8910 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 

with the standards of section 4 of the 

BHC Act. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding the applications must be 

received at the Reserve Bank indicated 

or the offices of the Board of Governors, 

Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 

20th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20551–0001, not 

later than February 25, 2021. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of 

Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, 

Assistant Vice President), 90 Hennepin 

Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

55480–0291: 

1. McIntosh County Bank Holding 

Company, Inc., Ashley, North Dakota; 

through its subsidiary bank holding 

company, North Star Holding Company, 

Inc., and subsidiary bank, Unison Bank, 

both of Jamestown, North Dakota, to 

indirectly retain voting shares of 

AccuData Services, Inc., Park River, 

North Dakota, and thereby engage in 

certain data processing activities 

pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14)(i) of 

the Board’s Regulation Y. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, February 5, 2021. 

Michele Taylor Fennell, 

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02764 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

applications are set forth in paragraph 7 

of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The public portions of the 

applications listed below, as well as 

other related filings required by the 

Board, if any, are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

This information may also be obtained 

on an expedited basis, upon request, by 

contacting the appropriate Federal 

Reserve Bank and from the Board’s 

Freedom of Information Office at 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/ 

request.htm. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of 

the Act. 

Comments regarding each of these 

applications must be received at the 

Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of 

the Board of Governors, Ann E. 

Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20551–0001, not later 

than February 25, 2021. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Kathryn Haney, Assistant Vice 

President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can 

also be sent electronically to 

Applications.Comments@atl.frb.org: 

1. Jeremy Francis Gilpin, South Lake 

Tahoe, California, and Jeffrey Alan 

Smith, Atlanta, Georgia; as a group 

acting in concert, to acquire voting 

shares of Community Bankshares, Inc., 

LaGrange, Georgia and its subsidiaries, 

Community Bank and Trust—West 

Georgia, also of LaGrange, Georgia, and 

Community Bank and Trust—Alabama, 

Union Springs, Alabama. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, February 5, 2021. 

Michele Taylor Fennell, 

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02765 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 192 3123] 

Amazon Flex; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. The attached 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to 

Aid Public Comment describes both the 

allegations in the draft complaint and 

the terms of the consent order— 

embodied in the consent agreement— 

that would settle these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write ‘‘Amazon Flex; File 

No. 192 3123’’ on your comment, and 

file your comment online at https://

www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy 

C. Ward (312–960–5612), Midwest 

Regional Office, John C. Kluczynski 

Federal Building, 230 South Dearborn 

Street, Suite 3030, Chicago, IL 60604. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained at https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/commissionactions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before March 12, 2021. Write ‘‘Amazon 

Flex; File No. 192 3123’’ on your 

comment. Your comment—including 

your name and your state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Due to the COVID–19 pandemic and 

the agency’s heightened security 

screening, postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be subject to delay. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

If you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘Amazon Flex; File No. 192 

3123’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580; or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

submit your paper comment to the 

Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 8911 

1See Diana Farrell, Fiona Greig & Amar Hamoudi, 

The Online Platform Economy in 2018: Drivers, 

Workers, Sellers and Lessors, JPMorgan Chase & Co. 

Institute (2018) at 23, https://

www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/ 

jpmorgan-chase-and-co/institute/pdf/institute-ope2018.pdf. Particularly because of high turnover, 

with many workers spending only a few months 

participating, estimates of the gig economy are 

difficult and inconsistent. Another study estimated 

that there were 1.6 million American workers in the 

internet-enabled gig economy in 2017, or 1% of the 

Continued 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as your or anyone else’s Social 

Security number; date of birth; driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on the https://

www.regulations.gov website—as legally 

required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot 

redact or remove your comment from 

that website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at http://

www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the 

news release describing the proposed 

settlement. The FTC Act and other laws 

that the Commission administers permit 

the collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding, as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before March 12, 2021. For information 

on the Commission’s privacy policy, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/ 

site-information/privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To 

Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to 

final approval, an agreement containing 

a consent order from Amazon.com, Inc. 

and Amazon Logistics, Inc. (‘‘Amazon’’). 

The proposed consent order has been 

placed on the public record for 30 days 

for receipt of comments from interested 

persons. Comments received during this 

period will become part of the public 

record. After 30 days, the Commission 

will again review the agreement and the 

comments received, and will decide 

whether it should withdraw from the 

agreement and take appropriate action 

or make final the agreement’s proposed 

order. 

Amazon operates Amazon Flex, a gig 

economy program through which 

consumers can become ‘‘drivers’’ for 

Amazon and, using their own vehicles, 

deliver products and groceries to 

Amazon customers. Amazon pays 

drivers for making deliveries, and for 

some types of deliveries, allows 

customers to tip the drivers via the app 

or website used to place the order. 

Amazon consistently represents to both 

drivers and customers that it passes on 

100% of customer tips to drivers. 

However, from late 2016 through 

August 2019, Amazon withheld nearly a 

third of the tips meant for drivers, about 

$61 million in total, despite its 

representations that it would provide 

drivers 100% of customer tips. Amazon 

continued diverting drivers’ tips in this 

way for over two and a half years 

despite hundreds of complaints from 

drivers and critical media reports. 

Amazon changed its practices only after 

the FTC issued a Civil Investigative 

Demand to the company in May 2019. 

The Commission’s proposed 

complaint alleges that Amazon has 

violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. In 

particular, the proposed complaint 

alleges Amazon misrepresented to both 

customers and drivers that it would give 

drivers 100% of customer tips in 

addition to the pay Amazon offered. 

The proposed order includes 

equitable monetary relief and injunctive 

provisions to prevent Amazon from 

engaging in the same or similar acts or 

practices in the future. Part I of the 

proposed order prohibits Amazon from 

misrepresenting to any consumer, 

including both customers and drivers: 

(a) The income a driver is likely to earn, 

(b) the amount Amazon will pay drivers, 

(c) that Amazon will give drivers 

customer tips in addition to Amazon’s 

contribution to drivers’ earnings, (d) the 

percentage or amount of any customer 

tip a driver will receive, or (e) that any 

amount customers pay is a tip. Part II of 

the proposed order prohibits Amazon 

from changing the extent to which it 

uses a driver’s tips toward Amazon’s 

contribution to the driver’s earnings 

without first obtaining express informed 

consent from the driver. 

Part III of the proposed order requires 

Amazon to pay $61,710,583—the full 

amount of tips that Amazon improperly 

withheld from drivers. Part IV of the 

proposed order requires Amazon to 

provide sufficient information about 

drivers to enable the Commission to 

administer redress efficiently to drivers. 

Parts V through VIII of the proposed 

order are reporting and compliance 

provisions. Part V requires 

acknowledgments of the order. Part VI 

requires Amazon to notify the 

Commission of changes in corporate 

status for 10 years and mandates that 

the company submit an initial 

compliance report to the Commission. 

Part VII requires Amazon to create 

certain documents relating to its 

compliance with the order for 10 years 

and to retain those documents for a 5- 

year period. Part VIII mandates that the 

company make available to the 

Commission information or subsequent 

compliance reports, as requested. 

Finally, Part IX states that the 

proposed order will remain in effect for 

20 years, with certain exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to aid 

public comment on the proposed order. 

It is not intended to constitute an 

official interpretation of the complaint 

or proposed order, or to modify in any 

way the proposed order’s terms. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

Joint Statement of Acting Chairwoman 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and 

Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips 

The internet-enabled gig economy is 

substantial and continues to grow. 

According to one study, U.S. families 

earning income from the internetenabled gig economy rose from under 

2% of the sample in 2013 to 4.5% by 

early 2018, with more than 5 million 

U.S. households earning some income 

from this type of work by 2018.1

8912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 

entire workforce, still a substantial number. See 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Electronically 

mediated work: new questions in the Contingent 

Worker Supplement, U.S. Dep’t of Labor (Sept. 

2018), https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/article/ 

electronically-mediated-work-new-questions-in-thecontingent-worker-supplement.htm. 

2See Mastercard & Kaiser Associates, The Global 

Gig Economy: Capitalizing on a ∼$500 Billion 

Opportunity (May 2019) at 2, https://

newsroom.mastercard.com/wp-content/uploads/ 

2019/05/Gig-Economy-White-Paper-May-2019.pdf. 

Another study estimated that spending on gig 

platforms was increasing 43% year-on-year in 2018. 

See Uber, Working Together: Priorities to enhance 

the quality and security of independent work in the 

United States (Aug. 10, 2020) at 5, https://

ubernewsroomapi.10upcdn.com/wp-content/ 

uploads/2020/08/Working-Together-Priorities.pdf 

(‘‘Uber Report’’) (citing Staffing Industry Analysts, 

The Gig Economy and Human Cloud Landscape 

(2019)). By way of example, the number of Uber 

drivers in the U.S. has grown from 160,000 in 2014 

to 1 million in 2020. See Jonathan V. Hall & Alan 

B. Krueger, An Analysis of the Labor Market for 

Uber’s Driver-Partners in the United States at 1 

(Princeton U. Indus. Relations Section, Working 

Paper No. 587, Jan. 2015), https://

dataspace.princeton.edu/bitstream/88435/ 

dsp010z708z67d/5/587.pdf; Uber Report. 

3See Laura Stevens, Amazon Drives Deeper Into 

Package Delivery, Wall Street J. (June 28, 2018), 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-drivesdeeper-into-package-delivery-1530158460. 

4Compl., In the Matter of Amazon, Inc., Fed. 

Trade Comm’n File 1923123, ¶¶ 17–20. 

5 Id. ¶¶ 30–34. 

6 Id. ¶ 35–47. 

7Shortly after launching Flex, Amazon noted that 

it was trying to ‘‘ramp quickly’’ in anticipation of 

the holiday season, Prime Day, and other periods 

of high demand. See Becky Yerak, Uber for 

packages? Amazon looking for drivers to deliver 

goods, Chicago Tribune (Oct. 9, 2015), https://

www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-amazon-flexchicago-1009-biz-20151009-story.html. 

8Compl., supra note 2, ¶ 8. 

9 During the period of the alleged lawbreaking, gig 

workers were reportedly in high demand. See 

Christopher Mims, In a Tight Labor Market, Gig 

Workers Get Harder to Please, Wall Street J. (May 

4, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-tightlabor-market-gig-workers-get-harder-to-please11556942404. 

10After Amazon’s scheme was exposed, the 

company indicated that it would begin paying 

drivers a minimum of $15 per hour. See Chaim 

Gartenberg, Amazon will no longer use tips to pay 

delivery drivers’ base salaries, The Verge (Aug. 22, 

2019), https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/22/ 

20828550/amazon-delivery-drivers-tips-end-basesalaries-flex. This was a significant reduction from 

the $18 promised in 2015, particularly when 

adjusted for cost of living. 

Another study estimates worldwide 

transaction volume of $204 billion in 

2018, which will more than double to 

$455 billion by 2023.2

Consumer demand for the services 

offered by the gig economy surely 

contributes to this growth. But it would 

not be possible without the 

contributions of drivers, shoppers, 

designers, and other gig workers, 

whether seeking supplemental income 

or relying on one gig or a patchwork of 

gigs to get by. 

The impact of the internet-enabled gig 

economy on workers is a matter of 

robust debate in Congress, state 

legislatures, popular referenda, 

academia, and elsewhere. The two 

authors of this joint statement may not 

agree on every aspect of this debate, 

including whether this novel business 

model is, on net, beneficial for 

consumers and workers. 

Where we do agree—and what this 

case reflects—is the platforms that 

facilitate this gig economy must treat 

their workers fairly and nondeceptively, just as they must 

consumers, and the Federal Trade 

Commission should work to ensure they 

do. That is why this case resolving our 

investigation into Amazon.com, Inc.’s 

and its subsidiary Amazon Logistics, 

Inc.’s (collectively, ‘‘Amazon’’) 

treatment of delivery drivers is so 

important. 

The conduct alleged in the complaint 

is outrageous. According to the 

complaint, Amazon recruited delivery 

drivers (and, possibly, attracted 

customers) by promising that drivers 

would collect all the tips awarded them 

by Amazon customers. At a certain 

point, it decided to divert thirty percent 

of those tips from drivers to the 

company to subsidize the amounts it 

had committed to paying its drivers. 

The complaint alleges Amazon then 

went to great lengths to ensure no one 

would figure out what it was doing, by 

changing the way it presented earnings 

to drivers and drafting misleading 

answers for service representatives to 

give to drivers upset at being shortchanged. 

Our settlement with Amazon ensures 

these drivers will get back every dollar 

that was promised, every dollar that a 

customer chose to give as a tip for their 

service. That is a good result for an 

enforcement action under the FTC Act, 

the law we apply today. But we believe, 

given the importance of candor and 

fairness to workers in the gig economy, 

our current authorities could be 

improved. Congress can give us direct 

penalty authority to deter deception 

aimed at workers in the internet-enabled 

gig economy and rulemaking authority 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

to address systemic and unfair practices 

that harm those workers. 

Clear rules and the threat of 

substantial civil penalties can deter 

wrongdoing. The authors of this 

statement do not always agree on the 

proper scope of rulemaking and penalty 

authority, but we do agree here. 

Authorizing the FTC to assess penalties 

to deter similar lawbreaking will help 

gig workers and make labor markets 

more efficient. The internet-enabled gig 

economy is new, innovative, and 

growing. We believe the modest reforms 

we propose here can help gig workers 

have a fairer shake at getting their 

benefit of the bargain from that growth, 

too. 

Statement of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra 

Today, the FTC is sanctioning 

Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) for 

expanding its business empire by 

cheating its workers. In 2015, Amazon 

launched Flex, a package delivery 

service that was widely seen as a 

challenge to FedEx and UPS.3 To recruit 

drivers, the company promised to pay 

them a minimum of $18 to $25 an hour, 

plus tips.4 But once the service was off 

the ground, in late 2016, Amazon 

changed course. The Commission’s 

complaint charges that the company 

secretly began cutting its payments to 

drivers, and siphoning their tips to 

make up the difference.5 In total, 

Amazon stole nearly one-third of 

drivers’ tips to pad its own bottom line. 

This theft did not go unnoticed by 

Amazon’s drivers, many of whom 

expressed anger and confusion to the 

company. Rather than coming clean, 

Amazon took elaborate steps to mislead 

its drivers and conceal its theft, sending 

them canned responses that repeated 

the company’s lies. The complaint 

charges that Amazon executives chose 

not to alter the practice, instead viewing 

drivers’ complaints as a ‘‘PR risk,’’ 

which they sought to contain through 

deception.6

Amazon’s scheme ended after it was 

exposed, but it likely produced 

significant benefits for the company. 

First, by promising a higher base pay 

initially, Amazon was likely able to 

recruit drivers more quickly, 

particularly as the company tried to 

stand up Amazon Flex in time for the 

holiday season.7 Second, and most 

directly, Amazon’s bait-and-switch 

allowed the company to pocket more 

than $60 million in workers’ tips.8 And 

finally, by allegedly misleading its 

workers about their earnings, the 

company made it less likely drivers 

would seek better opportunities 

elsewhere, helping Amazon attract and 

retain workers in its quest to dominate.9

By the time this scheme was exposed 

in late 2019, Amazon Flex was far more 

established. In fact, that same year, the 

company quietly disclosed that it was 

slashing drivers’ minimum pay by more 

than 15 percent, relative to what it 

promised in 2015.10 This conduct raises 

serious questions about how Amazon 

amassed and wielded its market power. 

Fortunately, today’s action to redress 

the company’s victims does not prevent 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 8913 

11 I have previously outlined certain steps that 

regulators can take to address anticompetitive 

practices in labor markets. Comment Submission of 

Commissioner Chopra to Department of Justice 

Initiative on Labor Market Competition (Sept. 18, 

2019), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/ 

09/comment-submission-commissioner-chopradepartment-justice-initiative-labor. 

12 In 2019, the FTC agreed to a no-consequences 

settlement with respondents charged with blatant 

wage-fixing. See Dissenting Statement of 

Commissioner Rohit Chopra In the Matter of Your 

Therapy Source, Neeraj Jindal and Sheri Yarbray, 

Fed. Trade Comm’n File No. 1710134 (Oct. 31, 

2109), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/ 

10/dissenting-statement-commissioner-rohitchopra-matter-your-therapy-source. Respondent 

Neeraj Jindal was later indicted by the United States 

Department of Justice. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, Former Owner of Health Care Staffing 

Company Indicted for Wage Fixing (Dec. 10, 2020), 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-ownerhealth-care-staffing-company-indicted-wage-fixing. 

13See, e.g., Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, 

FTC and DOJ Release Guidance for Human 

Resource Professionals on How Antitrust Law 

Applies to Employee Hiring and Compensation 

(Oct. 20, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/ 

press-releases/2016/10/ftc-doj-release-guidancehuman-resource-professionals-how. 

14Under its status quo approach, the FTC does 

not seek civil penalties for this type of abuse. But 

this can change. In the short term, the Commission 

can deploy its Penalty Offense Authority to apprise 

market participants, using existing administrative 

orders, that it is a penalty offense to recruit workers 

based on false earnings claims. See Rohit Chopra & 

Samuel A.A. Levine, The Case for Resurrecting the 

FTC Act’s Penalty Offense Authority (Oct. 29, 2020), 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=3721256. The Commission can also codify 

existing precedent into a Restatement Rulemaking 

to trigger penalties and damages for this type of 

fraud. See Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra 

Regarding the Report to Congress on Protecting 

Older Consumers, Fed. Trade Comm’n File No. 

P144400 (Oct. 19, 2020) https://www.ftc.gov/publicstatements/2020/10/statement-commissioner-rohitchopra-regarding-report-congress-protecting. Such a 

rule would impose no burden on market 

participants, while ensuring real deterrence for 

practices that undercut workers and competitors. 

the FTC or state attorneys general from 

assessing whether Amazon has engaged 

in a broader pattern of unfair practices 

in violation of the antitrust laws. 

Today’s order provides substantial 

redress to the families victimized by 

Amazon’s anticompetitive deception. 

However, this cannot be the only action 

we take to protect workers and families 

from dominant middlemen. The FTC 

will also need to carefully examine 

whether tech platforms are engaging in 

anticompetitive conduct that hoodwinks 

workers and crushes law-abiding 

competitors.11

The Commission has historically 

taken a lax approach to worker abuse, 

entering no-consequences settlements 

even in naked wage-fixing matters that 

are criminal in nature.12 Despite broad 

pronouncements about a commitment to 

policing markets for anticompetitive 

conduct that harms workers,13 the FTC 

has done little. I hope today’s action 

turns the page on this era of inaction. 

I also agree with Acting Chairwoman 

Slaughter and Commissioner Phillips 

that preying on workers justifies 

punitive measures far beyond the 

restitution provided here, and I believe 

the FTC should act now to deploy 

dormant authorities to trigger civil 

penalties and other relief in cases like 

this one.14

Companies should succeed only when 

they compete, not when they cheat or 

abuse their power. While Amazon.com 

is one of the largest, most powerful, and 

most feared firms in the world, the 

company cannot be above the law. 

Regulators and enforcers in the United 

States and around the globe can no 

longer turn a blind eye. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02705 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0142; Docket No. 

2021–0053; Sequence No. 4] 

Information Collection; Past 

Performance Information 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations, DoD, GSA, and 

NASA invite the public to comment on 

a revision and renewal concerning past 

performance information. DoD, GSA, 

and NASA invite comments on: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of Federal 

Government acquisitions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the information 

collection on respondents, including the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. OMB has approved this 

information collection for use through 

April 30, 2021. DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose that OMB extend its approval 

for use for three additional years beyond 

the current expiration date. 

DATES: DoD, GSA, and NASA will 

consider all comments received by April 

12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: DoD, GSA, and NASA 

invite interested persons to submit 

comments on this collection through 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions on the site. This website 

provides the ability to type short 

comments directly into the comment 

field or attach a file for lengthier 

comments. If there are difficulties 

submitting comments, contact the GSA 

Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202– 

501–4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

Instructions: All items submitted 

must cite OMB Control No. 9000–0142, 

Past Performance Information. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two-to-three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, 

at telephone 202–969–7207, or 

zenaida.delgado@gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. OMB Control Number, Title, and any 

Associated Form(s) 

9000–0142, Past Performance 

Information. 

B. Need and Uses 

This clearance covers the information 

that offerors and contractors must 

submit to comply with the following 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

requirements: 

Preaward. For responses during 

source selection. 

• FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii). This section 

requires solicitations describe the 

approach for evaluating past 

performance, including evaluating 

offerors with no relevant performance 

history, and providing offerors an 

opportunity to identify past or current 

contracts (including Federal, State, and 

local government and private) for efforts 

similar to the Government requirement. 

Solicitations also must authorize 

offerors to provide information on 

problems encountered on their 

identified contracts and the offeror 

corrective actions. Per FAR 15.304(c)(3), 

past performance must be evaluated in 

all source selections for negotiated 

competitive acquisitions expected to 

exceed the simplified acquisition 

threshold (SAT) unless the contracting