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 

8914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 

officer documents the reason past 

performance is not an appropriate 

evaluation factor for the acquisition. 

• FAR 52.212–1, Instructions to 

Offerors—Commercial Items. This 

provision requires offerors, per 

paragraph (b)(10), to submit past 

performance information, when 

included as an evaluation factor, to 

include recent and relevant contracts for 

the same or similar items and other 

references (including contract numbers, 

points of contact with telephone 

numbers and other relevant 

information). 

Postaward. For responses in the 

Contractor Performance Assessment 

Reporting System (CPARS). 

• FAR 42.1503(d). Requires 

contractors be afforded up to 14 

calendar days from the notification date 

that a past performance evaluation has 

been entered into CPARS to submit 

comments, rebutting statements, or 

additional information. Past 

performance information is relevant 

information regarding a contractor’s 

actions under previously awarded 

contracts or orders, for future source 

selection purposes. Source selection 

officials may obtain past performance 

information from a variety of sources. 

The contracting officer will use the 

information to support future source 

selection decisions. 

C. Annual Burden 

Respondents: 65,373. 

Total Annual Responses: 83,262. 

Total Burden Hours: 166,524. 

Obtaining Copies: Requesters may 

obtain a copy of the information 

collection documents from the GSA 

Regulatory Secretariat Division by 

calling 202–501–4755 or emailing 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite OMB 

Control No. 9000–0142, Past 

Performance Information. 

Janet Fry, 

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, 

Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, 

Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of 

Governmentwide Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02690 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0024; Docket 2020– 

0053; Sequence 10] 

Submission for OMB Review; Buy 

American, Trade Agreements, and 

Duty-Free Entry 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division has 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request to review 

and approve a revision and renewal of 

a previously approved information 

collection requirement regarding Buy 

American, trade agreements, and dutyfree entry. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for this information 

collection should be sent within 30 days 

of publication of this notice to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. 

Additionally, submit a copy to GSA 

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. 

Instructions: All items submitted 

must cite OMB Control No. 9000–0024, 

Buy American, Trade Agreements, and 

Duty-Free Entry. 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. If there are 

difficulties submitting comments, 

contact the GSA Regulatory Secretariat 

Division at 202–501–4755 or 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

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) 

9000–0024, Buy American, Trade 

Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry. 

B. Need and Uses 

This clearance covers the information 

that an offeror must submit in response 

to the requirements of the provisions 

and clauses in Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) part 25 that relate to 

the following: 

* The Buy American statute (41 

U.S.C. chapter 83, and Executive Order 

10582). 

* The Trade Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. 2501–2515), including the World 

Trade Organization Government 

Procurement Agreement and various 

free trade agreements. 

* The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111– 

5) (Recovery Act). 

* Subchapters VIII and X of Chapter 

98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202). 

a. 52.225–2, Buy American Certificate. 

This provision requires the offeror to 

identify in its proposal supplies that do 

not meet the definition of domestic end 

product. 

b. 52.225–4, Buy American—Free 

Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act 

Certificate. This provision requires a 

separate list of foreign products that are 

eligible under a trade agreement, and a 

list of all other foreign end products. 

c. 52.225–6, Trade Agreements 

Certificate. This provision requires the 

offeror to certify that all end products 

are either U.S.-made or designated 

country end products, except as listed 

in paragraph (b) of the provision. 

Offerors are not allowed to provide 

other than a U.S.-made or designated 

country end product, unless the 

requirement is waived. 

d. 52.225–8, Duty-Free Entry. This 

clause requires contractors to notify the 

contracting officer when they purchase 

foreign supplies, in order to determine 

whether the supplies should be dutyfree. The notice shall identify the 

foreign supplies, estimate the amount of 

duty, and the country of origin. The 

contractor is not required to identify 

foreign supplies that are identical in 

nature to items purchased by the 

contractor or any subcontractor in 

connection with its commercial 

business, and segregation of these 

supplies to ensure use only on 

Government contracts containing dutyfree entry provisions is not economical 

or feasible. In addition, all shipping 

documents and containers must specify