Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 25049 

interested parties against submitting 

personal information such as Social 

Security numbers and birthdates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

press inquiries: Ms. Laura McGinnis, 

Office of Public Affairs, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room S–1028, 200 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20210; telephone (202) 693–4672; email 

Mcginnis.Laura@DOL.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Board will meet via 

teleconference: Tuesday, May 10, 2022, 

from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time; and Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 

from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time. The teleconference number and 

other details for participating remotely 

will be posted on the Advisory Board’s 

website, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/ 

energy/regs/compliance/AdvisoryBoard.

htm, 72 hours prior to the 

commencement of the first meeting 

date. Advisory Board meetings are open 

to the public. 

Public comment session: Tuesday, 

May 10, 2022, from 4:15 p.m. to 5:00 

p.m. Eastern time. Please note that the 

public comment session ends at the 

time indicated or following the last call 

for comments, whichever is earlier. 

Members of the public who wish to 

provide public comments should plan 

to call in to the public comment session 

at the start time listed. 

The Advisory Board is mandated by 

Section 3687 of EEOICPA. The Secretary 

of Labor established the Board under 

this authority and Executive Order 

13699 (June 26, 2015). The purpose of 

the Advisory Board is to advise the 

Secretary with respect to: (1) The Site 

Exposure Matrices (SEM) of the 

Department of Labor; (2) medical 

guidance for claims examiners for 

claims with the EEOICPA program, with 

respect to the weighing of the medical 

evidence of claimants; (3) evidentiary 

requirements for claims under Part B of 

EEOICPA related to lung disease; (4) the 

work of industrial hygienists and staff 

physicians and consulting physicians of 

the Department of Labor and reports of 

such hygienists and physicians to 

ensure quality, objectivity, and 

consistency; (5) the claims adjudication 

process generally, including review of 

procedure manual changes prior to 

incorporation into the manual and 

claims for medical benefits; and (6) such 

other matters as the Secretary considers 

appropriate. The Advisory Board 

sunsets on December 19, 2024. 

The Advisory Board operates in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 

2) and its implementing regulations (41 

CFR part 102–3). 

Agenda: The tentative agenda for the 

Advisory Board meeting includes: 

• Review and follow-up on Advisory 

Board’s previous recommendations, 

data requests, and action items; 

• Discussion of resources requested; 

• Review responses to Board 

questions; 

• Review of claims by Board 

members; 

• Follow up on prior Board 

recommendations; 

• Review of Board tasks, structure 

and work agenda; 

• Consideration of any new issues; 

and 

• Public comments. 

OWCP transcribes and prepares 

detailed minutes of Advisory Board 

meetings. OWCP posts the transcripts 

and minutes on the Advisory Board web 

page, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/ 

regs/compliance/AdvisoryBoard.htm, 

along with written comments, speaker 

presentations, and other materials 

submitted to the Advisory Board or 

presented at Advisory Board meetings. 

Public Participation, Submissions and 

Access to Public Record 

Advisory Board meetings: All 

Advisory Board meetings are open to 

the public. Information on how to 

participate in the meeting remotely will 

be posted on the Advisory Board’s 

website. 

Submission of comments: You may 

submit comments using one of the 

methods listed in the SUMMARY section. 

Your submission must include the 

Agency name (OWCP) and date for this 

Advisory Board meeting (May 10–11, 

2022). OWCP will post your comments 

on the Advisory Board website and 

provide your submissions to Advisory 

Board members. 

Because of security-related 

procedures, receipt of submissions by 

regular mail may experience significant 

delays. 

Requests to speak and speaker 

presentations: If you want to address the 

Advisory Board at the meeting you must 

submit a request to speak, as well as any 

written or electronic presentation, by 

May 3, 2022, using one of the methods 

listed in the SUMMARY section. Your 

request may include: 

• The amount of time requested to 

speak; 

• The interest you represent (e.g., 

business, organization, affiliation), if 

any; and 

• A brief outline of the presentation. 

PowerPoint presentations and other 

electronic materials must be compatible 

with PowerPoint 2010 and other 

Microsoft Office 2010 formats. The 

Advisory Board Chair may grant 

requests to address the Board as time 

and circumstances permit. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice are available at http://

www.regulations.gov. This notice, as 

well as news releases and other relevant 

information, are also available on the 

Advisory Board’s web page at http://

www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/ 

compliance/AdvisoryBoard.htm. 

For further information regarding this 

meeting, you may contact Michael 

Chance, Designated Federal Officer, at 

chance.michael@dol.gov, or Carrie 

Rhoads, Alternate Designated Federal 

Officer, at rhoads.carrie@dol.gov, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Suite S–3524, Washington, 

DC 20210, telephone (202) 343–5580. 

This is not a toll-free number. 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

Christopher Godfrey, 

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08685 Filed 4–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket Number 2022–2] 

Standard Technical Measures and 

Section 512 

AGENCY: Library of Congress, U.S. 

Copyright Office. 

ACTION: Notification of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

gathering information on the 

development and use of standard 

technical measures for the protection 

and identification of copyrighted works. 

The Office seeks public comment on 

this topic to enhance the public record 

and to advise Congress. This Notice of 

Inquiry on standard technical measures 

is separate from the Office’s 

consultations on voluntarily deployed 

technical measures for identifying or 

protecting copyrighted works online, 

announced in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2021, with the opening 

plenary session held on February 22, 

2022. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on May 27, 2022. If the 

Office determines that an additional 

round of written comments is needed, it 

will issue a separate notice. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of governmental 

efficiency, the Copyright Office is using 

the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
25050 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

1Section 512 Study: Notice and Request for 

Public Comment, 80 FR 81862 (Dec. 31, 2015). 2 Id.; Section 512 Study: Request for Additional 

Comments, 81 FR 78636 (Nov. 8, 2016); Section 512 

Study: Announcement of Public Roundtables, 81 FR 

14896 (Mar. 18, 2016); Section 512 Study: 

Announcement of Public Roundtable, 84 FR 1233 

(Feb. 1, 2019). 

3References to the transcripts are indicated by 

‘‘Tr.’’ followed by the page(s) and line(s) of the 

reference, the date of the roundtable, and the 

speaker’s name and affiliation. 

4 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(B). 

5 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(2)(A). 

6 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(2)(B), (C). 

7See, e.g., Authors Guild, Inc., Comments 

Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright Office’s 

Dec. 31, 2015, Notice of Inquiry at 27 (Apr. 1, 2016) 

(‘‘As a result, there has been no impetus to conduct 

the sort of standards creation process to develop 

STMs that was contemplated by Congress . . . .’’); 

Comput. & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n (‘‘CCIA’’), 

Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright 

Office’s Dec. 31, 2015, Notice of Inquiry at 24 (Mar. 

31, 2016) (‘‘CCIA Initial Comments’’) (‘‘CCIA is 

unaware of any successful or emerging interindustry technological effort that satisfies the 

requirements of Section 512(i)(2).’’); Copyright All., 

Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright 

Office’s Dec. 31, 2015, Notice of Inquiry at 26 (Apr. 

1, 2016) (referring to STMs as an ‘‘entirely unutilized device’’); Software & Info. Indus. Ass’n, 

Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright 

Office’s Dec. 31, 2015, Notice of Inquiry at 4 (Apr. 

1, 2016) (observing that ‘‘the multi-stakeholder 

process that the statute envisioned never occurred, 

and is not likely to occur’’); Tr. 19:8–11 (May 13, 

2016) (Keith Kupferschmid, Copyright All.) (noting 

that section 512(i) ‘‘really hasn’t been used virtually 

at all’’); Tr. 68:22–69:6 (May 3, 2016) (Lisa Willmer, 

Getty Images) (stating that ‘‘it’s clear that leaving it 

to voluntary action is not enough’’ and that ‘‘there’s 

no technology that meets that definition’’). 

8See Tr. at 70:14–18 (May 13, 2016) (Jeffrey 

Sedlik, PLUS Coal.) (‘‘[T]he technology is there and 

ready to use. And there is a voluntary initiative by 

all the stakeholders to get together and come 

together and create a solution that doesn’t 

necessarily involve revising the statute.’’). Despite 

the interest expressed during the 2016 roundtables, 

the development of any STMs still had not occurred 

by 2019. See Tr. at 439:21–440:2 (Apr. 8, 2019) 

(Nancy Wolff, Digit. Media Licensing Ass’n 

(‘‘DMLA’’)) (‘‘[T]he idea that it’s a multi-industry 

standard process with everyone involved, I don’t 

think that’s the way that really has worked. I 

haven’t seen any of that happening.’’). 

9See CCIA Initial Comments at 24–25 (‘‘In light 

of the fact that Section 512(i) amounts to a private 

sector technology mandate that would govern many 

thousands of diverse platforms, it should not be 

surprising that no one-size-fits-all system meeting 

the statute’s high standards has evolved.’’); Google 

Inc., Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. 

Copyright Office’s Dec. 31, 2015, Notice of Inquiry 

at 16 (Apr. 1, 2016) (‘‘Given the wide array of OSPs 

of different sizes, users, and service offered, a onesize-fits-all requirement imposed by private 

stakeholders would be unworkable for many OSPs, 

especially smaller ones . . . .’’); Tr. at 438:12–17 

(Apr. 8, 2019) (Nancy Wolff, DMLA) (‘‘The way 

[STMs are] defined just doesn’t work because 

technical measures aren’t done by a broad 

consensus of users and technology companies. They 

really come out of different sectors that are familiar 

with their own type of content.’’); Tr. at 111:8–16 

(May 13, 2016) (Dean Marks, Motion Picture Ass’n 

of Am.) (‘‘[I]n the kind of notice-and-takedown or 

anti-piracy copyright protection context online, 

[development of STMs] just hasn’t worked that way, 

I think possibly because there is such a variety of 

platforms and players and different types of sites 

and technology. You know, when the DMCA was 

passed, there wasn’t even peer-to-peer technology. 

So I think the context just changes so rapidly that 

it’s made it more difficult.’’). 

10U.S. Copyright Off., Section 512 of Title 17, at 

177 (2020) (‘‘Section 512 Report’’). 

11 Id. 

12 Id. at 179. 

13Letter from Sens. Thom Tillis & Patrick Leahy 

to Maria Strong, Acting Reg. of Copyrights (May 29, 

2020), https://copyright.gov/laws/hearings/ 

response-to-may-29-2020-letter.pdf. 

14 Id. at 2. 

15The panel discussions were held on September 

22, 23, and 29, 2020. More information is available 

at https://www.copyright.gov/events/stmdiscussion. 

16Letter from Maria Strong, Acting Reg. of 

Copyrights, to Sens. Thom Tillis & Patrick Leahy at 

11 (June 29, 2020), https://copyright.gov/laws/ 

hearings/response-to-may-29-2020-letter.pdf 

(‘‘Strong, June 29, 2020, Letter’’). 

17See U.S. Copyright Off., Standard Technical 

Measures: Legal Foundation (Sept. 22, 2020), 

https://stream-media.loc.gov/copyright/STM-LegalFoundation.mp4; U.S. Copyright Off., Standard 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are available on the 

Copyright Office’s website at https://

www.copyright.gov/policy/stm. If 

electronic submission is not feasible due 

to lack of access to a computer and/or 

the internet, please contact the Office 

using the contact information below for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aurelia J. Schultz, Counsel for Policy 

and International Affairs, by email at 

aschu@copyright.gov or Benjamin 

Brady, Counsel for Policy and 

International Affairs, by email at 

bbrady@copyright.gov. They can each be 

reached by telephone at 202–707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2015, 

the U.S. Copyright Office initiated a 

study on section 512 of Title 17, enacted 

as part of the Digital Millennium 

Copyright Act (DMCA).1 Public input 

for the Study included two rounds of 

comments and several roundtables.2

The comments and transcripts of the 

roundtable proceedings are available on 

the Copyright Office website at http://

copyright.gov/policy/section512/ under 

‘‘Public Comments’’ and ‘‘Public 

Roundtables,’’ respectively.3 The Office 

issued its report, Section 512 of Title 17, 

on May 21, 2020; it is available at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/ 

section-512-full-report.pdf. 

Among other topics, the Study 

examined section 512’s ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

framework, which limits an internet 

service provider’s liability for 

infringement if the provider meets 

certain conditions. One of these 

conditions is that the internet service 

provider ‘‘accommodates and does not 

interfere with standard technical 

measures.’’ 4 Section 512(i) defines 

standard technical measures (STMs) as 

measures ‘‘used by copyright owners to 

identify or protect copyright[ ]’’ that 

‘‘have been developed pursuant to a 

broad consensus of copyright owners 

and service providers in an open, fair, 

voluntary, multi-industry standards 

process.’’ 5 These measures must be 

‘‘available to any person on reasonable 

and nondiscriminatory terms’’ and 

cannot ‘‘impose substantial costs on 

service providers or substantial burdens 

on their systems or networks.’’ 6

Several participants observed that, in 

the two decades since the passage of the 

DMCA, no STMs have been identified 

under section 512(i).7 Although some 

participants expressed an interest in 

building consensus around existing 

technologies,8 others warned that the 

consultative multi-industry process the 

statute requires might be difficult or 

impossible to achieve.9

In its Report, the Office concluded 

that a complete consensus across 

industries and one-size-fits-all technical 

solutions are unlikely to emerge. The 

Office suggested that Congress clarify 

that the ‘‘broad consensus’’ in section 

512(i) does not require agreement by all 

stakeholders on a given STM.10 The 

Office also suggested that stakeholders 

and Congress consider ‘‘legislative, 

regulatory, or practical avenues to 

encourage the adoption and 

development’’ of STMs.11 The Office 

encouraged ‘‘stakeholder collaboration 

to leverage their diverse expertise in 

order to find and adapt solutions as 

technology and piracy evolve.’’ 12

Shortly after the Report’s release in 

2020, Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick 

Leahy of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee wrote to the Copyright Office 

requesting additional information on 

potential improvements to the safe 

harbor framework.13 The Senators 

specifically inquired about ways in 

which the Office ‘‘can help stakeholders 

identify and adopt standard technical 

measures without congressional 

action.’’ 14 In response, the Office held 

a virtual stakeholder meeting in 

September 2020, with three separate 

discussions covering the legal 

foundation of STMs, current 

technologies and their potential for 

adoption as STMs, and means of 

identifying or developing STMs going 

forward.15 Recognizing the importance 

of the ‘‘collaboration and cooperation of 

all stakeholders involved in the online 

ecosystem,’’ the Office invited 

participation by representatives from a 

wide range of stakeholders.16 Videos of 

these public discussions are available at 

http://www.copyright.gov/512/ under 

‘‘Standard Technical Measures 

Discussion.’’ 17 In the Office’s view, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 25051 

Technical Measures: Current Technologies and 

Their STM Potential (Sept. 23, 2020), https://

stream-media.loc.gov/copyright/STM-CurrentTechnologies-and-their-STM-Potential.mp4; U.S. 

Copyright Off., Standard Technical Measures: 

Looking Forward (Sept. 29, 2020), https://streammedia.loc.gov/copyright/STM-LookingForward.mp4. 

18Letter from Sens. Patrick Leahy & Thom Tillis 

to Shira Perlmutter, Reg. of Copyrights, at 2 (June 

24, 2021). 

19 Id. at 2–3. 

20Technical Measures: Public Consultations, 86 

FR 72638 (Dec. 22, 2021). 

21Section 512 Report at 179; see also Strong, June 

29, 2020, Letter at 12–13. 

22Section 512 Report at 67–68, 71–72. 

23Strong, June 29, 2020, Letter at 12 (June 29, 

2020). 

September 2020 event highlighted a lack 

of consensus among stakeholders and 

raised more questions than answers. 

In June 2021, Senators Tillis and 

Leahy again wrote to the Copyright 

Office expressing concern about the lack 

of progress on achieving the DMCA’s 

goal of encouraging stakeholder 

collaboration in the development of 

STMs.18 The Senators asked the Office 

to look into the deployment of technical 

measures to identify and protect 

copyrighted works online generally and 

to explore the identification and 

implementation of STMs under section 

512(i).19

The Office’s Notice of Inquiry from 

December 2021 addresses the Senators’ 

first request concerning the voluntary 

development of technical measures to 

identify and protect copyrighted works 

online generally.20 Today’s Notice of 

Inquiry addresses the second request by 

examining issues surrounding STMs as 

defined in the current statutory 

framework and seeking input on 

alternatives. 

In the Section 512 Report and a 

subsequent letter to Congress, the Office 

described several hurdles to identifying 

and adopting STMs under section 

512(i), including ambiguities in the 

statutory language that potentially 

restrict or discourage their use,21 the 

limited application and availability of 

specific technologies to certain subsets 

of stakeholders,22 and practical 

challenges impeding the Office from 

either facilitating the development of 

STMs or playing a direct role in their 

development or use.23 To provide 

Congress with a better understanding of 

how these issues might be addressed, 

the Office requests comments on the 

following questions. In your response, 

please identify which question(s) you 

are answering. 

Questions About Existing Technologies 

as STMs 

1. Are there existing technologies that 

meet the current statutory definition of 

STMs in section 512(i)? If yes, please 

identify. If no, what aspects of the 

statutory definition do existing 

technologies fail to meet? 

2. What has hindered the adoption of 

existing technologies as STMs? Are 

there solutions that could address those 

hindrances? 

Questions About Section 512(i) 

3. Process under the current statute: 

(a) Formal Process: Does section 

512(i) implicitly require a formal 

process for adoption of an STM? If so, 

what are the requirements for such a 

process, and what should such a process 

entail? 

(b) Informal Process: If the statute 

does not require a formal process, is an 

informal process appropriate or 

necessary? What type of informal 

process would facilitate the 

identification and adoption of an STM, 

and what should such a process entail? 

(c) Entities: What entity or entities 

would be best positioned to convene the 

process, whether formal or informal? 

What, if anything, is needed to 

authorize such an entity to convene the 

process? Is there any role under section 

512(i) for third parties, such as 

regulatory agencies or private standardsetting bodies, to determine whether a 

particular technology qualifies as an 

STM? If so, what is the nature of that 

role? How would the third party 

determine that a particular technology 

qualifies as an STM? What would be the 

effect of such a determination? 

(d) Courts: What role, if any, do or 

should courts play in determining 

whether a particular technology 

qualifies as an STM under section 

512(i)? How would a court determine 

that a particular technology qualifies as 

an STM? What would be the effect of 

such a determination? For example, 

would such a determination be binding 

or advisory? Would it bind non-parties 

or apply outside of the court’s 

jurisdiction? What would be the effect 

of pending appeals or inconsistent 

determinations across jurisdictions? 

4. International Organizations: Could 

technologies developed or used by 

international organizations or entities 

become STMs for purposes of section 

512(i)? If so, through what process? 

5. Consensus: Under section 

512(i)(2)(A), a measure can qualify as an 

STM if it has been ‘‘developed pursuant 

to a broad consensus of copyright 

owners and service providers in an 

open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry 

standards process.’’ 

(a) What level of agreement 

constitutes a ‘‘broad consensus’’? 

(b) What groupings qualify as ‘‘multiindustry’’? 

(c) Can the phrase ‘‘multi-industry’’ as 

used in the statute mean a grouping 

within a subset of industries? Could 

such sub-industry divisions adopt 

separate STMs? What would be 

appropriate sub-industry divisions? 

6. Availability: 

(a) Under section 512(i)(2)(B), an STM 

must also be ‘‘available to any person on 

reasonable and nondiscriminatory 

terms.’’ Is this a threshold requirement 

for a technology to qualify as an STM 

or an obligation to make a technology 

available on reasonable and 

nondiscriminatory terms once it is 

designated as an STM? 

(b) How has concern over the 

potential availability and accessibility of 

a technology affected the adoption of 

STMs? What terms would be reasonable 

and nondiscriminatory for STMs? In 

what ways would it be possible to 

enforce these terms? 

7. Costs and burdens: Under section 

512(i)(2)(C), an STM must not ‘‘impose 

substantial costs on service providers or 

substantial burdens on their systems or 

networks.’’ How should the 

substantiality of costs and burdens on 

internet service providers be evaluated? 

Should this evaluation differ based on 

variations in providers’ sizes and 

functions? 

8. Internet service provider 

responsibilities: Section 512(i)(1)(B) 

states that an internet service provider 

must ‘‘accommodate[ ] and [ ] not 

interfere’’ with STMs to qualify for the 

statutory safe harbor. What actions does 

this standard require service providers 

to take or to affirmatively avoid taking? 

Must all internet service providers have 

the same obligations for every STM? 

What obstacles might prevent service 

providers from accommodating STMs? 

What could ameliorate such obstacles? 

Questions About Potential Changes to 

Section 512 

9. Definition: How could the existing 

definition of STMs in section 512 of 

Title 17 be improved? 

10. Obligations: Currently, section 

512(i)(1) conditions the safe harbors 

established in section 512 on an internet 

service provider accommodating and 

not interfering with STMs. 

(a) Is the loss of the section 512 safe 

harbors an appropriate remedy for 

interfering with or failing to 

accommodate STMs? If not, what would 

be an appropriate remedy? 

(b) Are there other obligations 

concerning STMs that ought to be 

required of internet service providers? 

(c) What obligations should 

rightsholders have regarding the use of 

STMs? 

11. Adoption through rulemaking: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
25052 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2022 / Notices 

(a) What role could a rulemaking play 

in identifying STMs for adoption under 

512(i)? 

(b) What entity or entities would be 

best positioned to administer such a 

rulemaking? 

(c) What factors should be considered 

when conducting such a rulemaking, 

and how should they be weighted? 

(d) What should be the frequency of 

such a rulemaking? 

(e) What would be the benefits of such 

a rulemaking? What would be the 

drawbacks of such a rulemaking? 

12. Alternatives: Are there alternative 

approaches that could better achieve 

Congress’s original goals in enacting 

section 512(i)? 

Other Issues 

13. Please identify and describe any 

pertinent issues not referenced above 

that the Copyright Office should 

consider. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08946 Filed 4–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Document Number: NASA–22–033; Docket 

Number: NASA–2022–0002] 

National Environmental Policy Act; 

Mars Sample Return Campaign; 

Correction 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of intent; notice of 

meetings; request for comments; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) 

published a document in the Federal 

Register of April 15, 2022, concerning a 

notice of intent; notice of meetings; and 

request for comments. The document 

inadvertently omits the meeting number 

(access code) for the virtual public 

scoping meetings which is required for 

audio-only users to gain access to the 

meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Steve Slaten, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, by electronic 

mail at Mars-sample-return-nepa@

lists.nasa.gov or by telephone at 202– 

258–0016. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of April 15, 2022, in 

FR Doc. 2022–08088, on page 22578, in 

the third column, correct the third 

sentence in the second paragraph of the 

DATES section from ‘‘The call-in number 

for audio-only users is: +1–510–210– 

8882’’ to read ‘‘The call-in number for 

audio-only users is: 1–510–210–8882 

and the Meeting Number (access code) 

is 901–525–785.’’ 

Nanette Smith, 

Team Lead, NASA Directives and 

Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08937 Filed 4–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

The National Science Board hereby 

gives notice of the scheduling of a 

teleconference of the Committee on 

Strategy for the transaction of National 

Science Board business pursuant to the 

NSF Act and the Government in the 

Sunshine Act. 

TIME AND DATE: Friday, April 29, 2022, 

from 10:00–10:30 a.m. EDT. 

PLACE: This meeting will be held by 

teleconference organized through the 

National Science Foundation. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda 

is: Committee Chair’s Opening Remarks; 

Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes; 

Update on NSF’s FY 2022 Current Plan. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Point of contact for this meeting is: 

Chris Blair, cblair@nsf.gov, 703/292– 

7000. Meeting information and updates 

are available from the NSB website at 

https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/ 

index.jsp#up. 

Chris Blair, 

Executive Assistant to the National Science 

Board Office. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09041 Filed 4–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

The National Science Board’s (NSB) 

Committee on External Engagement 

hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 

a teleconference for the transaction of 

National Science Board business 

pursuant to the National Science 

Foundation Act and the Government in 

the Sunshine Act. 

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, April 28, 

2022, from 2:00–3:00 p.m. EST. 

PLACE: This meeting will be held by 

teleconference through the National 

Science Foundation. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda 

of the teleconference is: Approve 

February 2022 minutes; Discuss NSB 

survey feedback and draft 

recommendations to update NSB 

honorary awards; Recent and upcoming 

engagement; and Discuss the next 

iteration of the Committee, what should 

it aim to do? 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Point of contact for this meeting is: 

Nadine Lymn, nlymn@nsf.gov, 703/292– 

7000. Members of the public can 

observe this meeting through a YouTube 

livestream. Meeting information 

including a YouTube link is available 

from the NSB website at https://

www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/ 

index.jsp#up. 

Chris Blair, 

Executive Assistant to the National Science 

Board Office. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09037 Filed 4–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

The National Science Board’s Awards 

and Facilities Committee hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a 

teleconference for the transaction of 

National Science Board business 

pursuant to the National Science 

Foundation Act and the Government in 

the Sunshine Act. 

TIME AND DATE: Friday, April 29, 2022, 

from 12:00–2:30 p.m. EDT. 

PLACE: This meeting will be held by 

teleconference through the National 

Science Foundation. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda 

of the teleconference is: Committee 

Chair’s Opening Remarks; Schedule of 

Future Information, Context, and Action 

Items; Approval of Prior Minutes; 

Context Item: Inclusion of LeadershipClass Computing Facility in a Future 

MREFC Budget; Context Item: NOIRLab 

Operations & Maintenance Award; 

Context Item: Mag Lab Operations & 

Maintenance Award; Written Context 

Item: Regional Class Research Vessel 

Management Reserve. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Point of contact for this meeting is: 

Michelle McCrackin, mmccrack@

nsf.gov, (703) 292–7000. Meeting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1