80572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Notices 

FTC v. Moses, 913 F.3d 297, 306–07 (2d Cir. 2019); 

FTC v. Com. Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593, 600 (9th Cir. 

2016) (similar); FTC v. Freecom Commc’ns, Inc., 

401 F.3d 1192, 1203–04 (10th Cir. 2005) (similar); 

FTC v. Amy Travel Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d 564, 573 

(7th Cir. 1989) (similar). 

59 545 U.S. 913 (2005). 

60 Id. at 919–20. 

61 Id. at 931–32. 

62 Id. at 934–35. 

63 Id. at 935 (quoting Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 

222 U.S. 55, 63 (1911)). 

64 15 U.S.C. 45(b). 

65Concurring and Dissenting Statement of 

Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, A Look Behind 

the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social 

Media and Video Streaming Services, at 11 n.44 

(Sept. 19, 2024). 

66 Id. at 10–11. 

67 I support, for example, the complaint and 

settlement that we announce today against 

DoNotPay for deceiving consumers about the 

capabilities of its generative AI service. Concurring 

Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, In 

the Matter of DoNotPay, Inc. (Sept. 25, 2024). 

68See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16, 19– 

20 & n.18, 44–45 (1976) (per curiam) (striking down 

Federal limitations on political expenditures on the 

ground that such expenditures are a necessary 

ingredient to the sort of mass political 

communication protected by the Speech Clause); 

McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 251 (2003) (Scalia, 

J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment 

in part, and dissenting in part) (‘‘To a government 

bent on suppressing speech, this mode of 

organization presents opportunities: Control any 

cog in the machine, and you can halt the whole 

apparatus.’’). See also Minneapolis Star & Tribune 

Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 

591–93 (1983) (striking down a tax on paper and 

ink as an unconstitutional restriction of the freedom 

of speech and of the press); Grosjean v. Am. Press 

Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250–51 (1936) (striking down 

statute taxing the sale of advertisements in 

publications with a weekly circulation greater than 

20,000 copies). 

requirements implement a common 

sense principle: section 5 does not hold 

people liable for innocent conduct that 

may have unwittingly facilitated 

someone else’s violation. 

Other areas of the law abide by the 

same common-sense principle. In 

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. 

Grokster, for example, the Supreme 

Court again confronted the question of 

whether a product with both infringing 

and noninfringing uses violated the 

copyright laws.59 In that case, the 

product was peer-to-peer file sharing 

software that was commonly used to 

share copyrighted music and films 

without authorization.60 Although the 

copyright laws do not prohibit a product 

‘‘capable of commercially significant 

noninfringing uses’’ even if it were also 

capable of substantial infringement,61

the makers of the peer-to-peer 

filesharing software distributed their 

product with the intention of promoting 

infringement.62 Imposing copyright 

liability on a party who distributed a 

product with the intention of facilitating 

infringement was consistent with 

‘‘principles recognized in every part of 

the law.’’ 63

The point here is not to identify 

exhaustively the circumstances in 

which the provision of a product or 

service with lawful and unlawful 

potential uses may violate section 5. I 

instead argue only that, at the very least, 

precedent and common-sense 

‘‘principles recognized in every part of 

the law’’ require that the government 

must show that a defendant knew that 

he was participating in someone else’s 

unfair or deceptive act or practice when 

he provided that product or service. 

III 

I dissent from the filing of this 

complaint for an additional reason. We 

may file an administrative action 

alleging a section 5 violation only if 

such an action ‘‘would be to the interest 

of the public.’’ 64 I do not believe this 

action is in the public interest for two 

reasons. 

First, the Commission’s aggressive 

move into AI regulation is premature. AI 

is the subject of heated rhetoric. 

Doomsayers warn that AI will take our 

jobs, hopelessly blur the distinction 

between fact and fiction, and maybe 

even threaten the survival of human 

civilization. AI companies do not 

forcefully resist all these claims, given 

that predictions about the incredible 

potential for AI may be useful as these 

companies compete for investment 

dollars and engineering talent. But the 

Commission should not succumb to the 

panic or hype. Generative AI technology 

is impressive, but it is also nascent. 

Neither its naysayers nor its 

cheerleaders really understand its 

potential, or whether it represents 

substantial progress toward ‘‘artificial 

general intelligence’’ (AGI)—machine 

intelligence matching both the breadth 

and power of the human mind, the holy 

grail of AI research.65 That ignorance is 

not a reason to plunge headlong with 

aggressive regulation. It is a reason to 

stay our hand. 

As our country has always done, we 

should give this industry the space to 

realize its full potential—whatever that 

turns out to be. America is the greatest 

commercial power in the history of the 

world in no small part because of its 

tolerant attitude toward innovation and 

new industry. There has never been a 

better place in the world to have a new 

idea than the United States. We should 

go to great lengths to ensure that 

remains the case. 

When people use generative AI 

technology to lie, cheat, and steal, the 

law should punish them no differently 

than if they use quill and parchment.66

But Congress has not given us the power 

to regulate AI. It has tasked us with 

enforcing the prohibition against unfair 

or deceptive acts and practices. If our 

enforcement incidentally captures some 

AI-generated conduct, so be it.67 But we 

should not bend the law to get at AI. 

And we certainly should not chill 

innovation by threatening to hold AI 

companies liable for whatever illegal 

use some clever fraudster might find for 

their technology. 

Second, the complaint implicates 

important First Amendment interests. 

The First Amendment constrains the 

government’s authority to regulate the 

inputs of speech.68 The Commission 

today holds a company liable under 

section 5 for a product that helps people 

speak, quite literally. The theory on 

which the complaint rests would permit 

the Commission to proscribe Microsoft 

Word merely because someone may use 

it to create a fake review, or Adobe 

Photoshop merely because someone 

used it to create a false celebrity 

endorsement. The danger this theory 

poses to free speech is obvious. Yet 

because the technology in question is 

new and unfamiliar, I fear we are giving 

short shrift to common sense and to 

fundamental constitutional values. 

I respectfully dissent. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22767 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Solicitation of Nominations for 

Appointment to the World Trade 

Center Health Program Scientific/ 

Technical Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), within 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), is seeking nominations 

for membership on the World Trade 

Center (WTC) Health Program 

Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC), in accordance with 

provisions of the James Zadroga 9/11 

Health and Compensation Act of 2010, 

as amended. The STAC consists of 17 

members including experts in fields 

associated with occupational medicine, 

pulmonary medicine, environmental 

medicine, environmental health, 

industrial hygiene, epidemiology, 

toxicology, and mental health, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Notices 80573 

representatives of WTC responders as 

well as representatives of certifiedeligible WTC survivors. 

DATES: Nominations for membership on 

the STAC must be received no later than 

November 11, 2024. Packages received 

after this time will not be considered for 

the current membership cycle. 

ADDRESSES: All nominations should be 

mailed to NIOSH Docket 229–L, c/o Mia 

Wallace, Committee Management 

Specialist, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, 

Mailstop V24–4, Atlanta, Georgia 

30329–4027, or emailed to 

nioshdocket@cdc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tania Carreo ́n-Valencia, Ph.D., M.S., 

Designated Federal Officer, World Trade 

Center Health Program Scientific/ 

Technical Advisory Committee, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, 

1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop R–12, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30329–4027. 

Telephone: (513) 841–4515 (this is not 

a toll-free number); Email: 

TCarreonValencia@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The World 

Trade Center (WTC) Health Program 

Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC) reviews scientific 

and medical evidence and makes 

recommendations to the Administrator 

of the WTC Health Program on 

additional Program eligibility criteria 

and, upon request, additional WTCrelated health conditions, reviews and 

evaluates policies and procedures used 

to determine whether sufficient 

evidence exists to support adding a 

health condition to the List of WTCRelated Health Conditions (List), makes 

recommendations regarding individuals 

to conduct independent peer reviews of 

the scientific and technical evidence 

underlying a final rule adding a 

condition to the List, and provides 

consultation on research regarding 

certain health conditions related to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

Nominations are sought for 

individuals with the expertise and 

qualifications necessary to accomplish 

the Committee’s objectives. The 

Administrator of the WTC Health 

Program is seeking nominations for 

members fulfilling the following 

categories: 

• Two occupational physicians, one 

of whom should have experience 

treating WTC rescue and recovery 

workers; 

• Environmental medicine/ 

environmental health professional; 

• Toxicologist; 

• Epidemiologist; 

• Representative of WTC responders; 

and 

• Representative of certified-eligible 

WTC survivors. 

Members may be invited to serve for 

four-year terms. Selection of members is 

based on candidates’ qualifications to 

contribute to accomplishing STAC 

objectives. More information on the 

Committee is available at https://

www.cdc.gov/wtc/stac.html. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) policy stipulates that 

committee membership be balanced in 

terms of points of view represented and 

the committee’s function. Appointments 

shall be made without discrimination 

on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, 

gender, sexual orientation, gender 

identity, HIV status, disability, and 

cultural, religious, or socioeconomic 

status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens. 

Current participation on Federal 

workgroups or prior experience serving 

on a Federal advisory committee does 

not disqualify a candidate; however, 

HHS policy is to avoid excessive 

individual service on advisory 

committees and multiple committee 

memberships. Committee members are 

Special Government Employees, 

requiring the filing of financial 

disclosure reports at the beginning of 

and annually during their terms. NIOSH 

identifies potential candidates and 

provides a slate of nominees for 

consideration to the Director of the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) for STAC membership 

each year; CDC reviews the proposed 

slate of candidates and provides a slate 

of nominees for consideration to the 

Secretary of HHS for final selection. 

HHS notifies selected candidates of 

their appointment near the start of the 

term in October, or as soon as the HHS 

selection process is completed. Note 

that the need for different expertise 

varies from year to year and a candidate 

who is not selected in one year may be 

reconsidered in a subsequent year. 

Candidates should submit the 

following items: 

• Current curriculum vitae, including 

complete contact information 

(telephone numbers, mailing address, 

email address); 

• The category of membership 

(environmental medicine or 

environmental health specialist, 

occupational physician, pulmonary 

physician, representative of WTC 

responders, certified-eligible WTC 

survivor representative, industrial 

hygienist, toxicologist, epidemiologist, 

or mental health professional) that the 

candidate is qualified to represent; 

• A summary of the background, 

experience, and qualifications that 

demonstrates the candidate’s suitability 

for the nominated membership category 

along with an indication of whether the 

candidate is currently enrolled in the 

WTC Health Program; and 

• At least one letter of 

recommendation from person(s) not 

employed by HHS. Candidates may 

submit letter(s) from current HHS 

employees if they wish, but at least one 

letter must be submitted by a person not 

employed by an HHS agency (e.g., CDC, 

National Institutes of Health, Food and 

Drug Administration). 

Nominations may be submitted by the 

candidate or by the person/organization 

recommending the candidate. 

The Director, Office of Strategic 

Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief 

Operating Officer, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, has been 

delegated the authority to sign Federal 

Register notices pertaining to 

announcements of meetings and other 

committee management activities, for 

both the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention and the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. 

Kalwant Smagh, 

Director, Office of Strategic Business 

Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating 

Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22866 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Health Resources and Services 

Administration 

Meeting of the Advisory Committee on 

Heritable Disorders in Newborns and 

Children 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA), Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 

notice announces that the Advisory 

Committee on Heritable Disorders in 

Newborns and Children (ACHDNC or 

Committee) has scheduled a public 

meeting. Information about ACHDNC 

and the agenda for this meeting can be 

found on the ACHDNC website at 

https://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/heritable-disorders/ 

index.html. 

DATES: Thursday, November 14, 2024, 

from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. eastern time (ET). 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held 

via webinar. While this meeting is open 

to the public, advance registration is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1