on U.S. unlicensed spectrum usage is available from 

https://shop.cta.tech/collections/research/products/unlicensed-spectrum-and-the-useconomy-quantifying-the-market-size-and-diversity-of-unlicensed-devices

Supporting recommendation 4.1: The federal government should consider increasing funding 

and accelerating implementation of broadband deployment across rural America.

A recent US Department of Agriculture (USDA) report reported that 60% of US farmland doesn’t 

have good Internet connectivity. While innovative solutions have expanded in recent years, 

point to point solutions and satellite-based connectivity quickly become expensive and do not 

resolve all issues. For example, it can be difficult to maintain connectivity to all areas of a farm.

The federal government currently offers limited funding and grants (ex. Department of 

Agriculture – Community Connect Grant Program) to help fund broadband deployment in rural 

communities, however, these opportunities have not advanced quickly enough to provide 

broadband coverage for certain areas of rural America. 

Implementation considerations: The U.S. should mandate broadband infrastructure 

deployment across rural areas until U.S. coverage is complete. Current federal funding operates 

across several programs making it difficult to identify and find the opportunities available to 

specific areas.

In some cases, network communications equipment could be installed if power sources were 

adequately available. For this reason, funding might include options for supplying energy 

sources such as solar power, wind power, or micro-hydro power where access to reliable 

electricity is limited.

Other connectivity solutions that federal agencies could explore include taking advantage of 

modern communications technology and protocols, such as 5G mobile broadband, fixed 

wireless systems, and low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites.

Potential barriers: Connectivity is improving every day, yet expansion may be limited if there 

are few eligible service providers in certain areas. It may be helpful to better understand why

some areas remain underserved, so agencies may want to review previous expansion efforts to 

identify lessons learned, both positive and negative.

Supporting recommendation 4.2: The federal government should actively promote and 

support the adoption of satellite narrowband IoT systems for agricultural IoT, with the aim of 

improving connectivity, data collection, and decision-making in rural and remote agricultural 

areas. 

Note: While the focus for this topic by the Board relates to agricultural needs, the opportunity 

applies to any IoT connectivity where devices are deployed in remote areas.

Satellite IoT systems provide a reliable and efficient means of connectivity and data transfer in 

remote agricultural areas where traditional terrestrial connectivity options may be limited or 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 53 of 123

unavailable. Encouraging the adoption of satellite IoT systems will enable farmers to optimize 

their operations through real-time data management, resulting in benefits for various 

stakeholders, including farmers, policy makers, agricultural companies, and consumers.

Encouraging the adoption of satellite IoT systems will enable adopters, such as farmers, to 

optimize their operations through real-time data management, resulting in benefits for various 

stakeholders, including farmers, policy makers, agricultural companies, and consumers.

Reliable and consistent support for such remote connectivity requires harmonization of 

standards for satellite narrowband IoT. The Board recommends that satellite narrowband 

solutions be explored and developed for specific applications such as agricultural applications 

and environmental monitoring needs.

Implementation Considerations: Harmonize standards for satellite narrowband IoT: This is an 

early stage tech, but having appropriate standards will help drive the ecosystem. For example, 

should sensors be allowed to communicate with IoT satellites from different providers? 

Establish a public-private-academia partnership: This partnership should involve satellite service 

providers, IoT technology companies, Agriculture data-platform providers, Ag Extension 

Centers, research institutions, and relevant government agencies. The goal of this partnership 

would be to support the development, implementation, and adoption of satellite IoT systems in 

agriculture. 

Define specific agricultural applications: Consider specific use cases for satellite IoT in 

agriculture, such as precision farming, crop monitoring, water management, livestock tracking, 

and supply chain traceability. Tailor solutions to address these specific needs to maximize the 

impact of satellite IoT technology in the agricultural sector. 

Develop financial incentives and subsidies: Provide incentives or subsidies to facilitate the 

adoption and integration of satellite IoT systems by farmers and agricultural businesses. These 

incentives could include tax breaks, grants, or low-interest loans to help offset the upfront costs 

associated with implementing satellite IoT systems. 

Promote education and training: Create educational programs and resources to help farmers 

and agricultural professionals understand the benefits of satellite IoT technology and how to 

effectively implement and use these systems. This can be achieved through collaborations with 

Ag Extension Centers, universities, and industry experts.

The role of states should be clearly defined, and funding for satellite IoT infrastructure and 

adoption may be allocated to states to manage and distribute. Incentives or subsidies for 

satellite IoT adoption and integration could be considered as part of the upcoming Farm Bill or 

other relevant legislation. There might be international coordination, along with spectrum 

considerations with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 54 of 123

Potential barriers: High upfront costs and limited expertise in satellite IoT technology may 

hinder widespread adoption. Additionally, effective collaboration between multiple agencies, 

stakeholders, and the private sector will be necessary to ensure successful implementation. 

Ensuring data privacy and security, as well as addressing any potential regulatory or licensing 

issues, will also be crucial factors to consider.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 55 of 123

Key Recommendation 5.0: Address Privacy Considerations for IoT

The Federal Government should address privacy specific considerations for IoT. The successful 

adoption of IoT technology depends heavily on gaining the trust and confidence of the 

organizations, agencies, consumers, and others that will implement and expand its use. 

IoT provides powerful benefits, as described above, but reaping those benefits requires placing 

sensors and devices in physical locations that can be highly sensitive and intrusive. While IoT 

promises exciting innovation and advancement opportunities, trust in that technology (and in the 

protection of associated data) by industrial adopters and other stakeholders is a key 

prerequisite. Trust considerations directly influence IoT adoption, including IoT devices’ safety, 

reliability, and ability to protect sensitive information stored and processed.

Supporting recommendation 5.1: Develop and implement a privacy transparency system for 

IoT devices, using the “U.S. Cyber Trust Mark” for business, government, and consumer data 

for Connected Devices and other transparency programs as a guide.

Implementation Considerations: Empowering businesses, governments, and consumers to 

make informed decisions about IoT devices based on their privacy features and practices. 

Encouraging IoT device manufacturers to prioritize privacy, fostering competition and innovation 

in privacy-enhancing technologies. Enhancing overall Cybersecurity and data protection by 

promoting greater business, government, and consumer data awareness of privacy practices. 

Considering input from privacy experts, industry stakeholders, and business, government, and 

consumer data advocacy groups to develop privacy transparency, including content and design. 

Developing guidelines and standards for privacy transparency, including required information, 

format, and or product information. And encouraging IoT device manufacturers to adopt privacy 

transparency and provide resources to help them align with the new recommendations.

Potential Barriers: Ensuring broad adoption and compliance with the privacy transparency 

system across different industries and sectors. Incentivizing IoT device manufacturers who may 

perceive privacy transparency as burdensome, costly, or restrictive. Balancing the need for 

comprehensive privacy information with simplicity and ease of understanding for businesses, 

the government, and consumers.

Supporting recommendation 5.2: Promote the implementation of Privacy-Enhancing 

Technologies (PETs) in IoT systems.

PETs support broader U.S. goals of leveraging technology for societal benefits and protect 

privacy while extracting valuable insights from the vast IoT data. The use of PETs fosters trust 

and promotes acceptance of IoT solutions. There is an alignment to responsible data use 

without compromising user privacy. The implementation of PETs can be used to prevent data 

breaches and associated legal issues.

Also there is alignment in existing proposals through the White House in the White House’s 

Advancing a Vision for Privacy-Enhancing Technologies proposal (June 2022) and the National 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 56 of 123

Cybersecurity Strategy Implementation Plan from July 2023 on Initiative Number: 1.2.1 Initiative 

Title: Scale public-private partnerships to drive development and adoption of secure-by-design 

and secure-by-default technology. 

Implementation Considerations: There are measures to ensure that there are robust security 

measures for PETs to prevent unauthorized data access. Conducting comprehensive technical 

and ethical evaluations of PETs before their adoption. There is a need to enhance public 

understanding and trust in PETs, encourage interoperability between different PET systems, 

and potentially establish a framework for monitoring the effectiveness and impacts of PETs in 

IoT technology.

Potential Barriers: Limited technical expertise to understand, implement, and manage PETs, 

possible resistance from private sectors due to perceived risks or costs, and the complexity of 

developing universally accepted privacy standards for IoT.

Supporting recommendation 5.3: Use Plain Language in IoT Privacy Policies as part of the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements per the Internet of Things (IoT) 

Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020.

The federal government should advocate for the simplification of IoT privacy policies, privacy 

notices, and data use policies to enhance accessibility and comprehension for users. Improved 

understanding of data privacy policies for users will lead to more informed decisions when 

adopting and using IoT devices. The creation of requirements for IoT providers will foster 

implementation of simplified IoT privacy policies for government contracts.

Because the expectations, requirements, and cautions will be better understood, the use of 

plain language may lead to increased compliance and will enhance public trust in IoT devices 

and related technologies.

Two areas of the Use National Cybersecurity Strategy Implementation Plan July 2023 align: 

● Initiative Number: 3.2.1 Initiative Title: Implement Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

requirements per the Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020

● Initiative Number: 1.1.1 Initiative Title: Establish an initiative on cyber regulatory 

harmonization

Implementation considerations: Develop guidelines and best practices for organizations to 

follow when simplifying privacy policies, establish high-level guidance for evaluating and 

assessing the readability of privacy policies, coordinate with relevant stakeholders, including the 

private sector and business, government, and consumer data advocacy groups, to ensure 

widespread adoption.

Potential barriers: Resistance from organizations that may perceive simplification as a 

limitation on their legal protections. Possible challenges in defining the appropriate level of 

simplification while maintaining accuracy and comprehensiveness. Monitoring and updating the 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 57 of 123

simplification guidelines to account for technological advancements and emerging privacy 

concerns.

[Ed Note: Privacy R04 – Include IoT in U.S. Federal Privacy Regulation Proposal – is not 

included and is being reviewed for potential addition.]

Key Recommendation 6.0: Sustainable Infrastructure

The Federal Government should lead in the adoption and integration of sustainable 

infrastructure and emerging technologies into the US economy and infrastructure.

Supporting Recommendation 6.1: The federal government should specify and utilize energy 

efficient and sustainable technologies into infrastructure and other projects that are funded in 

full, or partially, with federal funding.

The U.S. lags behind other nations in reducing environmental impact, such as by reducing 

carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. By requiring increased use of energy efficient 

technologies, the U.S. can make progress toward environmental goals.

Implementation might include adoption of building and energy codes that include language like 

automated demand response technologies, EV Read, EV Capable, etc.

Implementation considerations: Look at incorporating energy savings through performance 

contracts and examination of building energy use benchmarking. Adoption of building and 

energy codes that include language like automated demand response technologies, EV Read, 

EV Capable, etc. GSA FAR specifies energy efficiency requirements for procurement in federal 

owned and operated buildings.

Potential barriers: Funds such as high costs to scale conversion to energy efficiency. Supply 

chain issues (e.g., in distribution transformers, mining limitations for batteries, etc.) that 

manufacturing is trying to overcome. Legacy equipment and existing equipment (e.g., boilers, 

furnters, etc.) that have a long lifetime.

Supporting Recommendation 6.2: The federal government should consider new models for 

sustaining and support in considering project feasibility.

Grants offset acquisition and build, but many organizations lack financial means and resources 

to sustain operations and maintenance. Because of this constraint, projects either shut down 

after funds run out or some entities are discouraged from applying. IoT requires additional levels 

of support and resources that buyers may not have accounted for – software licenses, data 

maintenance, data analysis, for example.

IoT enables new business and operating models. Economic service models to assist could 

include extended funding for O&M for select applicants (i.e., rural, tribal, small towns, etc.), 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 58 of 123

encourage regional cost sharing for multiple cities in a region to apply as one, and encourage 

innovative models (i.e., corporate, sponsorships).

Implementation considerations: There are types of models - 1) Extended Funding –

extending funding for O&M for select applicants (rural, tribal, small towns, etc.). 2) Regional 

cost sharing – encourage multiple cities in a region to apply as one. 3) Innovative – encourage 

innovative models (corporate, sponsorships).

Potential barriers: Non-traditional and innovative models may be difficult to evaluate and track. 

IoT funding may be embedded into a broader funding package and not easy to separate the 

two.

Supporting Recommendation 6.3: The Federal Government should establish an Emerging 

Technology (EmT) office within each of the federal agencies. 

EmT is rapidly evolving, with transformational value, and unexplored opportunities. Emerging 

technology is broad (AI, IoT, quantum, etc.) and some agencies may have some existing EmT 

interagency roles. Agencies consider participating in a Community of Practice, like the Federal 

CIO Council format, which, in turn, will serve to convene EmT officials across all agencies. This 

recommendation is in parallel to the supporting recommendation (below 6.4) on establishing a 

National Emerging Technologies (EmT) Office. The aim should be to establish new and/or 

leverage existing FACAs to augment knowledge and expertise gaps and a process for defining 

what EmT is and a list of EmT should do.

Implementation considerations: Establish specialized capabilities (e.g., IoT, smart cities, AI, 

quantum, etc.), in each office. Use language specified in the Oversee Emerging Technology Act 

(S.1577, 5/11/2023) on advising on responsible use of emerging technologies; providing 

expertise on responsible policies and practices, collaborate with officials and coordinating 

bodies across the Federal government, and offer input for responsible procurement policies; 

and the identification of the official and provide a description of the official’s authorities and 

responsibilities to Congress.

Potential barriers: Agencies lack expertise on EmTs and the resources/capacity to implement 

an agency strategy, develop policy or other associated support, practices, programs and 

actions. There is limited EmT coordination between agencies that lead to uneven treatment, 

policies and siloed execution. 

Supporting Recommendation 6.4: The Federal Government should establish a national 

Emerging Technologies Program Office within the Executive office of the President to ensure 

that the federal government, state, and local government entities can effectively plan, 

implement, and manage emerging technology initiatives across the United States.

The US should lead in the adoption and integration of emerging technologies into the US 

economy and infrastructure. Currently a lack of coordination from the Executive Office leads to 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 59 of 123

siloed planning, policies, execution, suboptimal utilization of resources, duplicate programs, 

monitoring, thus limiting realization of economic, social, security and other values and benefits.

This office should be aligned with the Office of Science and Technology Policy to: 1) work with 

federal departments and agencies and with Congress to create bold visions, unified strategies, 

clear plans, wise policies, and effective, equitable programs for IoT and Smart Cities 

modernization; 2) engage with external partners, including industry, academia, philanthropic 

organizations, and civil society; state, local, Tribal and territorial governments; and other 

nations; and 3) ensure equity, inclusion, and integrity in all aspects of IoT implementations.

The specific roles, responsibilities and interactions with the EmT function in the federal agencies 

and with states should be identified. There is a need to establish new and/or leverage existing 

FACAs to augment knowledge and expertise gaps. The necessary coordination and integration 

with the NIST (FWIoT and Global City Teams Challenge (GCTC)) protocols should be in place ( 

i.e., IoT implementations involve the integration of multiple technologies, systems, and 

stakeholders).

Implementation considerations: Establish specialized capabilities (e.g., IoT, smart cities, AI, 

quantum, etc.), in each office. Consider alignment with the U.S. Chief Technology Officer role. 

Consider language specified in the Global Technology Leadership Act (S.__, 6/8/2023) for some 

of the functions, including:

● Identify technologies that matter most to US economic and national security

● Assess US capacity with each, including manufacturing, workforce, supply chain, capital 

access and R&D

● Evaluate technology leadership relative to other countries

● Determine appropriate policy response

Potential Barriers: Siloed execution and Lack of coordination from the Executive Office, 

minimal support from designated agency leadership, lack of branding, lack of coordination, 

stakeholder engagement, resource allocation, and performance monitoring.

Supporting Recommendation 6.5: The federal government should consider the development 

of Smart City and Sustainability Extension Partnerships (SCSEP). IoT can bring great economic 

and societal benefits to our cities, but specific smart city and sustainable infrastructure expertise 

in industry is limited, unevenly distributed, and fragmented. Some cities and agencies also lack 

the tools and resources, and even smaller cities and agencies may be even more constrained. 

Municipalities and agencies may not have the budget, the empowerment, or the ability to 

engage the necessary resources. 

A different way to engage these resources is needed. The public procurement processes to 

engage private sector resources are burdensome. A SCSEP similar to existing partnerships 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 60 of 123

(e.g., MEP, USDA) would be a worthwhile investment, and would provide an improved model 

over the current public procurement process to engage private sector resources.

SCSEP should be put in place and operational to support sustainable infrastructure projects 

funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). 

The role of states should be defined. In particular, some BIL and IRA funding may be given to 

states to manage and allocate. Consideration should be given as to whether some of these 

activities can be performed through the existing extension offices and infrastructure, or through 

partnerships with regional consortiums or states.

Implementation Considerations: Smart cities, sustainable infrastructure and IoT are broad in 

scope and discipline. A SCSEP should be a multidisciplinary center with spanning expertise 

(technical, operations, cybersecurity, etc.). The expertise lies across a variety of areas and 

could be implemented through partnerships with public (state, local) agencies, industry, and 

universities. There are a small number of regional “smart city” type consortiums across the 

country. Consider establishing partnerships or collaboration with these consortiums to support 

or enable these capabilities. For example, the USDA agriculture extension offices and the US 

Department of Commerce manufacturing extension partnerships model as starting points. They 

have built infrastructure and processes. In some rural areas, perhaps this is how these 

capabilities of the SCSEP should be delivered.

Potential barriers: Limited expertise in the market and industry; resources and expertise may 

be difficult to secure. Establishing a new extension office infrastructure will take time and 

resources. There is not a clear or obvious federal agency owner for this.

Supporting Recommendation 6.6: The federal government should consider the specification 

and utilization of IoT and “smart” technologies into infrastructure and other projects that are 

funded in full, or partially, with federal funding.

The federal government should consider the specification and utilization of IoT and “smart” 

technologies into infrastructure and other projects that are funded in full, or partially, with federal 

funding. Every year, the federal government, through its many agencies, supports and funds 

billions of dollars of infrastructure planning, construction and operation projects. These projects 

include projects owned by non-federal stakeholders (municipalities, utilities, agencies, states, 

etc.) and federal stakeholders (federal facilities, infrastructure, etc.).

The federal government should take this opportunity to specify and incorporate IoT and smart 

technologies into infrastructure projects spanning the project lifecycle from design, construction, 

to commissioning and operation. For example, IoT technologies can be specified and used 

during the construction phase of infrastructure projects. Air quality sensors can be specified to 

monitor vehicle emissions and dust and particulate matter generated during construction in 

order to comply with local air quality regulations. When air quality levels reach certain levels, 

mitigation measures can be implemented to minimize impacts to worker and community health. 

IoT sensors and intelligent traffic solutions can be specified into roadway projects to support 

future intelligent highway and autonomous vehicle projects. Remodeling or construction of new 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 61 of 123

federal facilities, including airports, military bases and buildings can specify the use of various 

IoT solutions, such as smart building sensors and energy management systems, smart parking, 

and other technologies.

The federal government, through its procurement and funding activities, can influence and 

facilitate action. For example, the GSA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specified the use 

of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in its projects. As a result, contractors had to comply with 

the requirement and used BIM tools, which enabled both the government and the contractor to 

reduce construction and project risks. A similar approach was used to accelerate the utilization 

of small and disadvantaged businesses (SB and SB8a) in federally funded transportation 

projects.

Implementation Considerations: While it is easy to say “you shall incorporate IoT 

technologies”, it is more difficult to specify what IoT technologies should be acceptable to be 

used. Some concrete and specific IoT applications should be defined for inclusion in the project 

and funding requirements, based on project types. Without this list, the contractors will be left on 

their own to interpret what is meant by IoT, and in some cases, will do the minimum possible 

just to comply or comply with things that meet the definition but not make any sense. 

Additionally, a broader vision and understanding of how IoT is to be incorporated, used and 

operated is needed by project owners, governments and operators in order to develop the 

requirements and specifications.

Potential Barriers: Project owners may have limited to no IoT awareness of knowledge. 

Limited expertise and resources in government and marketplace to support IoT in the projects. 

Specification of IoT may add complexity and cost to the project, the requirements, and to the 

timeline. No pre-defined acceptable or allowable IoT is be considered and specified for the 

different types of projects.

Supporting Recommendation 6.7: The federal government should encourage other models to 

help select adopting organizations sustain and support in evaluating project feasibility.

The federal government should consider models to help select adopting organizations sustain 

and support beyond the initial acquisition and building of new projects incorporating IoT 

technologies. While grants for projects help offset the initial cost of capital procurement, 

integration and development, the cost of operating the asset or system is left to the 

organization, municipality or agency. Some select organizations have the resources, funding 

models, or mechanisms to find the resources to sustain the operation and maintenance of this 

asset or system. However, many other organizations, especially the smaller ones, or those in 

rural and tribal areas, that benefit from these technologies the most, do not have these 

mechanisms (budget, taxes, etc.), and may forgo these types of projects, or only operate the 

IoT applications short term until the funds run out. Similarly, current agency grant application 

evaluation criteria may screen out those that don’t meet the financial requirements for sustaining 

operations.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 62 of 123

Implementation considerations: Extended Funding: For existing grant programs, consider 

extending funding for operations from one to two years for applicants that meet specific criteria 

of those that can benefit from IoT but could not otherwise sustain it (rural areas, tribal areas, 

small cities and towns, etc.) Regional models: Incorporate models that encourage regional 

partnerships. For example, one small community may not have the means to sustain a small IoT 

application. But if multiple adjacent communities apply for a grant together, they may be able to 

leverage some economies of scale to purchase and set up the application but may be able to 

employ synergies and cost sharing to maintain the application together. Innovative partnerships: 

Incorporate criteria that encourage and reward innovative approaches to sustaining operations. 

For example, one city was able to sustain operations by implementing a “support a AQ node” 

and getting corporate sponsors in the business community to support the maintenance and 

operation of the network.

Potential barriers: IoT funding may be embedded into a broader funding or project package, 

and it may not be easy to separate the two. Non-traditional and innovative funding models may 

be challenging to track and evaluate. All federal agencies that provide grants and funding for 

projects where IoT may be incorporated.

Supporting Recommendation 6.8: The federal government should facilitate and support the 

development and use of smart city and sustainable infrastructure reference models.

The federal government should facilitate and support the development and use of smart city and 

sustainable infrastructure reference models that capture and document the ecosystem. Smart 

cities are complex ecosystems of communities, neighborhoods, districts, buildings, other cities, 

utilities, and businesses that co-exist, collaborate occasionally and interoperate with each other. 

Reference models capture the various components of the ecosystem and provide a blueprint for 

design and planning, collaboration, coordination and communication in smart city efforts, 

sharing and economies of scale.

These reference models include technical and operations frameworks and architectures, 

operational concepts, and draft requirements and reference standards. The reference models 

serve as a template that planners can use to plan, design and build their smart city projects, and 

if followed, provides a path for interoperability, scalability, integration and security. Furthermore, 

these models incorporate best practices and facilitate collaboration between various 

stakeholders, accelerate adoption and scaling, and are replicable. A broader reference 

model/architecture helps to identify use cases, potential areas of collaboration between entities, 

as well as identify areas of “sharing” and economies of scale.

Implementation considerations: The NIST GCTC has already established a structure and 

model to create, engage and support industry/academia/government partnerships. This effort 

should consider inclusion of public entities such as counties, states, and other regional agencies 

and utilities. There is not a one size fits all “reference model and architecture”. There is one for 

small cities, large cities, as well as “smart regions”, utilities, buildings, etc. Key participants in 

developing the reference model include government (states), federal, industry (and industry and 

standards bodies), and academia. There are various efforts around models and standards. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 63 of 123

Consider projects that are funded using federal money to incorporate the use of these reference 

models. NIST has developed the Smart City Framework v1.0 

(https://pages.nist.gov/smartcitiesarchitecture/) and that is a starting point for building on 

something that may be more usable to city planners.

Potential barriers: Complexity of coordinating various stakeholders together to define a 

reference model or Architecture. There may be work in these models undertaken by 

consortiums or industry. Integrating and aligning existing parts of models may be challenging.

Supporting recommendation 6.9: The federal government should promote development and 

adoption procedures that accelerate and streamline planning, permitting, and interconnection 

aspects related to energy efficient technologies.

The US could benefit from improvements in decarbonization and reduction of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Many of the energy efficient technologies today incorporate the use of IoT (smart 

inverters, energy storage systems, etc.). There are improvements to be made in the 

deployment, permitting, and interconnection processes. Improvements to deployment of critical 

electric transmission to move electric power from location constrained renewables. 

Improvements to the installation and operation of rooftop solar panels for the permitting and 

interconnection process. The board indicates that 70 to 80% of projects never make it past 

permitting and interconnection queue to commercial operation.

Implementation Considerations: Permitting legislation being discussed in Congress. 

Department of Energy (DOE) RFI designation of National Interest Electric Transmission 

Corridors (NIETCs). FERC-Back-stop siting authority. Use of existing rights of ways (i.e., 

railroads and highways). DOE Solar APP+.

Potential Barriers: Time consuming and resource-intensive developers lose interest and 

cancel projects. Overcoming Resistance. Cost- accounting for them accurately and acceptably. 

Supply chain. Grid infrastructure requires developers to pay for upgrades to support energy 

sources.

Supporting recommendation 6.10: Accelerate the promotion and adoption of procedures and 

methods to make the electric grid more reliable and resilient.

A more reliable and resilient grid can better accommodate the integration of renewable energy 

sources enabled by IoT. This is made possible through the incorporation of technologies 

enabled by IoT (i.e., smart inverters, energy storage systems) resulting in quicker restoration 

from natural and man-made threats, more efficient transmission of electricity, and potential cost 

reductions both for utilities and consumers.

Implementation Considerations: DOE Funding. Near-term technologies provide short-term 

solutions at a lower cost (e.g., Dynamic Line Ratings, Volt/Var, Power-Flow Controllers, Energy 

Storage, Distributed Energy Resources, and Demand Response). Microgrids that operate and 

function as a grid resource.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 64 of 123

Potential Barriers: Resources including significant labor and cost implications. Moving away 

from the traditional process that utilities use to determine rates. Supply chain is an ongoing 

issue with distribution transformers.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 65 of 123

Key Recommendation 7.0: Workforce

The federal government should invest in and promote education and workforce. Workforce and 

education are broad topics. Specialized training programs could start as early as high school 

and include cybersecurity topics. Inclusion of yearly certifications is encouraged.

When discussing IoT worker capabilities, there are many roles that are relevant, from designers 

to implementers to operations staff. For each role to be filled, the government can help foster 

collaboration about the necessary skills in each role and the knowledge needed to fulfill relevant 

tasks.

The federal government can help to develop targeted criteria and encourage expanded access 

to education and training opportunities. Agencies could help provide (or at least coordinate) 

means to assist learners through financial aid, scholarships, and online learning options. The 

U.S. can also encourage industry/academia partnerships as it has in other areas. This would 

help provide a focus on opportunities for existing workforce to adapt and better support digital 

transformation.

Supporting Recommendation 7.1: The federal government should consider “student loan 

forgiveness” programs in exchange for providing critical emerging technology (IoT, data 

science, cybersecurity, etc.) skills to municipalities and agencies.

The federal government should consider “student loan forgiveness” programs in exchange for 

providing critical emerging technology (IoT, data science, cybersecurity, etc.) skills to 

municipalities and agencies. These programs, analogous to the National Health Science Corps, 

provide expertise to municipalities, agencies and utilities, especially smaller ones, that can help 

them to adopt, and accelerate the implementation and execution of these “smart solutions”.

Many cities lack the type of digital talent that is critically needed to implement and operate 

advanced technology. Moreover, many small cities and rural areas face an exodus (or “brain 

drain”) of workers. Cities, in general, often find it difficult to attract sufficient digital talent at a 

scale that will have an impact. Federal agencies can help cities to leverage a similar model to 

that used by the National Health Science Corps. They can seek opportunities to partner with 

non-profit organizations (e.g., FUSE Corps) to find, attract, and hire talent.

Implementation considerations: Leverage the model used by the National Health Science 

Corps. These resources can work with non-profit organizations that support government 

agencies (e.g., FUSE Corps). Identification of specified work roles/skills needs (cybersecurity, 

data analytics, software development.

Potential barriers: For critical skills like cybersecurity and data science, it may still be hard to 

attract someone to this program since there is fierce competition from the private sector. There 

is a lack of sufficient numbers of certain skills, especially working with cybersecurity, AI, ML, etc. 

There may not be enough of these skill sets.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 66 of 123

Supporting Recommendation 7.2: The federal government promote Continuing Education, 

Professional Development, and Vocational Training for IoT Integration in Supply Chain 

Management.

The recommendation to focus on education and workforce development, specifically geared 

toward the Internet of Things (IoT), is a response to the growing need for professionals adept in 

the design, implementation, and management of IoT systems within supply chain operations. 

This involves not just building knowledge in areas such as data science, analytics, data 

integration, and software development, but also developing a robust framework of continuing 

education, professional development, and vocational training. Such initiatives aim to equip 

businesses with a workforce capable of unlocking the full potential of IoT technologies.

The focus of these efforts should be a commitment to lifelong learning and continuous skills 

upgrade. This can be facilitated through various professional development opportunities such as 

workshops, online courses, and certification programs. These initiatives should be designed to 

help professionals stay current with the latest IoT trends and innovations, thereby promoting the 

adoption of new technologies in the supply chain sector. Vocational training programs, for 

instance, could provide hands-on experience in areas such as IoT device management, data 

analytics, and software development, thereby fostering technical proficiency.

Partnerships with industry stakeholders and technology providers are crucial. These 

partnerships can lead to internships, apprenticeships, and real-world projects, offering practical 

experience in IoT implementation. By focusing on these aspects of education and development, 

the government can create a pool of professionals who are not just knowledgeable but are also 

adaptable and up-to-date. This will ensure the workforce is well-equipped to navigate the 

complexities of IoT adoption, ultimately driving growth and competitiveness in the supply chain 

industry.

The justification for the recommendation to invest in education and workforce development in 

the context of IoT adoption in supply chain management lies in the need to prepare the 

workforce for the technological advancements and skills required in the rapidly evolving 

industry. The main reasons for this recommendation are:

• Addressing Skills Gap: The surge in IoT utilization in supply chain management will 

necessitate a workforce proficient in specialized areas such as data analytics, software 

development, and data integration. Investments in continuing education, professional 

development, and vocational training can bridge this gap, ensuring businesses have the 

skilled talent for effective IoT implementation.

• Enhancing Competitiveness: The competitiveness of the manufacturing sector hinges on 

a well-equipped workforce. Government investment in lifelong learning and skills 

development can bolster businesses' competitiveness, enabling them to maintain a 

robust global standing.

• Fostering Innovation: A workforce with deep-rooted IoT knowledge can spark innovation 

in supply chain management. Government-led educational and training programs can 

cultivate this innovative spirit, supporting the creation of avant-garde solutions.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 67 of 123

• Supporting Digital Transformation: As the manufacturing sector undergoes digital 

transformation, there is a need to adapt operations to accommodate IoT and similar 

technologies. Education and workforce development investments can empower workers 

with the skills needed to support this transition, facilitating seamless integration of IoT in 

supply chains.

• Encouraging Job Creation: The integration of IoT in supply chain management can open 

new job avenues in areas like data analysis, software development, and cybersecurity. 

Government investment in education and workforce development can prepare workers 

for these opportunities, stimulating economic growth and job creation.

• Promoting Social Inclusion: Education and workforce development programs can 

enhance social inclusion, providing underrepresented groups with the necessary skills 

and training for the IoT-centric job market. This includes opportunities for professional 

development, vocational training, and continuous learning.

• Ensuring Long-term Sustainability: As the manufacturing sector evolves, businesses 

need to adapt to emerging technologies and industry trends. Government investment in 

education and workforce development can support the sector's long-term sustainability, 

assisting businesses in their ongoing IoT adoption and integration efforts.

Implementation Considerations: Agencies should consider the following implementation 

considerations for investing in education and workforce development for supply chain IoT 

adoption inclu:

• Identifying Skill Requirements: Carry out an exhaustive analysis to identify the specific 

skills and expertise required to support IoT integration in supply chain management. This 

includes technical proficiencies in data analytics, software development, and data 

integration, and managerial competencies.

• Developing Targeted Curricula: Partner with training providers, industry stakeholders, 

and educational institutions to create curricula and training programs that cater to these 

identified skills. These programs should focus on professional development and 

vocational training, promoting lifelong learning and adaptability in the IoT domain.

• Expanding Access to Education and Training: Implement policies and programs that 

ensure extensive access to continuing education and training focused on IoT. This 

should involve financial assistance, scholarships, and online learning options, making 

these resources accessible to a broad audience, including underserved communities.

• Encouraging Industry-Academia Partnerships: Foster relationships between industry and 

educational institutions that facilitate real-world learning experiences, internships, and 

collaborative research projects. These initiatives can enhance practical skills 

development and provide valuable industry exposure.

• Focusing on Reskilling and Upskilling: Launch initiatives to reskill and upskill the existing 

workforce, ensuring they can adapt to the evolving demands of IoT-driven supply chain 

management. This reinforces the importance of continuous professional development 

and staying current with the latest trends and innovations.

• Promoting Vocational Training: Encourage interest in vocational training in the fields of 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), focusing on the 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 68 of 123

development of IoT competencies within the existing workforce. This will lay the 

groundwork for future workforce development in the IoT field.

• Establishing Performance Metrics: Develop performance indicators and evaluation 

methods to assess the effectiveness of continuing education and professional 

development initiatives. This will enable data-driven improvements, ensuring these 

programs remain relevant and effective in meeting the demands of the IoT-centric job 

market.

Potential barriers: Impediments to implementing this recommendation include:

• Insufficient Funding: Limited resources may restrict the government's capacity to invest 

in continuing education, professional development, and vocational training programs at 

the necessary scale. This could impact the availability and accessibility of these 

programs for the workforce.

• Resistance to Change: Some industry stakeholders may be hesitant to invest in new 

training and professional development initiatives due to concerns about costs, time 

commitments, or disruption to existing workflows. This resistance could slow the pace of 

upskilling and reskilling efforts in the IoT field.

• Difficulty in Identifying Skill Requirements: The rapid evolution of technologies and 

market dynamics can pose challenges in accurately identifying the specific skills needed 

for successful IoT adoption in supply chain management. This could impact the design 

and relevance of continuing education and professional development programs.

• Skills Mismatch: A disparity between the skills imparted through vocational training and 

professional development programs and the skills demanded by the industry can limit 

the effectiveness of these initiatives. This mismatch could result in a workforce that is not 

fully equipped to navigate the complexities of IoT integration in supply chain operations.

Supporting recommendation 7.3: (proposed) The federal government should invest and 

promote education and workforce development in smart transportation technologies.

The federal government can also promote the concept of outcomes-based contracting in 

surface transportation for those entities and jurisdictions who have an existing workforce that 

are not familiar with these types of smart transportation technologies.

While workforce development and education are a broader topic across the IoT, there are 

specialized training/apprenticeship programs needed in the area of smart transportation. They 

could start as early as high school (and could also be summer intern programs) and need to 

include cybersecurity topics. The inclusion of yearly certifications on these is also encouraged.

The concept of outcomes-based contracting in surface transportation is also a viable solution for 

those entities and jurisdictions with an existing workforce that are not familiar with these smart 

transportation technologies but have transportation issues and problems that they need solved. 

When the focus of the contract is on results and outcomes, procurement officers and agency 

leaders can better design contracts that drive innovative, cost-effective services, reasonable 

risk-sharing, and measurable results.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 69 of 123

Implementation considerations: For investing in education and workforce development 

include:

● Identifying skill requirements: Conduct a thorough analysis of the specific skills and 

expertise needed.

● Developing targeted curricula: Collaborate with educational institutions, industry 

stakeholders, and training providers to develop targeted curricula and training programs 

unique to the transportation sector.

● Expanding access to education and training: Implement policies and programs that 

ensure broad access to this and training, including financial aid, scholarships, and online 

learning options to reach underserved communities.

● Encouraging industry-academia partnerships: Promote partnerships between industry 

and educational institutions to facilitate real-world learning experiences, internships, and 

collaborative research projects.

● Focusing on reskilling and upskilling: Implement programs to reskill and upskill the 

existing workforce, enabling them to adapt to the changing requirements of the 

transportation sector.

● Establishing performance metrics: Develop performance metrics and evaluation 

methods to assess the effectiveness of education and workforce development initiatives 

and make data-driven improvements as needed.

● Outcomes-based Contracting: Outcomes-based Contracting is a form of contracting 

comprised of four discrete characteristics: Identification, Alignment, Measurement, and 

Adjustment.

Potential barriers: Possible barriers to implementing this recommendation include:

● Insufficient funding and resources: Limited resources may constrain the government's 

ability to invest in education and workforce development programs at the desired scale. 

Also, some state and local agencies may not have enough staff on hand.

● Resistance to change: Some industry stakeholders may resist investing in new training 

and education programs due to concerns about costs, time constraints, or disruption to 

existing processes. This is particularly relevant to those traffic engineers who have spent 

their entire career on replacing concrete and asphalt on roads and bridges.

● Difficulty in identifying skill requirements: Rapidly evolving technologies and market 

dynamics may make it challenging to accurately identify the specific skills needed. As 

these technologies become smarter and more digitized it will require more than one core 

skill set to operate and maintain installed transportation equipment.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 70 of 123

● Skills mismatch: A mismatch between the skills taught in educational institutions and the 

skills required by industry can limit the effectiveness of education and workforce 

development initiatives.

Supporting recommendation 7.4: Develop educational initiatives that include IoT, targeting 

workforce development, and enhancing business, government, and consumer data privacy and 

trust.

Education and training is needed to enhance the US workforce. There are increases in the 

understanding and safe use of IoT technologies. There is demand for a highly skilled workforce 

capable of addressing IoT privacy challenges. And boosting business, government, and 

consumer data trust will forge the adoption of IoT devices and services.

Implementation considerations: 

● Defining the scope and content of educational initiatives

● Identifying key target audiences (schools, universities, businesses, general public)

● Collaborating with educational institutions and industry leaders

● Ensuring the relevancy and practicality of the educational content

● Regularly updating the initiatives to keep pace with technological changes

● Workforce development to encompass personas, including manufacturers, 

implementers, service providers, and workers

Potential Barriers: Difficulty in keeping up with the fast-paced advancements in IoT, challenges 

in reaching and engaging the targeted audiences, securing sufficient funding and resources.

Supporting recommendation 7.5: The federal government should develop and facilitate 

programs and grants to reskill existing workers, train future workers across manufacturing, 

construction, and clean technology / renewable industries.

IoT is a critical technology in renewable energy systems. This recommendation would leverage 

existing initiatives and programs that address workforce development. Federal considerations 

include the need to consider integration with existing workforce development programs and 

infrastructure.

Implementation considerations: Leverage existing initiatives and programs that address 

workforce development.

Potential barriers: Labor shortage in renewable and adjacent industries (manufacturing, 

construction) and lower wages in renewables than in other industries.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 71 of 123

[Editorial note: Preceding this section, there should be some introductory text that the 

remainder of the Key Recommendations are specifically those called out in the NDAA 

legislation, differentiating them from the above 7 Key Recommendations.] 

Key Recommendation 8.0: Smart Traffic and Transit

[Key recommendation text is still being developed.]

Supporting Recommendation 8.1: The federal government should consider developing 

programs and grants to allow underserved and less developed communities as well as rural 

areas to adopt smart transportation technologies.

Doing so would help improve national accessibility to benefits from the adoption of IoT 

technologies that are not currently available to all citizens and municipalities. Government 

grants and programs targeted towards these areas could spur private investment in these 

areas, as well, further amplifying the economic and societal benefits that would result from such 

funding. 

Funding opportunities for these underserved and rural communities will create jobs and promote 

economic growth. As digital technologies are adopted in these areas, they will require skilled 

workers to develop, implement, and maintain these systems. Financial incentives can help 

stimulate this job growth and support the development of a skilled workforce in the IoT sector. to 

adopt smart transportation technologies.

Implementation Considerations

The government will need to Identify appropriate tactics and methods, such as ADA-compliant 

EV Charging stations, adding EV-Ready language into building codes, small- disadvantaged 

business set asides, or Department of Transportation (DOT) Grand challenges as 

programs/grants are developed. Clear eligibility criteria should be established to ensure that 

these grants/incentives are targeted only at these types of communities and areas. The federal 

government should establish a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of these 

grants/incentives.

Potential Barriers

Individuals that reside in these areas may not be fully aware of all the potential benefits that 

smart transportation technologies provide. Connectivity might be an issue in rural areas. Initial 

efforts may need to focus on those rural areas that already have some base level of 

connectivity. Other barriers include budget constraints, lack of political support, or concerns 

about market distortion. The federal government should address these concerns by 

demonstrating the potential economic and environmental benefits of IoT adoption in supply 

chains, leveraging public-private partnerships to share costs, and ensuring that the financial 

incentives are designed to minimize market distortions.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 72 of 123

Supporting Recommendation 8.2: The Federal Government should provide overarching 

regulatory guidance for the drone industry. The Federal Government should also provide 

funding for the drone industry for additional research in order that existing technical obstacles 

can be overcome.

There are conflicting regulations that govern drones for recreational pilots versus those that 

govern drones for commercial pilots. The regulations that govern drones for commercial pilots 

are put forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as they regulate that section of the 

airspace. Sometimes these regulations are mistakenly applied to recreational pilots. In some 

jurisdictions there is uncertainty over who regulates the airspace for recreational pilots (FAA 

versus Local Police).

In addition, there are commercial drone pilots that fly large aircraft in sections of the airspace 

that fall under Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) jurisdiction. Another issue facing the drone industry 

is Remote ID — a requirement for a drone to have an internal signal broadcasting the drone’s 

location, latitude, longitude and heading. Not all drones currently have this requirement. 

Implementation Considerations: It will be necessary to involve all stakeholders: drone 

equipment manufacturers, communications providers, among others need to be involved. This 

should be accompanied by expanding access to education and training: particularly on safety 

aspects related to drones.

Potential Barriers: Limited resources may constrain the government's ability to fund drone 

research. The drone industry is facing supply chain challenges. Drones approved by the 

Department of Defense (DoD) need to be on the Blue UAS Cleared Drone List. Drones on this 

list are validated as cyber-secure and safe to fly and are available for government purchase and 

operation.

Notes:

● Data/Privacy Framework is covered in Recommendation 1.

● Industry-led Standards for AVs are covered in Recommendation 2.

● Standards for interoperability and security are covered in Recommendation 2.

● Education and Workforce are covered in Recommendation 7.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 73 of 123

Key Recommendation 9.0: Augmented Logistics and Supply Chains

[Full recommendation still being developed.]

Note: IoT for Supply Chain is grouped into two segments: 1) the actual logistics of producing,

transporting, and storing products (and providing services), and 2) the reliability and security of 

that chain of goods and services. Those segments are illustrated as “logistics” and 

“transparency” throughout Recommendation 9.

Augmented Supply Chain Logistics

Supporting Recommendation 9.1: Establish a comprehensive national IoT strategy that 

outlines clear goals and objectives for IoT adoption in supply chain management.

This federal IoT strategy would outline clear goals and objectives for IoT adoption in supply 

chain management and would encompass regulatory frameworks, infrastructure development, 

education, and incentives for implementation.

The justification for developing a national IoT strategy lies in the numerous benefits that IoT can 

bring to various industries, including supply chain management, as well as the overall economy 

and society. A comprehensive and coordinated national IoT strategy can help ensure that these 

benefits are fully realized and that potential challenges and risks are adequately addressed. Key 

benefits of an IoT supply chain logistics strategy include:

● Economic growth and competitiveness: A national IoT strategy for adoption in supply 

chain management can foster innovation, drive economic growth, and enhance the 

competitiveness of industries by promoting the widespread adoption and integration of 

IoT technologies. This can lead to increased productivity, reduced operational costs, and 

new business opportunities across various sectors.

● Enhanced efficiency and resilience of supply chains: IoT technologies can 

significantly improve supply chain efficiency, transparency, and resilience by enabling 

real-time monitoring, data-driven decision-making, and automation of processes. A 

national IoT strategy can provide guidance and support for businesses to adopt and 

integrate IoT solutions within their supply chains, thereby enhancing overall supply chain 

performance.

● Job creation and workforce development: The widespread adoption of IoT 

technologies will lead to the creation of new jobs and the need for skilled workers in 

areas such as data analytics, IoT device development, and cybersecurity. A national IoT 

strategy for adoption in supply chain management can help guide investments in 

education and workforce development to ensure that citizens are equipped with the 

necessary skills for the future IoT-driven job market.

● Addressing cybersecurity and privacy concerns: As IoT devices generate and 

process large amounts of data, there are inherent risks related to cybersecurity and data 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 74 of 123

privacy. A national IoT strategy for supply chain management can help establish 

guidelines, standards, and best practices for IoT security and data protection, ensuring 

that the risks are adequately addressed and managed.

● Encouraging collaboration and standardization: A national IoT strategy can promote 

collaboration among businesses, academia, and government agencies, fostering 

innovation and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, it can help drive the development and 

adoption of IoT standards for supply chain management, which are essential for 

interoperability, security, and scalability of IoT solutions.

● Ensuring equitable access and benefits: A national IoT strategy can ensure that the 

benefits of IoT technologies are distributed equitably across enterprises engaged in 

supply chain management, addressing potential digital divides and promoting inclusive 

growth.

Implementation Considerations: A comprehensive strategy should begin with engage with 

key stakeholders, including businesses, academia, and government agencies, to identify 

priorities, needs, and challenges related to IoT adoption in supply chain management. This 

collaboration will ensure the strategy is comprehensive, practical, and aligned with industry 

requirements.

Additional considerations include:

● Focusing on key areas: Prioritize areas within the supply chain where IoT can provide 

the most significant benefits and address the most pressing challenges, such as 

inventory management, transportation and logistics, and quality control.

● Supporting innovation and R&D: Foster innovation and R&D in IoT technologies by 

providing funding, incentives, and resources to businesses and research institutions. 

This will accelerate the development and commercialization of advanced IoT solutions 

tailored to supply chain management.

● Developing standards and guidelines: Establish standards and guidelines for IoT 

implementation in supply chain management, focusing on interoperability, security, and 

data privacy. This will facilitate seamless integration and adoption of IoT technologies 

across supply chains while addressing potential risks.

● Promoting workforce development: Invest in education and workforce development 

programs to ensure that workers have the necessary skills and expertise to thrive in an 

IoT-driven supply chain environment.

● Encouraging public-private partnerships: Foster collaboration between public and 

private sectors to promote IoT adoption in supply chain management, share knowledge, 

and address common challenges.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 75 of 123

● Monitoring progress and adapt: Establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the 

progress of IoT adoption in supply chain management, and adapt the national strategy 

as needed based on emerging trends, technologies, and challenges.

Potential barriers: The following considerations represent barriers that would need to be 

addressed by those creating a supply chain logistics strategy:

● Funding constraints: Allocating sufficient funds to support IoT infrastructure, research 

and development, and workforce development initiatives can be a challenge, especially 

when competing with other national priorities.

● Interagency coordination: Developing a national IoT strategy requires close 

coordination among various federal agencies, which may have different goals, agendas, 

and regulatory frameworks. Ensuring a cohesive and consistent approach across 

agencies can be challenging.

● Resistance to change: Some stakeholders within the supply chain ecosystem may 

resist adopting IoT technologies due to concerns about job displacement, technological 

complexity, or fear of change. Overcoming this resistance requires effective 

communication, education, and change management strategies.

● Cybersecurity and data privacy concerns: Ensuring the security and privacy of the 

vast amounts of data generated by IoT devices is a significant challenge. Addressing 

these concerns requires investment in robust security measures and the development of 

comprehensive data protection policies and regulations.

● Standardization and interoperability: The IoT ecosystem consists of a wide variety of 

devices, platforms, and communication protocols. Developing and enforcing standards 

for interoperability can be a complex and time-consuming process, which may slow 

down the implementation of a national IoT strategy.

● Skilled workforce shortage: The rapid growth of IoT technologies and applications may 

outpace the availability of a skilled workforce in fields such as data analytics, IoT device 

development, and cybersecurity. Addressing this talent gap requires investments in 

education and workforce development programs.

● Legal and regulatory barriers: Existing laws and regulations may not adequately 

address the unique challenges posed by IoT technologies in supply chain management. 

Updating and harmonizing these legal and regulatory frameworks can be a complex and 

time-consuming process.

● Balancing innovation and regulation: Striking the right balance between promoting 

innovation and ensuring consumer protection, security, and privacy can be challenging. 

The federal government must carefully consider the potential trade-offs and unintended 

consequences of new regulations on IoT adoption and innovation.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 76 of 123

Supporting Recommendation 9.2: Establish and provide financial incentives to encourage 

businesses to adopt IoT technologies in their supply chain operations by reducing the initial 

investment costs and perceived risks associated with the implementation of IoT solutions.

Financial incentives, such as tax breaks, grants, subsidies, or low-interest loans, can help lower 

the financial barriers for companies to experiment with and deploy IoT systems, leading to more 

widespread adoption and innovation in the sector. By offering financial support, the government 

can promote the development and integration of IoT solutions into supply chain management, 

enabling businesses to capitalize on the various benefits IoT offers, such as improved 

efficiency, transparency, and resilience. Furthermore, financial incentives can stimulate private 

sector investment, drive the growth of IoT technology providers, and foster an ecosystem that 

encourages collaboration and innovation within the industry. 

It is crucial, however, for the government to carefully design and target these financial 

incentives, ensuring that they align with strategic objectives and deliver measurable impact. By 

doing so, the federal government can effectively drive IoT adoption in supply chain 

management, unlocking its full potential to transform the industry and strengthen national 

competitiveness.

Providing financial incentives would accelerate the adoption of IoT technology in supply chain 

management, particularly within the manufacturing sector. Financial incentives can lower the 

initial barriers to entry, making IoT adoption more feasible and attractive for businesses. 

The main reasons for this recommendation are: 

● Encouraging investment: Financial incentives, such as tax credits, grants, or lowinterest loans, can help businesses offset the costs associated with implementing IoT 

solutions in their supply chains. This financial support can encourage companies to 

invest in IoT technology, even if they are initially hesitant due to the perceived risks or 

costs involved. 

● Stimulating innovation: Financial incentives can spur innovation in the IoT space for 

supply chain management by providing companies with the resources they need to 

experiment with new technologies and solutions. This can lead to the development of 

new IoT applications and the refinement of existing ones, ultimately contributing to the 

overall competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. 

● Enhancing competitiveness: By lowering the barriers to IoT adoption, financial 

incentives can help businesses in the manufacturing sector become more competitive on 

a global scale. Companies that leverage IoT technology can improve their supply chain 

efficiency, responsiveness, and resilience, allowing them to better compete with 

international rivals. 

● Creating jobs and economic growth: The implementation of IoT technology in supply 

chains can lead to job creation and contribute to economic growth. As companies adopt 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 77 of 123

IoT solutions, they will require skilled workers to develop, implement, and maintain these 

systems. Financial incentives can help stimulate this job growth and support the 

development of a skilled workforce in the IoT sector. 

● Promoting sustainability: IoT technology can contribute to more sustainable supply 

chain practices, such as reducing waste, conserving resources, and minimizing 

emissions. Financial incentives can encourage businesses to adopt IoT solutions that 

support these goals, ultimately promoting environmental sustainability and corporate 

social responsibility. 

Implementation Considerations: Financial incentives for supply chain IoT adoption include the 

following: 

● Identifying appropriate incentives: The federal government should assess the most 

effective financial incentives to promote IoT adoption in the supply chain, such as grants, 

tax credits, low-interest loans, or subsidies. This may involve consulting with industry 

experts, conducting cost benefit analyses, and evaluating the success of similar 

programs in other countries or sectors. 

● Defining eligibility criteria: Clear eligibility criteria should be established to ensure that 

the financial incentives are targeted at companies that can benefit the most from IoT 

adoption across supply chains, such as small and medium-sized enterprises or 

businesses in critical industries. Criteria may include company size, revenue, industry 

sector, or proposed IoT projects. 

● Coordinating among federal agencies: Federal agencies that may be impacted by this 

recommendation include the Department of Commerce, the Small Business 

Administration, and the Department of Energy. These agencies should coordinate their 

efforts to ensure efficient and effective implementation of the financial incentives 

program. Collaboration with state and local governments may also be necessary to align 

initiatives and maximize the impact. 

● Monitoring and evaluation: The federal government should establish a system for 

monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the financial incentives program. This 

may include tracking key performance indicators, such as the number of IoT projects 

funded, the amount of private investment leveraged, and the impact on supply chain 

efficiency and sustainability. Periodic reviews should be conducted to assess the 

program's success and identify areas for improvement. 

● Addressing potential barriers: Possible barriers to implementing this recommendation 

may include budget constraints, lack of political support, or concerns about market 

distortion. The federal government should address these concerns by demonstrating the 

potential economic and environmental benefits of IoT adoption in supply chains, 

leveraging public-private partnerships to share costs, and ensuring that the financial 

incentives are designed to minimize market distortions. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 78 of 123

● Raising awareness and providing technical assistance: The federal government 

should consider implementing outreach campaigns to inform companies about the 

available financial incentives and the benefits of IoT adoption in supply chain 

management. Additionally, providing technical assistance to businesses in identifying, 

developing, and implementing IoT projects can help ensure the successful deployment 

of these technologies and maximize the impact of the financial incentives program. 

Potential barriers: The following impediments may need to be addressed as part of this 

incentivization recommendation:

● Budget constraints: Limited budgetary resources can restrict the federal government's 

ability to allocate sufficient funds for financial incentives. This may result in a smaller or 

less comprehensive program, reducing its overall impact on IoT adoption. DRAFT –

Supply Chain Logistics Recommendations 

● Political opposition: Financial incentives may face opposition from certain political 

groups or stakeholders who argue against government intervention in the market or 

perceive the incentives as favoring specific industries or companies. 

● Bureaucratic hurdles: The implementation of financial incentives may require 

collaboration and coordination among multiple federal agencies, which can introduce 

bureaucratic challenges and delays in rolling out the program. 

● Inefficient allocation of resources: There is a risk that financial incentives may be 

allocated to businesses that do not use the funds effectively or do not fully commit to IoT 

adoption, leading to an inefficient use of government resources. 

● Market distortion: Financial incentives may inadvertently create market distortions if 

they disproportionately benefit certain companies or industries, leading to an uneven 

playing field and potential resistance from competitors. 

● Difficulty in measuring impact: Assessing the direct impact of financial incentives on 

IoT adoption in supply chains can be challenging, as multiple factors contribute to a 

company's decision to invest in new technologies. This may make it difficult for the 

federal government to demonstrate the effectiveness of the incentives program and 

justify its continued funding. 

● Lack of awareness: Companies may not be aware of the available financial incentives 

or may not understand the potential benefits of IoT adoption in their supply chains, 

limiting the program's effectiveness in driving change.

Supporting Recommendation 9.3: Federal entities can also help establish and foster publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) focused on IoT adoption to facilitate collaboration and knowledge 

sharing between government agencies, businesses, technology providers, and academia.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 79 of 123

Establishing and fostering public-private partnerships (PPPs) focused on IoT adoption aims to 

facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing between government agencies, businesses, 

technology providers, and academia. By creating a platform that encourages the exchange of 

ideas, resources, and expertise, PPPs can help to accelerate the development, deployment, 

and adoption of IoT technologies in supply chain management.

Public-private partnerships can play a pivotal role in overcoming common challenges associated 

with IoT adoption, such as the lack of infrastructure, technical knowledge, and financial 

resources. By pooling resources and aligning efforts, PPPs can enable the development of 

innovative IoT solutions, pilot projects, and proof-of-concept initiatives that demonstrate the 

value and benefits of IoT in supply chain operations. 

Additionally, PPPs can support workforce development and training programs, ensuring that 

businesses have access to skilled professionals capable of implementing and managing IoT 

systems. They can also facilitate the creation of regulatory frameworks and standards, 

promoting a conducive environment for IoT adoption across the supply chain industry. To 

implement this recommendation, the government should actively engage with relevant 

stakeholders, identify shared goals and objectives, and establish mechanisms for ongoing 

collaboration and support. By fostering public-private partnerships focused on IoT adoption, the 

government can create a thriving ecosystem that drives innovation and competitiveness in the 

supply chain sector, ultimately realizing the full potential of IoT technologies.

Implementation Considerations: Considerations for fostering public-private partnerships for 

supply chain IoT adoption include: 

● Identifying key stakeholders: The federal government should identify relevant private 

sector stakeholders, including businesses, industry associations, research institutions, 

and technology providers, who can contribute to the development and implementation of 

IoT solutions in supply chain management. 

● Establishing a collaborative framework: A formal framework should be established to 

facilitate collaboration between the public and private sectors. This may include creating 

joint working groups, industry forums, or innovation hubs, where stakeholders can share 

ideas, knowledge, and resources. 

● Defining clear goals and objectives: Public-private partnerships should have welldefined goals and objectives that align with the overall strategy for promoting IoT 

adoption in supply chain management. This will help ensure that all stakeholders are 

working towards a common vision and can measure their progress. 

● Developing joint projects and initiatives: The federal government and private sector 

stakeholders should collaborate on joint projects and initiatives that address specific 

challenges or opportunities in supply chain management. These could include pilot 

projects, research and development programs, or the development of new IoT standards 

and protocols. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 80 of 123

● Ensuring effective communication and coordination: Open and transparent 

communication between the public and private sectors is critical for successful 

collaboration. Regular meetings, progress reports, and information sharing mechanisms 

should be established to facilitate coordination and maintain momentum. 

● Monitoring and evaluation: The federal government should establish a system for 

monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of public-private partnerships in promoting 

IoT adoption in supply chain management. This may involve tracking key performance 

indicators, such as the number of joint projects implemented, the amount of private 

investment leveraged, and the impact on supply chain efficiency and resilience. 

Potential barriers: Possible barriers to implementing this recommendation include: 

● Mistrust between public and private sectors: A lack of trust between the government 

and private sector stakeholders can hinder collaboration and limit the effectiveness of 

public-private partnerships. 

● Differing priorities and objectives: Public and private sector stakeholders may have 

different priorities, objectives, and timelines, which can create challenges in aligning their 

efforts. 

● Intellectual property and data privacy concerns: Private sector stakeholders may be 

hesitant to share proprietary information or data with the government, hindering 

collaboration and knowledge sharing. 

● Limited resources: Both the government and private sector organizations may face 

resource constraints that limit their ability to participate in public-private partnerships.

Supporting Recommendation 9.4: Promote international collaboration in IoT adoption across 

global supply chains to share knowledge, best practices, and resources between countries & 

regions, driving innovation & accelerating widespread adoption of IoT technologies in supply 

chain operations worldwide.

The recommendation to promote international collaboration in IoT adoption across global supply 

chains aims to facilitate the sharing of knowledge, best practices, and resources between 

countries and regions, driving innovation and accelerating the widespread adoption of IoT 

technologies in supply chain operations worldwide. By engaging in international collaboration, 

governments can foster a global ecosystem that supports the development and deployment of 

IoT solutions, overcoming challenges related to interoperability, standardization, and regulatory 

compliance.

Promoting international collaboration involves creating platforms and forums where 

policymakers, industry stakeholders, technology providers, and researchers from different 

countries can come together to exchange ideas, discuss common challenges, and explore 

opportunities for joint projects and initiatives. This can lead to the development of harmonized 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 81 of 123

regulations, standards, and guidelines that enable seamless integration of IoT systems across 

borders, fostering efficient and resilient global supply chain networks.

In addition, international collaboration can facilitate the pooling of resources and expertise to 

support research and development efforts, pilot projects, and capacity building initiatives aimed 

at promoting IoT adoption in supply chain management. This can help bridge the digital divide 

between developed and developing countries, ensuring that businesses worldwide have access 

to the tools and technologies needed to harness the potential of IoT in their supply chain 

operations.

To implement this recommendation, the government should actively engage with international 

partners, participate in relevant forums and organizations, and seek opportunities to collaborate 

on IoT-related projects and initiatives. By promoting international collaboration in IoT adoption 

across global supply chains, the government can contribute to the development of a connected 

and resilient global supply chain ecosystem that benefits businesses and consumers alike.

Promoting international collaboration in the context of IoT adoption in supply chain management 

is based upon the inherently global nature of supply chains and the need for a coordinated 

approach to address common challenges. The main reasons for promoting international 

collaboration are: 

● Global nature of supply chains: Modern supply chains often involve multiple countries, 

making it essential for governments and organizations to collaborate across borders to 

ensure seamless, efficient, and secure operations. 

● Harmonization of standards and regulations: International collaboration can help develop 

and promote the adoption of common standards, protocols, and regulations, which can 

reduce inconsistencies and friction between countries, making it easier for organizations 

to operate globally. 

● Addressing global cyber threats: Cyber threats are not limited by geographical 

boundaries; therefore, international collaboration can enable the sharing of threat 

intelligence, best practices, and resources, improving collective defense against cyber 

attacks. 

● Leveraging global expertise: Collaborating with international partners allows countries to 

benefit from the expertise, technologies, and best practices developed by others, leading 

to more effective and efficient IoT adoption in supply chain management.

● Fostering innovation: International collaboration can stimulate innovation by enabling the 

exchange of ideas, knowledge, and technologies among countries, research institutions, 

and businesses. 

● Building trust: Working together on common challenges can help build trust between 

countries, which is crucial for the smooth functioning of global supply chains. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 82 of 123

● Addressing social and environmental challenges: International collaboration can help 

address global social and environmental issues related to supply chain management, 

such as labor rights, environmental sustainability, and resource management. 

Implementation Considerations: Implementation considerations for promoting international 

collaboration for supply chain include: 

● Establish bilateral and multilateral agreements: Form strategic partnerships with key 

countries to facilitate collaboration on IoT-related supply chain initiatives, standards, and 

best practices. 

● Participate in international forums and organizations: Engage in existing forums and 

organizations dedicated to supply chain management, IoT, and cybersecurity to 

contribute to and benefit from global discussions and initiatives. 

● Share information and best practices: Promote the exchange of information, threat 

intelligence, and best practices related to IoT adoption and supply chain security among 

international partners. 

● Collaborate on research and development: Engage in joint research and development 

projects with international partners to foster innovation and develop new technologies for 

supply chain management. 

● Promote capacity building: Support capacity building initiatives and programs to help 

countries strengthen their IoT infrastructure, develop relevant skills, and improve supply 

chain management practices. 

● Identify key international partners: Assess which countries are critical for collaboration 

based on their role in global supply chains, technological capabilities, and mutual 

strategic interests. 

● Leverage existing diplomatic channels: Utilize existing diplomatic relationships to initiate 

dialogue and cooperation on IoT adoption in supply chain management. 

● Coordinate with relevant federal agencies: Ensure that all relevant federal agencies are 

involved in the development and implementation of international collaboration initiatives. 

Potential barriers: Possible barriers to implementing this recommendation include: 

● Differing priorities and interests: Different countries may have varying priorities and 

interests, which could make it challenging to align objectives and collaborate effectively. 

● Trust and data privacy concerns: Sharing sensitive information and best practices may 

be hindered by trust and data privacy concerns among collaborating countries. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 83 of 123

● Regulatory and legal barriers: Differences in regulations, standards, and legal 

frameworks may impede collaboration efforts and create challenges in harmonizing 

policies. 

Supporting Recommendation 9.5: The government should provide an intentional process to 

monitor and evaluate progress to provide assurance that IoT adoption efforts in supply chain 

logistics are on track, effectively addressing identified challenges and opportunities, and 

delivering desired outcomes. 

By regularly monitoring and evaluating the progress of IoT implementation, the government can 

identify areas of improvement, assess the impact of its policies and initiatives, and make 

informed decisions to optimize its strategies and investments in the future. Monitoring and 

evaluating progress involves establishing a set of measurable indicators and targets that reflect 

the key objectives and desired outcomes of IoT adoption in supply chain management. These 

indicators may include the level of IoT technology adoption, efficiency gains, cost reductions, 

improvements in transparency and traceability, and advancements in cybersecurity, among 

others. 

To implement this recommendation, the government should develop a comprehensive 

framework for data collection, analysis, and reporting, which includes input from industry 

stakeholders, technology providers, and relevant government agencies. Regular assessments 

should be conducted to track the progress of IoT adoption against the established targets, 

identify any gaps or challenges, and evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented policies and 

initiatives. Based on the findings of these assessments, the government should adapt its 

strategies and actions to address the identified issues, optimize resource allocation, and 

maximize the impact of its efforts. By monitoring and evaluating progress, the government can 

ensure that its approach to driving IoT adoption in supply chain management remains agile, 

responsive, and results-oriented, ultimately contributing to the long-term success and 

competitiveness of the industry. 

The need to monitor and evaluate progress in IoT adoption for supply chain management stems 

from the need to ensure the effectiveness of implemented strategies, measure their impact, and 

identify areas for improvement. Regular monitoring and evaluation are crucial for several 

reasons: 

● Assess effectiveness: Monitoring and evaluation help determine whether the 

implemented strategies and policies are achieving their intended goals and objectives. 

● Measure impact: Assessing the impact of IoT adoption in supply chain management is 

essential to understand the benefits, such as efficiency improvements, cost savings, and 

enhanced resilience. 

● Identify areas for improvement: By evaluating progress, the government can identify 

weaknesses or gaps in the implementation of IoT adoption strategies, enabling targeted 

improvements and adjustments to ensure better outcomes. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 84 of 123

● Allocate resources efficiently: Monitoring and evaluation provide insights into the 

effectiveness of various initiatives, helping the government make informed decisions on 

resource allocation and prioritize investments in areas with the most significant potential 

impact. 

● Enhance accountability: Regular assessment of progress helps ensure transparency 

and accountability for the government and other stakeholders involved in IoT adoption 

and supply chain management. 

● Facilitate knowledge sharing: Monitoring and evaluating progress can generate 

valuable knowledge and insights that can be shared with other stakeholders, helping to 

improve practices and drive further innovation in the field. 

● Inform future strategies: The insights gained from monitoring and evaluating progress 

can inform the development of future policies and strategies, ensuring they are more 

effective and better aligned with the evolving needs of supply chain management.

Implementation Considerations: Implementation considerations for monitoring and evaluating 

progress for supply chain include: 

● Establish clear goals and objectives: Define specific, measurable, and time-bound 

goals and objectives for IoT adoption in supply chain management to enable effective 

monitoring and evaluation.

● Develop relevant performance indicators: Identify key performance indicators (KPIs) 

that reflect the desired outcomes of IoT adoption and can be used to measure progress 

and impact. 

● Implement data collection and reporting mechanisms: Set up systems and 

processes for collecting, storing, and analyzing data related to IoT adoption and supply 

chain performance. 

● Conduct periodic assessments: Schedule regular evaluations of progress and impact, 

using the collected data and KPIs to assess the effectiveness of IoT initiatives in supply 

chain management.

● Foster a culture of continuous improvement: Encourage feedback and learning from 

monitoring and evaluation results, using the insights to improve and refine policies and 

initiatives.

● Collaborate with stakeholders: Engage with industry, academia, and other relevant 

stakeholders to gather their insights and perspectives, ensuring a comprehensive 

understanding of progress and challenges
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 85 of 123

● Assign responsibility: Designate a lead federal agency or interagency group 

responsible for overseeing the monitoring and evaluation process for IoT adoption in 

supply chain management.

● Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan: Create a detailed plan outlining the goals, 

objectives, KPIs, data collection methods, and evaluation schedule.

● Allocate resources: Ensure adequate financial, human, and technical resources are 

allocated to support monitoring and evaluation activities. 

Potential barriers: Possible barriers to implementing this recommendation include: 

● Lack of clear goals and objectives: Ambiguous or poorly defined goals can make it 

difficult to assess progress and impact. 

● Inadequate data collection and reporting mechanisms: Ineffective systems for 

collecting, storing, and analyzing data can hinder accurate and reliable monitoring and 

evaluation. 

● Resource constraints: Limited resources can impede the government's ability to 

conduct thorough and consistent monitoring and evaluation. 

● Resistance to change: Stakeholders may resist sharing information or adopting new 

practices based on evaluation results, limiting the impact of monitoring and evaluation 

efforts.

Supporting Recommendation 9.6: The federal government should select the most appropriate 

mix of policies, incentives, and requirements to support sustainable and scalable growth in the 

domestic IoT manufacturing supply chain.

These policies, incentives, and requirements are particularly relevant in the transportation sector 

as that becomes increasingly connected, electric, shared, integrated, seamless, and ultimately 

autonomous. Rapid advances in transportation technologies are already occurring that are 

further augmented by several communication and information technologies, including the 

Internet of Things (IoT). In addition, the sector is becoming increasingly electrified. 

The recommendations in this section can apply to all aspects of domestic IoT manufacturing. 

American manufacturers share the goal of fostering and strengthening domestic manufacturing 

and supply chain capabilities. With the recent influx of federal funding and executive orders in 

this sector, there is an increasing trend to support the “Buy American” concept. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 86 of 123

The justification for an appropriate mix of policies, incentives, and requirements to support 

sustainable and scalable growth in the domestic manufacturing supply chain market is provided 

below: 

● Absent significant time to build new manufacturing capacity, develop new supply chains, 

and train workers, tighter domestic preference requirements could create supply 

constraints and prevent the manufacturers from meeting even modest deployment goals. 

● In some cases, U.S. manufacturing capacity cannot meet increased demand that would 

be sparked by anticipated federal investment/incentives let alone current domestic 

demand. 

● In some cases, there are no domestic alternatives for components and subcomponents, 

limiting the ability of equipment providers to control their domestic content. US 

Manufacturers cannot force their component and subcomponent suppliers to relocate 

facilities to the U.S.

● Compliance with federal domestic preference requirements is time consuming and costly 

particularly when it comes to the country of origin of components and subcomponents. 

This burden will increase as subcomponents become smaller and more integrated. 

Implementation Considerations: Methods for fostering and strengthening domestic 

manufacturing and supply chain capabilities include: 

● Phasing in domestic contact requirements. An extended phase in period is necessary in 

order to avoid supply shortages and provide domestic manufacturers and their suppliers 

with sufficient time to develop domestic manufacturing capabilities, build up supply 

chains, and train their workforce. 

● Accelerate domestic manufacturing with an investment tax credit for associated capital 

costs. 

● Provide clear rules governing domestic content requirements, including guidelines on 

how they apply across all funding and procurement programs. Further, this guidance 

should also be provided to implementing state agencies. 

● Avoid any rules that require determining the country of origin of subcomponents 

integrated into larger domestically manufactured components. 

● The component test should include all costs associated with the manufacturing of a 

product, such as labor, transportation, allocable overhead, and material. And clearly 

designate that the domestic labor used in the final assembly of a product is included in 

the component test. 

● Allow 100% of manufacture value added (MVA) or substantial transformation to be 

classified as domestic content in component tests. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 87 of 123

● Countries should be designated outside of the US from which materials and components 

can be procured and the component test for products substantially transformed in one of 

these acceptable countries can be waived. These could be countries that the US already 

has established trade agreements with such as: USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada 

Agreement) countries, European Union member states, The United Kingdom, and IndoPacific 

Potential barriers: Impediments to implementing this recommendation include:

● Current Supply Chain constraints meeting domestic content requirements - while there 

are a number of North American manufacturing plants for EV components particularly 

batteries being developed and constructed, there is a ramp up time to get to full

production. 

● Funding constraints: There is a huge initial capital cost investment to build up new 

domestic manufacturing plants. 

● Resource constraints: There will need to be an influx of skilled engineers and 

technicians to support this domestic buildup.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 88 of 123

Smart Supply Chain Traceability

Supporting Recommendation 9.7: The government should promote the development and use 

of standards for supply chain logistics, traceability, and assurance. 

This is foundational to changing supply chain behavior. The objective is to enable and 

accelerate IoT adoption using IoT technology and standards to improve supply chain logistics, 

traceability, and assurance of IoT products & services.

Description

The federal government should promote standards and protocols for supply chain logistics, 

traceability, and assurance. Collaboration with Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) 

and international allies can ensure manufacturers produce assured and traceable products. 

Incentives should encourage suppliers to establish unique corporate, product, asset, and part 

IDs linked to a digital thread for improved supply chain efficiency, transparency, resilience, and 

security. Additionally, supporting industry-led initiatives and education campaigns for IoT 

standards and protocols will drive adoption, minimize risk, and maximize economic value. These 

standards will ensure interoperability, reliability, and security across IoT-enabled supply chains, 

benefiting businesses and users.

Detailed Description

The federal government should foster the development, adoption, and use of standards and 

protocols for supply chain logistics, traceability, and assurance. It should collaborate with 

Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) and international allies to promote assured & 

traceable products by manufacturers for efficient, reliable, and secure supply of goods. It should 

incentivize suppliers to establish unique corporate IDs, product IDs, asset IDs, and part IDs 

linked to a digital thread of information and data, that are used to track and trace goods while 

improving supply chain efficiency, transparency, resilience, and security. 

Additionally, the federal government should also support industry-led initiatives and education 

campaigns to foster the development and adoption of IoT standards and protocols for supply 

chain management, traceability, and enablement of economic value. These standards should 

best enable interoperability, reliability, and security across IoT-enhanced supply chains, 

facilitating data exchange, decision-making and services. By creating and promoting such 

standards, the government can drive widespread adoption of IoT technology, minimize supply 

chain risk, and maximize economic value to businesses and users.

Justification

1. Interoperability: Standards are vital for integrating IoT technologies into complex supply 

chains, where multiple stakeholders and systems are involved. It ensures seamless 

communication and collaboration between IoT devices, systems, and platforms from 

different manufacturers.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 89 of 123

2. Scalability: Standardization facilitates the scalability of IoT implementations by providing 

consistent protocols and guidelines. This allows businesses to easily add new devices 

and expand their IoT networks, reducing the risk of incompatibilities and simplifying the 

integration of new components.

3. Innovation and competition: Standards and protocols drive innovation and competition 

by leveling the playing field for businesses and developers, of any size or market share. 

This fosters the creation of new products and services adhering to established 

standards, benefiting consumers and the entire industry.

4. Cybersecurity and data privacy: Industry standards for cybersecurity and data privacy 

can help mitigate risks related to IoT, such as cyber threats and data privacy issues. 

They establish robust protocols and guidelines, fostering consumer trust and driving the 

adoption of IoT technologies in the supply chain.

5. Simplified integration and maintenance: Industry standards and protocols streamline the 

process of integrating IoT technologies into existing systems and processes, reducing 

the time and resources required for implementation, making systems easier to maintain 

and troubleshoot in the field.

6. Cost savings: Standardization saves costs for businesses by reducing the need for 

customized solutions and simplifying procurement. It also drives economies of scale, 

allowing for more efficient production of standardized components and devices, resulting 

in lower costs for manufacturers and end-users.

7. Regulatory compliance: Standards and protocols provide a foundation for government 

regulations and policies on IoT and supply chain management. They promote adherence 

to best practices for security, privacy, and environmental impact, enhancing the security, 

stability, and sustainability of IoT ecosystems.

8. National Security: Identifier standards used to improve visibility and transparency of

products in the supply chain can reduce the risk of counterfeit or tampered goods used 

in critical sectors, as well as ensure the authenticity and integrity of IoT systems, parts, 

or any goods or services being tracked.

9. Public Health and Safety: Standards for fast identification and recall of products posing 

functional safety, cybersecurity, privacy, concerns are key. Consumers demand greater 

visibility, transparency, and accountability of detailed information on the origin and 

custody of goods, from development through delivery and use.

10. Sustainability and Economic Growth: Use of standard identifiers provides better 

traceability in the supply chain, from raw materials all the way to recycling or disposal by 

facilitating tracking of goods, reducing waste. They also enable the creation of a digital 

thread of data which can drive economic value. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 90 of 123

Implementation Considerations

1. Encourage Inclusiveness: Involve a diverse range of businesses, technology providers, 

academia, and government agencies, in the development of standards that align the 

interests of many stakeholders. 

2. Prioritize critical areas: Focus on the critical aspects of supply chain management where 

standardization can yield significant benefits, such as data exchange, device 

interoperability, security, and privacy.

3. Build on existing standards: Leverage industry standards and best practices as a starting 

point and adapt or expand upon them as necessary to address the specific requirements 

of supply chain management. Identify where gaps exist, and standards are not available 

and whether new standards are needed.

4. Encourage flexibility and adaptability: Design standards and protocols that are flexible 

and can be easily updated to accommodate new technologies, emerging threats, and 

evolving industry needs.

5. Promote adoption: Encourage and incentivize businesses to adopt the established 

standards and protocols through government adoption, contract flow-down, education, 

outreach, and support programs.

6. Ensure compliance: Develop mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with the 

established standards and protocols, including certifications, audits, and penalties for 

non-compliance.

7. Foster Global Collaboration: develop programs that incentivize suppliers to adopt global 

identifier methods based on standards for supply chains with an emphasis on electronics 

and IoT.

8. Promote Use of Identifiers: Encourage suppliers to establish unique corporate IDs, 

product IDs, asset IDs, and part IDs to drive consistency, interoperability, and 

trustworthiness in any supply chain.

9. Speed Adoption of Identifiers: Facilitate the adoption of identifiers through incentives, 

education, and outreach programs. Promote linking Identifiers to IoT cybersecurity 

labeling programs for consumers and industrial IoT.

10. Improve Supply Chain Systems: Create incentives to upgrade existing supply chain 

management systems to include global identifier standards that ensure seamless 

tracking and tracing.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 91 of 123

Potential implementation barriers

1. Resistance to standardization: Some businesses and stakeholders may resist 

standardization efforts due to concerns about the potential loss of competitive 

advantage, customization capabilities, or intellectual property rights.

2. Fragmentation Challenges: The IoT landscape and supply chains are highly fragmented, 

with numerous vendors, platforms, and technologies and types of stakeholders, 

suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors. Achieving consensus and collaboration 

among all stakeholders can be challenging.

3. Cost and resource constraints: Developing and implementing industry standards and 

protocols can be resource-intensive, requiring significant investments in time, money, 

and expertise.

4. Rapid technological advancements: The IoT field is rapidly evolving, making it difficult to 

keep standards and protocols up-to-date and relevant. The rapid growth of AI will make 

it even more complex.

5. Technical Implementation Challenges: Suppliers may view implementation of Identifier 

infrastructure as burdensome and expensive and may be reluctant to invest time and 

money into adopting new standards, especially if they lack the resources and expertise.

6. International Harmonization Challenges: The need for harmonizing identifier standards 

and systems used by different countries or regions and creating a secure and reliable 

database to store and manage (selectively share) the Identifiers and related information 

across borders.

Federal considerations

1. Engage and support Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) and their 

committees working with industry and academia to create standards for supply chain 

logistics, traceability, and assurance.

2. Provide a regulatory framework for developing catalogs and taxonomy of supply chain 

standards that supports standardization efforts while promoting innovation and 

competition.

3. Collaborate with international allies to ensure that the standards and protocols are 

globally relevant and can be harmonized with international guidelines while being 

consistent with U.S. trade policy goals.

4. Offer financial and technical support to businesses, particularly small and medium-sized 

enterprises, to help them adopt and comply with the established standards and 

protocols.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 92 of 123

5. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the standards and protocols over time and 

adjust as needed to address emerging challenges and opportunities.

6. Prioritize the protection of sensitive information and ensure the security and reliability of 

databases used to manage the identifiers and related information.

7. Encourage the use of Global Identifier Standards (such as GLS of GS1) in procurement 

contracts and regulatory frameworks and track goods and info related to assets and 

data, to optimize risk, cost, benefits, and value.

Supporting recommendation 9.8: Agencies should support creation of cryptographically 

strong architectures and infrastructure that enable supply provenance, traceability, and lifecycle 

management by linking HBOM, SBOM to the design & manufacturing processes and data into a 

foundation of trust enabling IoT services. 

Description

The federal government should incentivize suppliers to develop trusted architectures for supply 

chain logistics, provenance, traceability, assurance of supply and IoT lifecycle management. By 

cryptographically linking SBOM to trusted HBOM2 in any IoT device or system, industries can 

help mitigate the risks associated with supply chain security, compromised components, and 

ensure the security and reliability of critical systems. This will provide benefits for national 

security, public safety, and economic stability, making it a valuable investment for the 

government and society.

Justification

1. The use of trusted architectures for supply chain provenance and traceability can help 

mitigate the risks associated with vulnerabilities or compromised components.

2. Trusted architectures for supply chain provenance and traceability can increase the 

trustworthiness of critical IoT systems, which is key for national security, public safety, 

and economic stability.

3. These architectures can increase consumer confidence in the products they purchase 

and prevent supply chain attacks and data breaches leading to greater economic 

benefits for businesses.

4. Cryptographic linking of SBOM to trusted HBOM enhances supply chain security, 

visibility, chain of custody and product lifecycle management. (and overall user 

confidence).

2 Trusted HBOM includes Root of Trust with a source of Entropy such as PUF or TRNG for security and 

unique ID. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 93 of 123

Implementation Considerations

1. Educate stakeholders in the value chain on the benefits of using trusted architectures for 

supply chain provenance and traceability.

2. Promote industry adoption of trusted architectures through education and outreach. 

Incentivize hardware suppliers to develop trusted architectures that enable supply chain 

provenance and traceability.

3. Develop guidelines for how the trusted architectures should be implemented by linking 

HBOM and SBOM with DBOM3 to facilitate provenance and traceability and encourage 

the adoption of standards and best practices.

4. Foster collaboration between government agencies and industry stakeholders (PrivatePublic Partnerships) to develop and promote trusted architectures that support secure 

protocols for provisioning and market access.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Lack of awareness or understanding of the benefits of trusted architectures.

2. Resistance from industry stakeholders who are not interested in investing in new 

technologies. (or are considering competing technologies).

3. Implementation costs associated with developing and deploying new systems.

4. Technical challenges associated with integrating new systems with existing 

infrastructure.

5. Complexities involved in developing and deploying trusted architectures at scale.

Supporting Recommendation 9.9: The government should establish incentives for industries 

to adopt capabilities for tracing design, manufacturing, and supply chain workflows that 

cryptographically link parts, personas, and data to deliver traceable products and IoT systems 

that function as originally intended.

Description 

Ensuring the security and integrity of the connected Electronics and IoT Systems supply chain is 

key to accelerate IT/OT convergence and prevent cyber-attacks in critical infrastructure that 

could result in serious human and economic losses. Classic supply chains focus on resilience 

and Availability. IoT Systems also require Confidentiality and Integrity and Assurance (CIA, as 

3 Digital Bill of Materials consisting of HBOM, SBOM and other info related to quality, reliability and 

workflow process.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 94 of 123

defined in ISO/IEC 27002). The term “trusted” refers to whether IoT Systems and their parts 

operate as intended and whether any data they produce is not compromised or tampered with. 

Justification

1. Ensure the confidentiality and integrity of IoT electronics supply chains to prevent cyberattacks in critical infrastructure and protect against human and economic losses.

2. Accelerate IT/OT convergence with adoption of trusted traceability methods for the 

electronics supply chain that enhance the efficiency & effectiveness in the delivery of 

critical infrastructure services.

3. Enable companies and businesses to foster innovation, create a competitive advantage 

with smart-secure-connected electronics IoT Systems and become smart-connectedsecure suppliers.

4. Enable the creation of trusted ecosystems that accelerate end-to-end innovation, 

monetization, and growth of IoT-enabled digital economies. 

Implementation Considerations

1. Offer tax credits, grants, or other financial incentives to companies that market 

electronics products with traceable parts Country of Diffusion and Country of Origin4

, 

provenance, and journey in the supply chain.

2. Require contractors and suppliers to adhere to specific security and traceability 

standards when bidding on government contracts, particularly for critical infrastructure.

3. Establish a certification process for connected electronics and IoT products that meet 

security and traceability standards to improve trust in the supply chain, possibly linked to 

cybersecurity labels. 

4. Engage industry associations and other stakeholders to develop best practices and 

guidelines for secure connected electronics and IoT systems development and supply 

chain management.

Barriers

1. Lack of awareness or expertise: Some companies may not be aware of traceability 

benefits, or the risks associated with lack of it. SMBs may lack the expertise to 

implement traceability methods effectively.

4 Country of Diffusion where a part is fabricated and Country of Origin where the product made of parts is 

assembled.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 95 of 123

2. Limited supply chain visibility: In some cases, it may be difficult to trace components 

back to their original source due to limited information or visibility into the supply chain.

3. Data confidentiality concerns: Collecting and storing data for traceability purposes may 

raise concerns about data trust and potential risks of using it for various applications. 

4. Cost of implementation: Companies may be resistant to investing in trusted traceability 

methods due to limited budgets, or lack of expertise or lack of standardized security and 

traceability protocols.

Federal Considerations

1. Provide financial incentives to companies to encourage the adoption of trusted 

traceability methods aligned with executive orders and broader government priorities. 

2. Work with industry stakeholders to offer tax credits, grants, or other financial incentives 

to companies that offer traceable connected electronics products. 

3. Incentivize contractors and suppliers to adhere to specific security and traceability 

standards when bidding on government contracts for critical infrastructure.

4. Promote partnerships of industry associations and stakeholders to identify potential gaps 

in the connected electronics supply chain and develop targeted solutions to address 

them.

Supporting Recommendation 9.10: As foundations of trust evolve and IoT devices are 

deployed, get connected to networks, and used in the field, the government should promote 

traceable and interoperable IoT ecosystems across value chains amongst devices, personas, 

and infrastructure. 

Description 

Drive awareness and interoperability programs on how trust is established among devices, 

networks, and personas operating in connected IoT environments, in ways that enable secure 

and reliable data exchanges and protect against malicious attacks, data breaches, and other 

security threats. By promoting a framework of trust, the government can have a significant 

impact on the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, information sharing, innovation, 

data protection, international cooperation, and international trade.

Justification

1. Trusted network ecosystems facilitate information sharing, innovation, data protection, 

international cooperation, and international trade.

2. They improve the security and resilience of critical infrastructure with information 

sharing, analytics, and feedback for digital twins.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 96 of 123

3. They enable trusted data exchanges and protect against malicious attacks and data 

breaches. 

4. They help manage threats and mitigate risks and consequences, economic, reputational 

and loss of life.

Implementation Considerations

1. Drive awareness on how security and trust is established in IoT networks among 

devices, personas and applications operating in connected IoT environments.

2. Work with industry stakeholders to develop and promote standards, guidelines, and 

interoperability programs to ensure that devices and networks can communicate 

securely and reliably.

3. Encourage the development and adoption of secure and trusted IoT technologies and 

solutions. Work with industry, academia, and other stakeholders to promote innovation 

and research in IoT security.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Implementation may require significant upgrade to existing legacy systems and supply 

chain processes. Lack of standards and best practices can be a key barrier.

2. Companies may be resistant to investing in trusted IoT network ecosystems due to the 

costs involved.

3. Lack of awareness and understanding of the importance of IoT security and trust. 

Resistance to change and the adoption of new technologies and approaches.

4. Limited interoperability between IoT devices and networks. Challenges in securing 

legacy systems that may not have been designed with security in mind.

Federal Considerations

1. Work with industry stakeholders to develop guidelines for trusted IoT network 

ecosystems and provide financial incentives to companies to encourage their adoption.

2. Promote the adoption of workflows, IoT technologies, and solutions that improve the 

security and resilience of critical infrastructure, especially for federal agencies. 

3. Develop a comprehensive strategy for promoting the security of IoT devices and 

networks and invest in infrastructure to accelerate adoption of secure IoT solutions. 

4. Collaborate with international partners to promote and harmonize global standards and 

best practices for securing IoT devices and networks.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 97 of 123

Supporting Recommendation 9.11: Promote the use of digital threads among enterprises in 

disaggregated supply chains, to enable the creation of connected IoT value chains. Leverage 

digital threads of data across value chains to enable marketplaces of trusted data producers 

and data consumers.

Description 

The government should support the development of digital threads across value chains by 

incentivizing companies to digitalize their workflows, link their internal data IDs and Bills of 

Materials (DBOM, HBOM, SBOM) to identifiers and data to create trusted digital threads that 

can enable marketplaces of data producers and data consumers platforms. Business platforms 

for data exchange can have a significant impact on improving supply chain visibility, innovation, 

efficiency, security, and economic growth. Digital threads may extend from supply chains to the 

field use of IoT devices and connected ecosystems of data marketplaces.

Justification

1. Increase end-to-end visibility of a product's lifecycle, and enable better supply chain 

visibility and security, which can help reduce risk of cyberattacks, product counterfeiting, 

and product recalls.

2. Companies that adopt a digital thread can improve supply chain efficiency, reduce costs, 

manage vulnerabilities, increase differentiation, promote innovation and enable data 

monetization.

3. Digital threads can enable marketplaces of data producers and data consumers, 

creating new business opportunities for innovation and revenue streams that will fuel the 

future digital economies.

4. Accelerate adoption by linking digital threads (DBOM, HBOM, SBOM) across value 

chains in ways that protect proprietary IP while enabling data marketplaces (e.g, through 

metadata and information).

Implementation Considerations

1. Develop educational and training programs to help businesses implement digital 

threads. Establish guidelines for creating a digital thread, including standards for 

selective data sharing and security.

2. Incentivize companies to digitalize their workflows through tax credits, grants, or 

subsidies for investing in digital technologies. Encourage collaboration among industry 

and government agencies on best practices.

3. Leverage the Cybersecurity labeling program to create a digital trail of Bills of Materials 

(DBOM, HBOM, SBOM, Security keys, certificates etc.) for IoT systems that will vary by 

vertical market.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 98 of 123

4. Provide funding for research and development of methods and standards to facilitate 

development of best practices and guidelines for implementing digital threads.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Resistance from businesses to adopt new digital technologies and workflows. The 

upfront costs of digitalization may be prohibitive for some companies, even though the 

ROI may justify them. 

2. Reluctance to share data due to concerns about intellectual property and competitive 

advantage. The digital thread should allow sharing of metadata information and data at 

the producer’s discretion. 

3. Different industries may have varying requirements for digital threads, making it 

challenging to establish common standards and overcome concerns around data 

privacy, security, and interoperability.

Federal Considerations

1. Provide financial incentives to companies to encourage the adoption of digitalization and 

the creation of a digital thread for both SMBs as well as large enterprises.

2. Work with industry stakeholders to develop guidelines for creating a trusted digital thread 

and how to comply with regulatory requirements for data privacy and security.

3. Promote the adoption of digital threads in procurement contracts (e.g., DBOM linked to 

HBOM/SBOM) and foster PPPs that enable and promote supply chain traceability linked 

to security.

Supporting Recommendation 9.12: As digital threads and data platforms emerge, the 

government should incentivize the enablement and use of data marketplaces to increase 

visibility and economic growth with data enabled services while protecting proprietary IP and PII 

of stakeholders. 

Description

The government should incentivize the enablement and use of trusted data marketplaces where 

data producers and consumers query and share information about data, enabling better 

visibility, traceability, and monetization while protecting proprietary IP and PII. Trusted data 

marketplaces can be enabled through incentives such as tax credits or subsidies for companies 

that develop platforms for data exchange, or IoT services that establish market preference or 

regulated market access & use of goods. Platforms facilitate adoption of data marketplaces can 

help data producers and consumers reduce lifecycle costs, improve efficiency by streamlining 

processes and eliminate redundancies, especially in complex supply chains where information 

flows are often fragmented or disconnected.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 99 of 123

Justification

1. Establish market preference and market access with better supply chain visibility and 

traceability.

2. Reduce costs of data sharing and licensing among data producers and consumers. 

3. Improve efficiency by streamlining supply chain processes to locate and license relevant 

data.

4. Reduce redundancies and simplify logistics in complex supply chains for access and use 

of goods.

5. Increase data visibility in value chains to enable growth of marketplaces that will fuel 

digital economies.

Implementation Considerations

1. Identify suitable marketplaces to incentivize and support (e.g., EV charging and 

monetization). Develop guidelines and incentives for access and use of data in the 

marketplace.

2. Promote the benefits of data marketplaces to potential participants and provide tax 

credits and subsidies to encourage participation.

3. Ensure data security and confidentiality measures are in place. Monitor and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the data marketplaces. Use analytics to improve visibility, traceability, 

efficiency, and cost.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Lack of awareness about the benefits of marketplace platforms. Concerns and 

resistance over data security and confidentiality

2. Difficulty in regulating and monitoring access and use of data in the marketplace. 

Unwillingness to share proprietary data without a license. 

3. Lack of open and participatory business platforms for data marketplaces that can evolve 

over time as more business discover the value of digitalization.

Federal Considerations

1. Implement data privacy and confidentiality regulations based on experience (GDPR, 

CDPP, etc.). Develop policies to prevent monopolies in the data marketplace.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 100 of 123

2. Provide education and resources to help organizations participate in data marketplaces. 

Ensure that the marketplace is accessible to small businesses and not just large 

corporations.

3. Balance incentives for participation with data security, and confidentiality concerns so 

that enterprises are incentivized to join data marketplaces and grow their business. 

4. Coordinate with other federal agencies and international allies to ensure a cohesive 

approach. Align with broader government efforts to promote open innovation platforms.

Supporting Recommendation 9.13: The government should encourage Private-Public 

partnerships to finance a unified infrastructure for the digitalization of enterprise business 

processes including design, production, procurement, distribution, etc. to accelerate adoption of 

digital threads.

Description

The digitalization of all business functions (design, production, marketing, procurement, 

distribution, etc.) enables more efficient IoT product management, greater visibility, and 

traceability over supply chains to track products, monitor quality, and fix issues or defects. By 

using cryptographic methods, digitalization can have a major impart in improving the security, 

reliability, and integrity of the data for the digital economy. By providing incentives for 

businesses to adopt digital tools, the federal government can help promote ecosystems that 

create opportunities for businesses and workers in any value chains which will drive economic 

growth.

Justification

1. Digitalization of business functions leads to greater management, efficiency, and 

visibility in supply chains.

2. Cryptographic methods improve security, reliability, and integrity of digital data, 

especially in hand-offs.

3. Digitalization enables secure ecosystems, opportunities for businesses/workers and 

economic growth.

4. Financing a digitalization infrastructure can increase adoption among stakeholders in IoT 

value chains.

5. Digitalization of value chains enhances security, reliability, and integrity of data for the 

digital economy.

Implementation Considerations

1. Develop and communicate clear guidelines and criteria for eligibility for the subsidies.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 101 of 123

2. Incentivize PPPs to work on Proof of Concept (PoC) pilot projects before investing to 

deploy at scale.

3. Create a streamlined application and approval process for businesses to apply for the 

subsidies.

4. Ensure that the funds are accessible to businesses of all sizes and types in the IoT value 

chain.

5. Monitor the effectiveness of the funds to ensure that they are achieving the intended 

outcomes.

6. Provide incentives for businesses to invest in digitalization and adopt digital technologies 

and tools.

7. Encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing among businesses to promote best 

practices.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. SMBs lack the resources or expertise to effectively implement digital technologies and 

tools.

2. The initial cost of implementing digital technologies and tools may be a barrier for some 

businesses.

3. Resistance to change or adoption of new technologies, or lack of technical expertise and 

resources.

4. Concerns over the security and confidentiality of digital data may discourage some 

businesses from adopting digital technologies and tools.

Federal Considerations

1. Ensure that any funds for digitalization align with broader federal priorities and goals, 

such as promoting economic growth and national security.

2. Coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure that the subsidies do not conflict with 

other federal programs or initiatives to promote consistency and avoid redundancy.

3. Monitor and evaluate the impact of the subsidies in IoT value chains and digital 

economies.

4. Encourage equitable access to digital technologies and tools across different regions 

and industries and ensure that digitalization efforts prioritize security and privacy 

matters.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 102 of 123

Supporting Recommendation 9.14: To speed up the creation of connected value chains the 

government should promote PPPs that facilitate the adoption of end-to-end digital threads using 

consistent digitalization methods capturing receivables, processes, and certified deliverables.

Description

The federal government can accelerate the creation of traceable supply chains by encouraging 

orchestration of connected Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs) among stakeholders across 

complex value chains who maintain Trust through collaboration and accountability by digitalizing 

portions of supply chains piecemeal using consistent methods of “receivables-processdeliverables”. This can help supply chain stakeholders to have PPPs collaborating in parallel to 

accelerate adoption of digital threads and become more efficient which will help businesses to 

grow new data-enabled revenue streams on top of IoT products and services that will fuel 

economic growth. 

Justification

1. Orchestrated PPPs can accelerate the adoption of end-to-end digital thread and 

traceability in complex supply chains, by digitalizing portions of supply chains piecemeal 

in parallel using consistent methods. 

2. Collaboration and accountability among enterprises in IoT value chains can create 

resilient and secure supply chains that can help businesses drive economic growth.

3. Traceability can help businesses reduce risk, increase resilience, and protect against 

supply chain risks of vulnerabilities, intrusions, and adversaries, which can lead to 

business and economic growth.

4. Ensure that IoT supply chain infrastructure is secure, transparent, and trustworthy. Drive 

shared monetization among stakeholders leveraging fintech to enable scalable 

economics.

Implementation Considerations

1. Encourage orchestration of connected Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs) across 

complex value chains, by providing incentives for businesses to adopt transparent 

workflow practices and engage in PoCs.

2. Promote consistent digitalization methods for "receivables-process-deliverables" across 

supply chains by digitalizing portions of supply chains piecemeal to facilitate 

collaboration among stakeholders.

3. Fund the development of digital infrastructure, training programs, and other resources 

necessary for successful partnership implementation. All requirements are equal 

responsibility of all PPP stakeholders.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 103 of 123

4. Create taxonomy of entities in market-specific supply chains that can be orchestrated to 

maintain trust through collaboration, guidelines, and standards among connected 

stakeholders.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Resistance to change from supply chain stakeholders who are accustomed to traditional 

methods and may be hesitant to share or exchange data with competitors in the value 

chain. 

2. Limited awareness about the benefits, or lack of technical expertise, or capacity to join 

PPPs, or costs associated with implementing digitalization methods across enterprises 

in the supply chain.

3. Lack of awareness about the importance of trustworthy and secure supply chains and 

resource constraints for smaller businesses that may not have the capacity to participate 

in partnerships.

4. Difficulty in creating a taxonomy of enterprises in supply chains orchestrating and 

coordinating multiple stakeholders across fragmented supply chains.

Federal Considerations

1. Prioritize PPPs that promote transparency, efficiency, and security and ensure that any 

incentives align with established guidelines and standards and not unfairly disadvantage 

SMBs or create monopolies.

2. Foster collaboration among federal agencies, industries, and value chains to accelerate 

adoption with a unified approach to IoT supply chain security and transparency.

3. Consider the potential impact on domestic and international trade policies and the 

importance of ensuring that any subsidies are distributed equitably across various 

stakeholders.

Supporting Recommendation 9.15: As digital threads drive growth of data among 

marketplaces, policies will be needed regarding data privacy, confidentiality, ownership, control, 

management, access, licensing, and trust for data use in applications, to minimize security risks 

and maximize economic value.

Description

Monetization of data will require infrastructure for Security, Privacy, Data Sharing, Ownership 

plus Control Frameworks for Identity and Access management (IAM), Data Protection, Sharing 

and Exchange, Data Analytics and AI, to minimize supply chain risk and maximize economic 

value. Policies related to data can have a major impact on privacy, security, interoperability, 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 104 of 123

transparency, accountability, innovation, and monetization, as they can fuel synergistic 

ecosystems and the future digital economies.

Justification

1. Data policies can have a major impact on privacy, security, interoperability, 

transparency, accountability, innovation, and monetization.

2. A lack of clear and consistent data policies can create uncertainty and hinder the growth 

of digital economies. The right data strategy can drive business growth and fuel 

synergistic ecosystems.

3. Data requires infrastructure for data security, confidentiality, sharing, ownership, control, 

licensing, identity & access management (IAM), and analytics to minimize risks and 

maximize economic value.

4. Anonymization of collected data is essential for privacy, critical infrastructure, safety 

initiatives, threat minimization and operation of smart cities, roads, and transportation.

Implementation Considerations

1. Promote infrastructure for security and privacy, data sharing, ownership and control 

frameworks, identity, and access management (IAM), data protection, sharing and 

exchange, and data analytics.

2. Establish policies related to trusted data that need to be created and enforced to ensure 

compliance with regulatory requirements. 

3. Promote essential requirements and guidelines for data privacy, confidentiality and 

anonymization.

4. Evolve policies in consultation with industry, academia, civil society, and government 

agencies and keep them up to date with changing technologies and business models.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Lack of knowledge about data policies, resistance to change and implementation of new 

policies. Lack of clarity on how data policies will impact stakeholders, particularly related 

to privacy and security.

2. The lack of clear and consistent data policies can create uncertainty and hinder the 

adoption by businesses and workers as well as the growth of digital economies.

3. The cost of establishing infrastructure for data security, privacy, sharing, and exchange, 

as well as data analytics with AI, may be significant.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 105 of 123

4. Developing data policies that balance privacy and security concerns with innovation and 

economic growth can be challenging.

Federal Considerations

1. Consider the potential impact of data policies on privacy, security, transparency, 

accountability, and monetization and develop policies that prioritize privacy and 

security to build trust with consumers and encourage innovation by providing clear 

guidelines for data use.

2. Create policies that should promote interoperability to enable data sharing across 

different systems and corporations. Consider the impact of such policies on SMBs.

3. Promote collaboration and information sharing among federal agencies and industry 

partners to improve data policies and infrastructure.

Supporting Recommendation 9.16: As data produced in supply chains and during field use 

becomes the “new gold”, the government should raise awareness about the value of data 

marketplaces and incentivize the creation business ecosystems and data-driven networks of 

products, businesses, and value chains.

Description

The federal government should raise awareness about the New Gold, Data Monetization 

Strategies, Data Analytics for Insights, Trusted Data Marketplaces, Platform-based Business 

Ecosystems, Network effects, Digital Thread of Data in connected value chains, Data 

Regulations, and tools for Monitoring and Managing Data Marketplaces. Data-driven networks 

of interconnected businesses, technologies, and platforms that can leverage synergies to 

enhance existing products and services, will accelerate creation of new revenue streams and 

enable digital twins.

Justification

1. Data-driven ecosystems can create new revenue streams and enhance existing 

products and services among Interconnected businesses, technologies, and platforms 

can leverage synergies in the value chain.

2. Data analytics can provide insights that drive innovation, improve decision-making, and 

enable data monetization strategies. This can lead to significant benefits and economic 

growth.

3. Trusted data marketplaces can promote data sharing and collaboration. Data-driven 

business ecosystems can lead to new revenue streams and enhanced products and 

services.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 106 of 123

4. Platform-based ecosystems can enable businesses to collaborate and innovate more 

effectively and scale rapidly through network effects can create a virtuous cycle of 

growth for businesses.

5. Data regulations can provide a framework for businesses to manage and use data 

responsibly and using tools for monitoring and managing data marketplaces can ensure 

transparency and accountability.

Implementation Considerations

1. Develop educational programs for businesses and individuals. Raise awareness about 

data-driven business ecosystems through public campaigns, conferences, and 

workshops.

2. Provide funding and incentives for data-driven ecosystem and solutions PPPs with 

industry leaders, innovative startups, and academic institutions.

3. Foster the development of platform-based business ecosystems by providing incentives 

and resources to businesses.

4. Encourage collaboration and innovation among businesses by promoting network 

effects. Provide tools and resources for monitoring and managing data marketplaces.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. Lack of awareness and understanding about data-driven business ecosystems and 

platforms.

2. Limited resources and expertise for implementing data monetization strategies from data 

analytics.

3. Lack of national strategy to enable the creation of platform-based ecosystems and 

balance the benefits of data-driven businesses and marketplaces with data privacy and 

security concerns.

Federal Considerations

1. Ensure fair competition and prevent monopolies. Balance the need for data 

confidentiality and security with the benefits and value of data-driven business 

ecosystems for data management and sharing.

2. Encourage the private sector to invest in data-driven economic growth. Promote 

collaboration between government, industry, and academia. Promote collaboration 

businesses while ensuring fair competition.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 107 of 123

3. Ensure transparency and visibility in data marketplaces by encouraging the use of data 

analytics to improve government operations and services.

4. Address the digital divide to ensure that all businesses have access to the resources 

and tools needed to participate in data-driven business ecosystems.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 108 of 123

Supporting Recommendation 9.17: Considering the rapid growth of AI, the federal 

government should assess the supply chain risks of intrusions and attacks as well as 

opportunities to speed up adoption, as AI will have profound impact risk management, security, 

resilience, and economic growth.

Description

The federal government should evaluate the potential impact of AI in accelerating adoption of 

supply chain resilience, security, and traceability. It should also evaluate the risks of malicious 

actors using AI to tamper with supply chains, as well as consequences, potential remedies and 

regulatory actions needed to prevent state nation attacks, especially in legacy infrastructure. 

Justification

1. AI-powered supply chain traceability can help improve the accuracy and efficiency of 

tracking products and components throughout the supply chain.

2. It can help prevent counterfeiting and improve supply chain transparency, which is 

increasingly important for businesses and consumers alike.

3. AI can help companies quickly detect and respond to supply chain disruptions, reducing 

the risk of costly delays or shortages. 

4. The use of AI by malicious actors to intrude into the supply chain of critical infrastructure 

could have serious consequences, such as data breaches, system disruptions, or 

physical damage.

5. The use of generative AI for software development will explode SBOM creation and 

deployments in supply chains making it extremely complex to implement trusted 

traceability.

6. The increasing use of AI in critical infrastructure makes it a potential target for attackers 

seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in AI systems.

7. AI-powered attacks could be more sophisticated and harder to detect than traditional 

attacks, making them more difficult to defend against.

Implementation Considerations

1. Promote how to leverage AI and IoT technologies to create end-to-end supply chain 

visibility and traceability.

2. Encourage the use of AI algorithms for analyzing vast amounts of supply chain data to 

identify patterns and anomalies, making it easier to identify potential vulnerabilities or 

areas for improvement.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 109 of 123

3. Companies can use AI-powered predictive analytics to anticipate supply chain 

disruptions and take proactive measures to mitigate them.

4. The government can work with industry stakeholders and global allies to develop AIspecific security standards, best practices and regulations for the use of AI to create 

SBOMs used in critical infrastructure.

5. AI systems used in critical infrastructure should be subject to rigorous testing and 

evaluation to identify potential vulnerabilities and ensure they are secure.

6. The government should provide funding and resources for research into AI security and 

develop tools to detect and respond to AI-powered attacks.

Potential Implementation Barriers

1. The rapid evolution of AI technology makes it difficult to keep pace with emerging threats 

and vulnerabilities.

2. Lack of data quality regarding the accuracy and completeness of supply chain data can 

be a challenge, making it difficult for AI algorithms to provide reliable insights.

3. Sharing supply chain data with third-party AI vendors can raise concerns about data 

privacy and security. Regulating AI for SBOM at an international level is a critical 

consideration.

4. Implementing AI-powered supply chain traceability requires significant technical 

expertise and resources and there are challenges associated with securing AI systems.

5. The cost of implementing AI security measures could be significant, especially for 

smaller companies that may lack the resources to invest in advanced cybersecurity 

measures.

Federal considerations

1. The government should evaluate the potential risks and benefits of AI-powered supply 

chain traceability and work with industry stakeholders to develop regulations and 

guidelines as needed.

2. The government should ensure that any regulations or guidelines related to AI-powered 

supply chain traceability are consistent with existing data privacy and security laws.

3. The government should promote international collaboration on AI-powered supply chain 

traceability to help establish global standards and best practices.

4. The government should work with industry stakeholders to develop standards and best 

practices for securing AI systems used in critical infrastructure.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 110 of 123

5. The government should promote collaboration and information sharing among federal 

agencies and industry partners to improve AI security.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 111 of 123

Key Recommendation 10.0: Precision Agriculture

Develop a comprehensive national strategy for agricultural IoT to establish a clear vision and 

roadmap for the integration of IoT in agriculture, addressing current challenges, fostering 

innovation, and promoting long-term sustainability and competitiveness of the agricultural 

sector.

As IoT technologies continue to advance, their adoption in agriculture can significantly enhance 

productivity, resource efficiency, and environmental sustainability. However, without a cohesive 

national strategy, the potential benefits of agricultural IoT may be hindered by fragmented 

initiatives, limited interoperability, and a lack of clear direction. This strategy should be 

developed in collaboration with stakeholders, such as farmers, technology providers, industry 

experts, and research institutions, to ensure broad consensus and commitment to its 

implementation.

The Federal government should identify and prioritize the most pressing challenges faced by 

the agricultural sector that can be addressed through the use of IoT technologies, such as water 

management, pest control, and labor shortages. The government should develop specific goals, 

timelines, and milestones for the integration of IoT in agriculture, ensuring alignment with 

broader national objectives related to food security, environmental sustainability, and economic 

growth. This could be accomplished by establishing an interagency task force to oversee the 

development and implementation of the national strategy, involving relevant agencies such as 

the USDA, FCC, and DOE. 

Supplemental Recommendation 10.1: The federal government should consider subsidizing 

the use of IoT in farms.

The federal government should consider programs to help growers and producers adopt IoT 

technologies. This should include subsidies around connectivity, sensors, and digital 

applications. The programs could be similar to other subsidies that the USDA has for farmers 

around agricultural inputs or climate smart agriculture. The use of IoT in agriculture will benefit 

all stakeholders, including the farmer, the policy makers, the agricultural companies, and the 

consumer.

The upfront cost of IoT typically limits the adoption of data-driven agriculture, and the farmers 

who may have the most need may be the ones least likely to take advantage of digital 

technology. Federal subsidies can help scale the technology, which will drive down costs for all, 

and could help marginalized farmers and smallholder farmers who might need more help to 

leverage technology.

Implementation Considerations: Developing an approach to IoT subsidization could involve a 

public / private / academic partnership and leveraging the knowledge and capabilities of 

Agricultural Extension centers. Particular attention should be paid to defining approaches that 

will enable marginalized and smallholder farmers to leverage available subsidies to deploy and 

benefit from IoT technology. 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 112 of 123

Potential Barriers: There is limited expertise in the market and industry, meaning resources 

and expertise may be difficult to secure.

Supplemental Recommendation 10.2: : The federal government should consider fully funding 

the deployment of a “farm of the future” setup in every land grant university nationwide. This 

nationwide test-farm IoT network should span different forms of agriculture, including, but not 

limited to broadacre, horticulture, livestock, and aquaculture.

The proposed initiative advocates for the federal government to allocate sufficient funding to 

implement a "farm of the future" setup in all land grant universities across the United States, 

providing a showcase for farmers in the region on how to collect and analyze data from their 

farms.

The data collected by the IoT network could be used to develop and refine machine learning 

algorithms, which could help farmers predict future crop yields and identify potential issues 

before they occur. (Note: That data might also be housed and shared through data repositories 

described in other recommendations.)

The nationwide "farm of the future" IoT network would enable universities to share data and 

insights with each other more easily, fostering a collaborative approach to agriculture. 

The implementation of a nationwide IoT network in land grant universities could help to advance 

research and development in agriculture, leading to the creation of new technologies and 

practices that could benefit farmers and consumers alike.

It is difficult to specify what IoT technologies should be acceptable to be used. Some concrete 

and specific IoT applications should be defined for inclusion in the project and funding 

requirements, based on project types.

Implementation Considerations: “Farm of the Future” efforts should look to assist in 

determining what IoT technologies should be acceptable to be used. Some concrete and 

specific IT applications should be defined for inclusion in the project and funding requirements, 

based on project types. This may require coordination with other federal agencies in alignment 

with their objectives. Different land grant universities might pose different challenges with 

respect to implementation, including connectivity, tech readiness, etc. It is important to include 

every university, including the HBCUs.

Potential Barriers: Project owners may have limited IoT awareness and knowledge, and there 

may be limited expertise and resources available in the marketplace to support IoT in the 

projects. Given the large number of land grant universities and the cost of agricultural 

equipment (e.g., connected combines, aquaculture systems), significant funding will be needed.

Supporting recommendation 10.3: The federal government should actively promote and 

support the adoption of Generative AI applications for agricultural IoT, with the aim of improving 
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 113 of 123

decision-making, optimizing resource utilization, and enhancing productivity in the agricultural 

sector through innovative and data-driven solutions.

Generative AI applications have the potential to revolutionize the way farmers analyze and use 

the data collected from IoT devices in agriculture. By leveraging advanced algorithms and 

machine learning techniques, Generative AI can enable farmers to identify patterns, optimize 

resource allocation, and make better informed decisions. This will result in benefits for various 

stakeholders, including farmers, policy makers, agricultural companies, and consumers.

Federal stakeholders could establish a public-private-academia partnership that would define 

specific agriculture applications (e.g., yield prediction, pest and disease management, irrigation 

scheduling, supply chain optimization) that might benefit from AI. Agencies could support the 

partnership through financial incentives and subsidies, and through formal promotion of 

education and training opportunities (perhaps in concert with other workforce efforts described.)

Implementation Considerations: Define specific agricultural applications: Consider specific 

use cases for Generative AI in agriculture, such as 

● Yield prediction: Generative AI can analyze historical and real-time data from IoT 

devices to predict crop yields more accurately, helping farmers to make better informed 

decisions regarding planting, harvesting, and marketing. 

● Pest and disease management: Generative AI can use data collected from IoT 

sensors to identify patterns in pest and disease occurrences, enabling farmers to adopt 

targeted and timely interventions for prevention and control 

● Irrigation scheduling: Generative AI can optimize irrigation schedules by analyzing 

data from IoT devices such as soil moisture sensors, weather stations, and satellite 

imagery, ensuring efficient water use and reducing water waste. 

● Supply chain optimization: Generative AI can analyze data from IoT devices 

throughout the supply chain to optimize logistics, reduce food waste, and increase 

overall efficiency. 

Provide incentives or subsidies to facilitate the adoption and integration of Generative AI 

applications by farmers and agricultural businesses. These incentives could include tax breaks, 

grants, or low-interest loans to help offset the upfront costs associated with implementing 

Generative AI solutions. 

Create educational programs and resources to help farmers and agricultural professionals 

understand the benefits of Generative AI technology and how to effectively implement and use 

these applications. This can be achieved through collaborations with Ag Extension Centers, 

universities, and industry experts. Offer workshops, webinars, and online courses to ensure 

widespread access to knowledge and training opportunities.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 114 of 123

Potential Barriers: Limited expertise and understanding of Generative AI technology may 

hinder widespread adoption. Additionally, effective collaboration between multiple agencies, 

stakeholders, and the private sector will be necessary to ensure successful implementation. 

Ensuring data privacy and security, as well as addressing any potential ethical concerns related 

to the use of AI in agriculture, will also be crucial factors to consider. Furthermore, the 

integration of Generative AI applications with existing agricultural IoT systems may require 

significant technical and operational adjustments.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 115 of 123

Key Recommendation 11.0: Environmental Monitoring

[Key recommendation text is still being developed.]

Supplemental Recommendation 11.1: The federal government should establish or encourage 

IoT environmental data repositories in support of open, available data. Promoting the open 

availability of data would promote research, improve transparency, and encourage proactive 

improvement by industry participants. 

As described in other recommendations throughout this report, improved interoperability and 

competitiveness will help benefit all IoT adopters, and an open model for shared and consistent 

data will help take strides toward those objectives.

Implementation Considerations: The Department of Energy’s Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) sharing of data (e.g., power plants) could be used as a possible 

implementation template. Data sharing protocols should avoid differences in post processing. 

Data sharing may need to be incentivized.

Potential Barriers: There may be significant variations in data quality and challenges with 

harmonization. There may be privacy concerns associated with some data, and companies 

may be resistance to sharing data for proprietary reasons.

Supplemental Recommendation 11.2: The federal government should facilitate and support 

the research, development and deployment of low cost air quality sensors. (Could we expand to 

additional types of monitoring?)

The Board observed that there is a need to shift from expensive (i.e., highly sensitive regulatory 

grade) sensors that limit deployment by organizations and municipalities. While such sensors 

are vital for particular monitoring purposes, large scale deployment of these types of monitoring 

equipment would be expensive and difficult.

Encouraging development and implementation of local, scalable air quality monitoring would 

support a variety of use cases, including:

● Increasing public awareness of air quality conditions;

● Informing environment and public policy, including through real-time testing and 

demonstration of policy impacts;

● Environmental justice work;

● Supplementing regulatory grade sensing with IoT commercial sensors;

● Public health research;

● Construction site emissions monitoring; and,
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 116 of 123

● Rapid or emergency air quality monitoring for particular circumstances.

Currently, regulatory monitoring is often limited to a few pollutants; the government can 

encourage expanded coverage of other emerging chemicals of concern (including greenhouse 

gasses) in monitoring and sensing systems.

Implementation Considerations: Agencies should encourage automated and consistent 

measurement and can facilitate research in low-cost sensing technologies for criterial pollutants. 

This effort should focus on 

● Measurements: facilitate research in low-cost sensing technologies for criterial 

pollutants, such optical particle scanning for particulate matter and M0x elements for 

gasses, as well as detection of emerging chemicals of concern.

● Correlation: facilitate and support research and a program in correlating regulatory 

grade data with low cost AQ data

● Expansion: facilitate the expansion of wireless connectivity to support remote 

monitoring and sensing in areas not serviced by traditional connectivity (TV white space, 

satellite, etc.)

The government should facilitate the expansion of wireless connectivity to support remote 

monitoring and sensing in areas not serviced by traditional connectivity. This recommendation 

supports (and is supported by) those described in Recommendation 4.

Potential Barriers: Regulatory monitoring spans multiple agencies, from the federal and state 

to county levels. Different monitoring regimes often operate with different calibration protocols. 

In addition there may be both funding and resource constraints, as well as legal barriers to be 

addressed
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 117 of 123

Key Recommendation 12.0: Public Safety

[Key and supporting recommendation text are still being developed.]

Supporting Recommendation 12.1: The federal government should create a stockpile of 

public safety IoT devices that is available for immediate access.

The federal government should create a stockpile of public safety IoT devices that are finite in 

type and need but contains a medley of manufacturers to choose from rather than a single or a 

couple of manufacturers from which stockpiles are sourced. Stewards could refresh the 

stockpile per labeling requirements and best use-by date.

The safety and wellbeing of each and every citizen, including their ability to live in safe 

environments and conditions, is paramount and vital. Having a stockpile of certified and 

approved devices to be used by law enforcement, EMS, fire, and rescue will enable public 

safety officials to arrive at scenes of crime and disasters armed with devices that interoperate, 

can be shared/exchanged while on duty, and enable ease-of-use.

Implementation Considerations: Similar to the Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS) stockpiles of vaccines, personal protective equipment (PPE), etc., we recommend the 

US government add public safety devices to their procurement list. Initial and ongoing funding is 

needed along with cooperation from manufacturers who wish to participate in the stockpile 

program develop APIs and interoperability to other competing and complementary devices.

Potential Barriers: Lack of funding and resources needed to manage an additional set of 

assets found in stockpile.

Note: Implementation and adoption of interoperable data standards for public safety IoT is 

addressed in Recommendation 2.6.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 118 of 123

Key Recommendation 13.0: Health Care

[Key and recommendation text is still being developed.]

Supporting Recommendation 13.1: (Under Review) Raise Priority for IoMT to Healthcare 

Facilities’ Executive Leadership Teams

IoMT should be equivalent in priority for all healthcare stakeholders as is IT infrastructure, 

cybersecurity posture, or applications. IoMTs monitor, detect, inform, and deliver therapies to 

patients, therefore, they deserve just as much attention and call out as cloud services, for 

example. Currently IoMTs are ignored by healthcare IT organizations, as the responsibility to 

make decisions and/or purchase the devices is owned by the biomedical engineering 

department. IoMTs may not undergo strict infrastructure, privacy, and security guidelines as to 

large capital equipment investments such as MRI scanners.

Implementation Considerations: None identified.

Potential Barriers: None Identified.

Note: Data exchange for Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) is #2.7.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 119 of 123

Key Recommendation 14.0: International Considerations

[Key and recommendation text is still being developed.]

Supporting recommendation 14.1: The IoTAB strongly supports the voluntary public/private 

partnership that created the US Cyber Trust Mark.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/18/biden-harrisadministration-announces-cybersecurity-labeling-program-for-smart-devices-to-protectamerican-consumers/

The U.S. Department of State must be committed to supporting the FCC, NIST, the 

Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, the IoT Federal Working Group, and industry to 

identify and engage allies and partners toward harmonizing standards and pursuing mutual 

recognition of the US Cyber Trust Mark and similar labeling efforts.

Supporting recommendation 14.2: The government should create internationally compatible 

data minimization guidance related to IoT devices, aligning with the NIST Privacy Framework 

and NIST Cybersecurity Framework principles.

Data minimization processes (related to both collection and retention of sensitive data) reduce 

potential harm from data breaches or unauthorized access. Data minimization is inherently 

supportive of Privacy By Design. Implementation of these processes, and reduced risk that 

would result, may boost consumer trust by ensuring data is only used for necessary purposes. 

Consistent processes (supported by international agreement) would also help establish uniform 

data privacy standards globally.

The government should collaborate with public sector, private sector, and international 

counterparts to develop universally acceptable guidance on data minimization that would be 

tailored to various IoT applications.

Implementation considerations: Those working to foster international agreement on data 

minimization should recognize that the resulting processes should not hinder innovation or 

competitiveness in the IoT industry. This will be a delicate balance that may require a long-term 

commitment to advocacy since international agreements often require considerable time and 

negotiation. Principles of this guidance would be consdidered in future international agreements.

Potential barriers: Differences in privacy laws and cultural attitudes towards privacy in different 

countries will represent a challenge to achieving international agreements. There may also be 

significant resistance from companies that rely on extensive data collection.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 120 of 123

10. Conclusion

• A concluding statement from the report that summarizes the work and the findings and 

that encourages continued progress from the Board.

• A cordial invitation for follow-up questions, if needed and as permitted by the FACA 

process.

• Thank you to the IoT Advisory Board members for their contributions and support.
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 121 of 123

11. References

Specific documents cited in the report (end notes) (standards, guidelines, policies) (with 

hyperlinks).

The following international data transfer agreements may have an impact on IoT:

Global Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR)

Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and the 

United States of America are current economies participating in the APEC CBPR System

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2022/04/statement-commerce-secretaryraimondo-establishment-global-cross-border [commerce.gov]

EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU-U.S. DPF) - Privacy Shield Replacement

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2023/07/statement-us-secretary-commercegina-raimondo-european-union-us-data [commerce.gov]

US & UK Data Bridge (Added to the Privacy Shield Replacement)

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2023/06/us-uk-joint-statement-us-uk-databridge [commerce.gov]

12. Acknowledgements

This section will acknowledge the work of groups or individuals (outside of the Board itself, 

which is listed elsewhere) who have contributed to the project. Such contributions include 

support for meetings, useful discussions, or extensive copy-editing of the publication.

Include speakers with links to meeting materials

13. Appendices

• Other selected industry references (standards, guidelines, corporate reports) considered 

during discussions and for recommendations.

• Other Federal regulations and statutes affecting IoT

• Summaries of other federal reports supporting IoT improvement / actions

• Glossary of Selected Terms

• Abbreviations / Acronyms

• Other ideas?
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 122 of 123

14. Compliance Matrix

The IoTAB fulfills the role of the ‘‘steering committee’’ as established under subsection (b)(5)(A) 

of the NDAA Section. It supports the IoTFWG which is the working group convened under 

subsection (b)(1).

The IoTAB herein advises working group in the following areas:

Advisory Topic Relevant Report Sections

(i) the identification of any Federal regulations, 

statutes, grant practices, programs, budgetary or 

jurisdictional challenges, and other sectorspecific policies that are inhibiting, or could 

inhibit, the development of the Internet of Things;

(ii) situations in which the use of the Internet of 

Things is likely to deliver significant and scalable 

economic and societal benefits to the United 

States, including benefits from or to

(I) smart traffic and transit technologies;

(II) augmented logistics and supply chains;

(III) sustainable infrastructure;

(IV) precision agriculture;

(V) environmental monitoring;

(VI) public safety; and

(VII) health care;

(iii) whether adequate spectrum is available to 

support the growing Internet of Things and what 

legal or regulatory barriers may exist to providing 

any spectrum needed in the future;

(iv) policies, programs, or multi-stakeholder 

activities that—

(I) promote or are related to the privacy of 

individuals who use or are affected by the 

Internet of Things;
Working Draft IoT AB report 

Draft in Progress Page 123 of 123

Advisory Topic Relevant Report Sections

(II) may enhance the security of the Internet of 

Things, including the security of critical 

infrastructure;

(III) may protect users of the Internet of Things; 

and

(IV) may encourage coordination among Federal 

agencies with jurisdiction over the Internet of 

Things;

(v) the opportunities and challenges associated 

with the use of Internet of Things technology by 

small businesses; and 

(vi) any international proceeding, international 

negotiation, or other international matter affecting 

the Internet of Things to which the United States 

is or should be a party.

[To be added before submission: The IoTAB is pleased to provide this report within the one year 

timeframe specified within the section. It represents independent advice (as specified in the 

NDAA) and represents the independent judgement of the steering committee, each member of 

which is acting as a stakeholder outside of the Federal Government with expertise relating to 

the Internet of Things.]