97004 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2024 / Notices 

17See Concurring Statement, In re Gravy 

Analytics, supra note 1, at 6 (‘‘We also need to 

disentangle any objections to the content of an 

advertisement from the practices of categorization 

and targeting generally.’’). 

18This example illustrates the fraught nature of 

the Commission determining on its own—without 

Congressional authorization—what advertising 

content is harmful, discriminatory, and so on. 

Absent clear statutory authority, Commission 

enforcement on such matters becomes a tool driven 

by preferences of unelected officials. 

19Compl. ¶ 69 (alleging ‘‘categorization of 

consumers based on sensitive characteristics for 

marketing and other purposes is an unfair act or 

practice’’). 

20 Id. ¶ 74. 

21We should be considering such potential 

benefits, however. Cf. Melissa Holyoak, Remarks at 

National Advertising Division, A Path Forward on 

Privacy, Advertising, and AI, at 6–7, 9 (Sept. 17, 

2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ 

Holyoak-NAD-Speech-09-17-2024.pdf. 

22Compl. ¶ 19. 

23See Concurring Statement, Kochava, supra note 

1, at 2–3. 

24 Id. at 3. 

25See 15 U.S.C. 45(n); see also Compl., Fed. 

Trade Comm’n v. Kochava, Inc., supra note 16, 

¶ 132 (bringing a single count for ‘‘Unfair Use and 

Sale of Sensitive Data,’’ and alleging that 

Defendants ‘‘used and disclosed data’’ from 

consumers (emphasis added)). The framing of 

Kochava’s unfairness count resembles the framing 

of the first count in this Complaint against 

Mobilewalla, for ‘‘unfair sale of sensitive location 

information,’’ related to how Mobilewalla ‘‘sells, 

licenses, or otherwise transfers precise location 

information . . . that reveal[s] consumers’ visits to 

sensitive locations.’’ See Compl. ¶¶ 66–67. But this 

Complaint’s misguided use of the Commission’s 

unfairness authority goes well beyond Kochava’s 

sole count. 

26See 15 U.S.C. 45(n). 

27Again, I ‘‘support[ed filing the second amended 

complaint in Kochava] . . . because I agree[d] that 

the complaint adequately alleg[d] a likelihood of 

substantial injury in the revelation of sensitive 

locations implicating political, medical, and 

religious activities’’ Concurring Statement, 

Kochava, supra note 1, at 2. 

28See Concurring Statement, In re Gravy 

Analytics, supra note 1, at 6 (‘‘As we consider these 

type of difficult privacy questions in the future, it 

is of paramount importance that we challenge only 

unfair or deceptive conduct, supported by specific 

facts and empirical research, rather than 

demonizing the entire digital advertising industry. 

And until Congress acts to address privacy directly 

through legislation, it is vital we recognize and 

abide by the limited remit of the Commission’s 

statutory authority.’’). 

29 It is no coincidence that the number of 

constitutional challenges questioning our 

legitimacy has correlated with the Chair’s general 

dismissal of the Commission’s basic norms and 

integrity. See, e.g., Justin Wise, FTC’s Targets Take 

Cues From High Court in Tests of Agency Power, 

Bloomberg Law (Sept. 26, 2024), https://

news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/ftcs-targets-takecues-from-high-court-in-tests-of-agency-power. 

a mother considering her pregnancy 

may experience significant benefits if 

data analysis and categorization mean 

she ultimately receives tailored 

advertisements from crisis pregnancy 

centers offering prenatal and postnatal 

care for her and her child.17 And a 

significant benefit would accrue to the 

unborn child: her survival.18 Put 

simply, categorization does not 

automatically violate section 5. But 

today’s case sends the opposite 

message.19

Count V, for ‘‘Unfair Retention of 

Consumer Location Information,’’ also 

falls short of what Section 5 requires. 

The Complaint alleges that Mobilewalla 

‘‘indefinitely retains detailed, sensitive 

information about consumers’ 

movements, including consumers’ 

location information.’’ 20 But there is 

minimal analysis as to how the practice 

of indefinite retention lacks potential 

countervailing benefits.21 For example, 

as the Complaint makes clear, 

Mobilewalla facilitates advertising and 

data analytics.22 To the extent 

Mobilewalla’s information enables 

building and optimizing predictive 

models, or better tailoring 

advertisements over time to particular 

consumers, it seems likely 

Mobilewalla’s indefinite retention of 

data may mean consumers 

correspondingly experience higher 

benefits. We will never know whether 

the practice has net benefits or not, 

since the Majority simply ignores that 

step and summarily condemns the 

practice. 

A final point today, about how my 

approach in this case relates to my 

support for Kochava, where I concurred 

in filing a second amended complaint. 

It is one thing to use our unfairness 

authority to directly address specific 

acts or practices of ‘‘disclos[ure]’’ or 

‘‘the revelation of sensitive locations 

implicating political, medical, and 

religious activities,’’ where there is an 

appropriate ‘‘focus[ ] on sales of precise 

geolocation data and related sensitive 

information,’’ 23 and where there has 

been a lack of consumer consent.24 The 

facts pled in Kochava relating to 

disclosure and sale in that case led me 

to believe that the particular ‘‘act or 

practice’’ of selling precise geolocation 

data had a direct connection—caused or 

was likely to cause—substantial injury 

to consumers.25

In contrast, and in focusing on other 

types of acts or practices—such as the 

relevant data’s collection, its use for 

categorization, or its indefinite 

retention—that are analytically removed 

from and did not themselves necessarily 

cause any alleged injury based on the 

facts pled, today’s complaint fails to 

show how these acts or practices 

themselves satisfy what section 5 

requires.26 On their own, the 

categorization, collection, or indefinite 

retention could certainly be factual 

predicates that precede substantial 

injury. But, at least as pled in this case, 

such practices themselves lack the 

causal connection to substantial injury. 

And, stepping back, there are certainly 

innocuous or beneficial instances of 

related data collection, its 

categorization, and its indefinite 

retention. Thus, this case’s theories go 

far beyond the rationale that led me to 

support amending the complaint in 

Kochava.27 In fact, the claims in this 

case seem designed to lead directly to 

minimizing access to data, limiting the 

practice of drawing inferences from it, 

and setting particular boundaries 

around data retention. This case’s 

regulatory implications are therefore far 

broader than those in Kochava. 

Privacy is a vital policy topic. But 

unless and until the Commission 

receives new authorities, we must 

follow the law as Congress actually 

wrote it, not as some Commissioners or 

the Bureau Director might amend it if 

they were elected legislators.28 Robust 

enforcement consistent with our 

statutory authorities can have salutary 

deterrent effects. But robust 

enforcement that is inconsistent with 

our statutory authorities can also have 

profound ramifications on how markets 

function, and how market actors 

proceed—including in ways that harm 

the American people. And it can 

undermine our legitimacy in the eyes of 

not just Congress, but the public.29

Privacy’s tradeoffs should be resolved 

by Congress, not unelected 

Commissioners. I do not believe section 

5, as drafted, authorizes us to act as a 

roving legislator, writing law through 

complaints and settlement orders 

drafted to suit our purposes or political 

expediency. I dissent. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28745 Filed 12–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0007; Docket No. 

2024–0053; Sequence No. 19] 

Information Collection; Subcontracting 

Plans 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2024 / Notices 97005 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations, DoD, GSA, and 

NASA invite the public to comment on 

an extension concerning subcontracting 

plans. 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 May 31, 2025. 

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 

February 4, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: DoD, GSA, and NASA 

invite interested persons to submit 

comments on this collection through 

https://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. 9000–0007, 

Subcontracting Plans. Comments 

received generally will be posted 

without change to https://

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) 

9000–0007, Subcontracting Plans. 

B. Need and Uses 

This clearance covers the information 

that offerors and contractors must 

submit to comply with the requirements 

in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

52.219–9, Small Business 

Subcontracting Plans, regarding 

subcontracting plans as follows: 

1. Subcontracting plan. In accordance 

with section 8(d) of the Small Business 

Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), contractors 

receiving a contract that is expected to 

exceed, or a contract modification that 

causes a contract to exceed, $750,000 

($1.5 million for construction of a 

public facility) and has subcontracting 

possibilities, shall submit an acceptable 

subcontracting plan that provides 

maximum practicable opportunities for 

small business, veteran-owned small 

business, service-disabled veteranowned small business, HUBZone small 

business, small disadvantaged business, 

and women-owned small business 

concerns. Specific elements required to 

be included in the plan are specified in 

section 8(d) of the Small Business Act 

and implemented in FAR subpart 19.7 

and the clause at FAR 52.219–9. 

2. Summary Subcontract Report 

(SSR). In conjunction with the 

subcontracting plan requirements, 

contractors with subcontracting plans 

must submit an annual summary of 

subcontracts awarded as prime and 

subcontractors for each specific Federal 

Government agency. Contractors submit 

the information in an SSR through the 

Electronic Subcontracting Reporting 

System (eSRS). This is required for all 

contractors with subcontracting plans 

regardless of the type of plan (i.e., 

commercial or individual). 

3. Individual Subcontract Report 

(ISR). In conjunction with the 

subcontracting plan requirements, 

contractors with individual 

subcontracting plans must submit semiannual reports of their small business 

subcontracting progress. Contractors 

submit the information through eSRS in 

an ISR, the electronic equivalent of the 

Standard Form (SF) 294, Subcontracting 

Report for Individual Contracts. 

Contracts that are not reported in the 

Federal Procurement Data System 

(FPDS) in accordance with FAR 

4.606(c)(5) do not submit ISRs in eSRS; 

they will continue to use the SF 294 to 

submit the information to the agency. 

4. Written explanation for not using a 

small business subcontractor as 

specified in the proposal or 

subcontracting plan. Section 1322 of the 

Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs 

Act), Public Law 111–240, amends the 

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(6)) 

to require as part of a subcontracting 

plan that a prime contractor make good 

faith effort to utilize a small business 

subcontractor during performance of a 

contract to the same degree the prime 

contractor relied on the small business 

in preparing and submitting its bid or 

proposal. If a prime contractor does not 

utilize a small business subcontractor as 

described above, the prime contractor is 

required to explain, in writing, to the 

contracting officer the reasons why it is 

unable to do so. 

C. Annual Burden 

Respondents: 30,365. 

Total Annual Responses: 49,296. 

Total Burden Hours: 112,704. 

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. 9000–0007, Subcontracting 

Plans. 

Janet Fry, 

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, 

Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, 

Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of 

Governmentwide Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28708 Filed 12–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Notice of Closed Meeting 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), notice is 

hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended, and the Determination of 

the Director, Office of Strategic Business 

Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating 

Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, pursuant to Public Law 92– 

463. The grant applications and the 

discussions could disclose confidential 

trade secrets or commercial property 

such as patentable material, and 

personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Disease, 

Disability, and Injury Prevention and 

Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)— 

CE25–028, Effectiveness Research to 

Prevent Polysubstance-Impaired 

Driving. 

Dates: April 15–16, 2025. 

Times: 10 a.m.–5 p.m., EDT. 

Place: Web Conference. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Carlisha Gentles, Pharm.D., B.C.P.S., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1