TRS Fund Contributions
| Published date | 19 March 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 14859 |
| Record Number | 2021-04484 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
14859
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
For further information, please
contact the persons listed in the
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–05436 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 03–123, 10–51, 13–24; FCC
20–161; FRS 17375]
TRS Fund Contributions
AGENCY
: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION
: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) proposes to expand the
telecommunications relay services
(TRS) Fund contribution base for
support of video relay service (VRS) and
internet Protocol (IP) Relay to include
intrastate, as well as interstate, end-user
revenues from providers of
telecommunications and Voice over IP
(VoIP) services.
DATES
: Comments are due April 19,
2021. Reply comments are due May 3,
2021.
ADDRESSES
: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket Nos. 03–123,
10–51, and 12–38, by either of the
following methods:
•Federal Communications
Commission’s website: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
•Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see
document FCC 20–161 at https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-
20-161A1.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Michael Scott, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at: (202)
418–1264, or email Michael.Scott@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
document FCC 20–161, adopted on
November 18, 2020, released on
November 20, 2020 in CG Docket Nos.
03–123, 10–51, and 12–38. The full text
of document FCC 20–161 is available for
public inspection and copying via the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530.
This proceeding shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
The NPRM seeks comment on
proposed rule amendments that may
result in modified information
collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice
in the Federal Register inviting the
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C.
3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, the Commission seeks comment
on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107–198; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In the NPRM, document FCC 20–
161, the Commission proposes to
complete the process of updating the
mechanism for the funding of internet-
based TRS. When the Commission first
authorized use of the internet to provide
TRS, it decided as an interim measure
that all of the costs of providing
internet-based TRS should be paid by
contributors to the TRS Fund, based
only on their interstate
telecommunications revenue. In the IP
CTS Contributions Order, published at
85 FR 462, January 6, 2020, the
Commission recognized that this
‘‘interim’’ funding mechanism, which
disproportionately burdens providers
and users of interstate services, was no
longer justifiable as a means of
supporting one internet-based form of
TRS—internet Protocol Captioned
Telephone Service (IP CTS), and
expanded the contribution base for that
service to include intrastate as well as
interstate end-user revenues. The
Commission now proposes to expand
the TRS Fund contribution base for the
other two forms of internet-based TRS—
video relay service (VRS) and internet
Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay)—so
that providers of intrastate voice
communications must contribute to the
TRS Fund for the support of these
services as well.
2. To conform the funding of VRS and
IP Relay to the requirements of section
225 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (the Act), and to harmonize
cost recovery for these services with the
cost recovery plan adopted for IP CTS,
the Commission proposes to expand the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Mar 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14860
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TRS Fund contribution base for VRS
and IP Relay to include intrastate
revenues of telecommunications carriers
and VoIP service providers for several
reasons.
3. First, the current funding
arrangements were authorized as
interim measures to speed the
development of these services and were
not intended to be permanent. Twenty
years later, the primary purpose of these
interim arrangements has been
achieved. VRS has grown to be the
second largest TRS program, and even
IP Relay, with much lower demand than
VRS, now accounts for more annual
minutes than all state TRS programs
combined.
4. Second, the inherent inequities and
limitations of the interim contribution
arrangement for these services loom
much larger today, given the current
size of the TRS funding requirement—
more than $1.6 billion for TRS Fund
Year 2020–21. Nearly all of this amount
is attributable to support for the three
internet-based relay services—IP CTS,
VRS, and IP Relay. IP CTS is projected
to cost the TRS Fund approximately $1
billion and is supported by all end-user
telecommunications and VoIP revenues,
with a contribution factor of less than
1%. VRS and IP Relay, with projected
expenditures of $575 million in Fund
Year 2020–21, are supported by a 1.33%
contribution only from interstate end-
user telecommunications and VoIP
revenues, with no contribution from
intrastate revenues. By contrast,
approximately 58% of IP CTS costs are
funded from intrastate end-user
revenues, and 75% of the costs of relay
services provided through state TRS
programs are funded from intrastate
sources.
5. The burden of supporting the $575
million annual cost of VRS and IP Relay
has widely disparate impacts on TRS
Fund contributors, based solely on the
extent of interstate usage of their
services. In TRS Fund Year 2020–21, for
example, providers of interstate-only
services must contribute approximately
1.33% of their annual end-user revenues
to support VRS and IP Relay. By
contrast, service providers for which
only 42% of end-user revenues are
interstate (the industry average)
contribute only 0.56% of annual end-
user revenues to support these services.
And providers of intrastate-only
services, of which there are at least 200,
contribute nothing to support VRS and
IP Relay, despite consumers’ use of VRS
and IP Relay to make intrastate calls.
6. Third, the recovery of VRS and IP
Relay costs based on interstate revenues
alone appears likely to cause distortions
in the pricing of interstate and intrastate
voice services due to inaccurate market
signals regarding their relative costs. As
the Commission has recognized in
various contexts, applying artificial
regulatory distinctions or other
disparate treatment to providers of
similar services may create unintended
market distortions, which can reduce
the effectiveness of competition in
ensuring efficient pricing of
telecommunications services.
7. Fourth, the total amount of end-
user revenues from which TRS Fund
contributions can be drawn has been
steadily decreasing over time,
worsening the impact of the current
funding arrangement on interstate
service providers and users and
increasing any existing distortion
between intrastate and interstate service
prices. Expanding contributions to
support VRS and IP Relay to encompass
intrastate as well as interstate revenues
would strengthen the sustainability of
these services.
8. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal and its costs and benefits.
Are there additional aspects of the
current state of the VRS and IP Relay
programs that support either altering or
maintaining the current interstate-only
funding mechanism? Are there
differences between those programs and
IP CTS, such that the interim funding
arrangement for VRS and IP Relay
should be retained, notwithstanding the
facts stated above and the Commission’s
2019 determination that the interim
plan was no longer suitable for IP CTS?
9. Legal Authority. Section 225 of the
Act requires the Commission to ensure
that both ‘‘interstate and intrastate [TRS]
are available, to the extent possible and
in the most efficient manner.’’ The Act
directs the Commission to adopt,
administer, and enforce regulations
governing the provision of interstate and
intrastate TRS, including rules on cost
separation, which ‘‘shall generally
provide’’ that interstate TRS costs are
recovered from interstate services and
intrastate TRS costs are recovered from
the intrastate jurisdiction. Section 225
of the Act also authorizes, but does not
require, the establishment of state-
administered TRS programs and
funding mechanisms, subject to
approval by the Commission.
10. The Commission believes it has
statutory authority to include the
intrastate end-user revenues of
telecommunications carriers and VoIP
service providers in the calculation of
TRS Fund contributions to support VRS
and IP Relay, to the extent that these
services continue to be funded solely
through the TRS Fund. Section 225 of
the Act expressly directs the
Commission to ensure that both
interstate and intrastate TRS are
available and grants the Commission
broad authority to establish regulations
governing both interstate and intrastate
TRS, including TRS cost recovery.
Congress expressly carved section 225
out from the Act’s general reservation of
state authority over intrastate
communications, and responsibility for
administering TRS is shared with the
states only to the extent that a state
applies for and receives Commission
approval to exercise such authority. The
Commission believes this analysis
equally supports the Commission’s
authority to adopt the same approach to
funding an appropriate share of the
costs of VRS and IP Relay from
intrastate revenues. The Commission
seeks comment on the above analysis
and assumptions. Are there differences
between the provision of IP CTS and the
provision of VRS and IP Relay that
could affect the Commission’s statutory
analysis?
11. Implementation. The Commission
proposes to apply a separate
contribution factor for VRS and IP Relay
which is applied to all (interstate and
intrastate) end-user revenues of each
TRS Fund contributor, using a single
contribution factor to determine the
total level of support required for all
three services from a contributor’s total
intrastate and interstate end-user
revenues. To implement this approach,
the TRS Fund administrator would
determine a revenue requirement for all
three services, based on the applicable
compensation rates and projected
demand. Next, based on the total
intrastate and interstate end-user
revenue data reported by TRS Fund
contributors on Forms 499–A, the TRS
Fund administrator would compute a
separate TRS Fund contribution factor
for the three services, by dividing the
revenue requirement by contributors’
total intrastate and interstate end-user
revenues.
12. The Commission tentatively
concludes that implementation of this
approach does not require separation of
VRS and IP Relay costs, because a single
contribution factor would apply to
contributors’ total interstate and
intrastate end-user revenues, regardless
of the proportion of VRS and IP Relay
minutes and costs that might be deemed
interstate or intrastate. Accordingly, it
would not be necessary to refer this
matter to a Federal-State Joint Board,
absent a state request to include VRS or
IP Relay in state program offerings. The
Commission seeks comment on this
implementation proposal and tentative
conclusion. Is the above approach
reasonable, equitable to all providers,
and consistent with the requirements of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Mar 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14861
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
section 225 of the Act? What are the
costs and benefits of this approach?
How should a state opting to include
VRS or IP Relay in its state TRS program
affect the Commission’s analysis?
13. Are there alternative
implementation approaches the
Commission should consider?
Commenters proposing an alternative
approach should discuss the costs and
benefits of their preferred approach.
14. Inclusion of VRS and IP Relay in
State Programs. To date, no state TRS
program provides VRS or IP Relay, and
the Commission believes that some of
the same impediments to states
administering and funding intrastate IP
CTS may exist for intrastate VRS and IP
Relay.
15. The Commission nonetheless
seeks comment on how the Commission
should proceed in the event that a state
requests certification to include VRS or
IP Relay in a state TRS program. What
modifications to the cost recovery
method described above would be
necessary to ensure that cost recovery is
fairly apportioned and that TRS Fund
contributors providing service within
the affected state are not subjected to
double payment of their share of
intrastate VRS or IP Relay costs? Should
the Commission refer such state
requests to a Federal-State Joint Board,
in order to make an appropriate
determination regarding separation of
intrastate and interstate TRS costs?
16. Economic Impact. Expanding the
TRS Fund contribution base for VRS
and IP Relay to include intrastate
revenues would likely reduce the TRS
funding contributions that are passed on
by contributing providers to users of
interstate telecommunications and VoIP
services, and concomitantly increase the
contributions that are passed on to users
of intrastate services. This broadening of
the base on which TRS Fund
contributions are made would tend to
reduce any current distortions in the
relative prices of intrastate and
interstate services, increasing economic
efficiency by more accurately signaling
relative costs to purchasers, which in
turn will generate more efficient
provider investment signals. The change
the Commission proposes would cause
some one-off implementation costs, but
with the exception of any repricing,
most of these would be de minimis,
since current TRS Fund administrative
processes would be left intact. Any
repricing costs, being one-off, are likely
to be small relative to the ongoing
benefits such repricing would bring.
Thus, the Commission tentatively
concludes the benefits of more efficient
production and consumption would
exceed any implementation costs of the
proposed rule change. The Commission
seeks comment on this. Broadening the
base on which TRS Fund contributions
are based also would ensure fair
treatment of intrastate and interstate
service providers and users in TRS
funding and the long-term sustainability
of the TRS Fund. This justifies the
redistribution the Commission’s action
would impose on interstate and
intrastate service providers and their
customers. The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis.
17. Compliance date. In the IP CTS
Contributions Order, the Commission
required intrastate carriers and VoIP
service providers to contribute revenue
to fund IP CTS starting with TRS Fund
year 2020–21, to allow reasonable time
for the Commission to amend relevant
forms, for any carriers and VoIP service
providers that have only intrastate
revenue to register and prepare for
submission of IP CTS contributions to
the TRS Fund administrator, and for the
TRS Fund administrator and Universal
Service Administrative Company
(USAC) to process such registrations. In
setting that timeline, the Commission
afforded seven months for these steps to
be taken. If the Commission moves
forward with implementing its proposed
rule change, carriers and VoIP service
providers that have only intrastate
revenue will already be registered to
submit contributions to the TRS Fund
given the Commission’s earlier change
to the IP CTS cost recovery rules.
Nevertheless, the Commission will still
need to amend the instructions for the
relevant forms, and it would be
administratively efficient to tie the
compliance date to the start of new TRS
Fund year. The Commission seeks
comment on whether a similar timeline
should apply to affected providers if the
proposed rule change is adopted, or
whether some other timeline would be
more appropriate.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in the NPRM.
Written public comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadline for
comments on the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
Need For, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
19. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposes to expand the TRS Fund
contribution base for VRS and IP Relay
to require contributions based on a
percentage of interstate, international,
and intrastate end-user revenues. The
Commission also seeks comment on
how it should proceed in the event that
a state requests certification to include
VRS or IP Relay in a state TRS program.
Legal Basis
20. The authority for the proposed
rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2,
and 225 of the Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 225.
Small Entities Impacted
21. If the proposed rule amendments
are adopted, various categories of
providers of telecommunications and
VoIP services may have to increase their
contributions to the TRS Fund,
including Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, Telecommunications Resellers,
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite), and All Other
Telecommunications.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
22. Because TRS Fund contributors’
intrastate end-user revenues are
currently included in the contribution
base for IP CTS, the Commission’s
existing rules require
telecommunications carriers and VoIP
providers that provide intrastate
telecommunications services to register
with the TRS Fund administrator and
submit contribution payments to the
TRS Fund. The NPRM proposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
23. If the Commission adopts its
proposal to require TRS Fund
contributions from intrastate end-user
revenue to support VRS and IP Relay,
the contributions required from
interstate and international end-user
revenue would be correspondingly
reduced. As a result, while some small
entities may be required to make
increased payments to the TRS Fund,
other small entities would experience a
reduction in TRS Fund contributions.
The proposal would not increase the
total contributions required, and the
additional costs incurred by some small
entities would be offset by cost
reductions for other small entities and
by the benefits of appropriately
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Mar 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14862
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
allocating the funding of the provision
of VRS and IP Relay among all
telecommunications carriers and VoIP
providers. By including intrastate
revenues in the contribution base, the
VRS and IP Relay programs, including
the providers and users, would be
supported by a broader, more
sustainable contribution base.
24. The Commission seeks comment
from all interested parties. Small
entities are encouraged to bring to the
Commission’s attention any specific
concerns they may have with the
proposals outlined in the NPRM. The
Commission expects to consider the
economic impact on small entities, as
identified in comments filed in response
to the NPRM, in reaching its final
conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals
25. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities,
Telecommunications,
Telecommunications relay services.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend Title 47
part 64 as follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
■1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201,
202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b,
228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276,
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless
otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. P, sec.
503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
§ 64.604 [AMENDED]
■2. Amend § 64.604 by revising
paragraphs (c)(5)(ii) and (c)(5)(iii)(A) to
read as follows:
§ 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Cost recovery. Costs caused by
interstate TRS shall be recovered from
all subscribers for every interstate
service, utilizing a shared-funding cost
recovery mechanism. Except as noted in
this paragraph, costs caused by
intrastate TRS shall be recovered from
the intrastate jurisdiction. In a state that
has a certified program under § 64.606,
the state agency providing TRS shall,
through the state’s regulatory agency,
permit a common carrier to recover
costs incurred in providing TRS by a
method consistent with the
requirements of this section. Costs
caused by the provision of interstate and
intrastate IP CTS, VRS, and IP Relay, if
not provided through a certified state
program under § 64.606, shall be
recovered from all subscribers for every
interstate and intrastate service, using a
shared-funding cost recovery
mechanism.
(iii) * * *
(A) Contributions. Every carrier
providing interstate or intrastate
telecommunications services (including
interconnected VoIP service providers
pursuant to § 64.601(b)) and every
provider of non-interconnected VoIP
service shall contribute to the TRS
Fund, as described herein:
(1) For the support of TRS other than
IP CTS, VRS, and IP Relay, on the basis
of interstate end-user revenues; and
(2) For the support of IP CTS, VRS,
and IP Relay on the basis of interstate
and intrastate revenues. Contributions
shall be made by all carriers who
provide interstate or intrastate services,
including, but not limited to, cellular
telephone and paging, mobile radio,
operator services, personal
communications service (PCS), access
(including subscriber line charges),
alternative access and special access,
packet-switched, WATS, 800, 900,
message telephone service (MTS),
private line, telex, telegraph, video,
satellite, intraLATA, international, and
resale services.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021–04484 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 12, and 52
[FAR Case 2013–022, Docket No. FAR–
2013–0022, Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000–AM69
Federal Acquisition Regulation:
Extension of Limitations on Contractor
Employee Personal Conflicts of
Interest
AGENCY
: Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION
: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
SUMMARY
: DoD, GSA, and NASA are
withdrawing the proposed rule to
amend the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) titled: Extension of
Limitations on Contractor Employee
Personal Conflicts of Interest. The
decision not to proceed with a final rule
was made on the basis that the
requirements of the underlying statute
that directed consideration of a FAR
change have been met. Accordingly, this
proposed rule is withdrawn, and the
FAR case is closed.
DATES
: The proposed rule published on
April 2, 2014, at 79 FR 18503 is
withdrawn as of March 19, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement
Analyst, at 703–605–2868 or
mahruba.uddowla@gsa.gov. Please cite
‘‘FAR Case 2013–022’’.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: On April
2, 2014, DoD, GSA, and NASA proposed
to amend the FAR to implement a
recommendation made by DoD pursuant
to section 829 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(79 FR 18503). The proposed rule
considered extending the limitations at
FAR subpart 3.11 on contractor
employee personal conflicts of interest
to individuals performing any function
that is closely associated with
inherently governmental functions and
certain individuals performing contracts
for personal services.
A decision was made not to proceed
with finalization of the proposed rule.
Because of the passage of time since the
proposed rule was issued in 2014, and
the fact that section 829 did not require
any changes to the FAR, the FAR
Council believes further consideration
of any amendments to the FAR related
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Mar 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
