18762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See FTC 

Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

statements, affidavits, depositions, or 

other documents or that the nature of 

the matters in issue is such that an oral 

hearing and cross-examination are 

necessary for the development of an 

adequate record; 

It is further ordered, That Worldwide 

Logistics Co., Ltd. is designated 

Respondent in this proceeding; 

It is further ordered, That the 

Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement is 

designated a party to this proceeding; 

It is further ordered, That notice of 

this Order be published in the Federal 

Register, and a copy be served on parties 

of record; 

It is further ordered, That other 

persons having an interest in 

participating in this proceeding may file 

petitions for leave to intervene in 

accordance with Rule 72 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.72; 

It is further ordered, That all further 

notices, orders, and/or decisions issued 

by or on behalf of the Commission in 

this proceeding, including notice of the 

time and place of hearing or prehearing 

conference, shall be served on parties of 

record; 

It is further ordered, That all 

documents submitted by any party of 

record in this proceeding shall be 

directed to the Secretary, Federal 

Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 

20573, in accordance with Rule 2 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.2 (formerly 

§ 502.118), and shall be served on 

parties of record; and 

It is further ordered, That in 

accordance with Rule 61 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, the initial decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge shall be 

issued by March 29, 2012 and the final 

decision of the Commission shall be 

issued by July 27, 2012. 

By the Commission. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7999 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REVIEW COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

March 30, 2011. 

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Tuesday, April 

12, 2011. 

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing 

Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission will consider and act upon 

the following in open session: Secretary 

of Labor v. Cumberland Coal Resources, 

LP, Docket No. PENN 2008–189. (Issues 

include whether the judge erred in 

determining that four violations of 30 

CFR 75.380(d)(7)(iv), which requires 

effective escapeway lifelines, were not 

‘‘significant and substantial.’’) 

Any person attending this meeting 

who requires special accessibility 

features and/or auxiliary aids, such as 

sign language interpreters, must inform 

the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) 

and 2706.160(d). 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean 

Ellen (202) 434–9950/(202) 708–9300 

for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll 

free. 

Emogene Johnson, 

Administrative Assistant. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8129 Filed 4–1–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6735–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 102 3136] 

Google, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis 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 May 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Google, File 

No. 102 3136’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. Please note 

that your comment—including your 

name and your state—will be placed on 

the public record of this proceeding, 

including on the publicly accessible 

FTC Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm. 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an individual’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. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential * * * as provided in 

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

46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 

16 CFR 4.10(a)(2).’’ 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), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).1

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following weblink: https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

googlebuzz and following the 

instructions on the web-based form. To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the weblink: 

https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ 

ftc/googlebuzz. If this Notice appears at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

index.jsp, you may also file an 

electronic comment through that Web 

site. The Commission will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to it. You may also visit the FTC Web 

site at http://www.ftc.gov/ to read the 

Notice and the news release describing 

it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘Google, File No. 102 

3136’’ reference both in the text and on 

the envelope, and should be mailed or 

delivered to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 18763 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act 

(‘‘FTC Act’’) and other laws 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, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC Web 

site, to the extent practicable, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission makes every 

effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

Web site. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.shtm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Ratte (202–326–3514), FTC 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission 

Rules of Practice, 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 from the FTC 

Home Page (for March 30, 2010), on the 

World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be 

obtained from the FTC Public Reference 

Room, Room 130–H, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, 

either in person or by calling (202) 326– 

2222. 

Public comments are invited, and may 

be filed with the Commission in either 

paper or electronic form. All comments 

should be filed as prescribed in the 

ADDRESSES section above, and must be 

received on or before the date specified 

in the DATES section. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission has 

accepted, subject to final approval, a 

consent agreement from Google Inc. 

(‘‘Google’’). 

The proposed consent order has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

(30) days for receipt of comments by 

interested persons. Comments received 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After thirty (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. 

On February 9, 2010, Google launched 

a social networking service called 

Google Buzz (‘‘Google Buzz’’ or ‘‘Buzz’’) 

within Gmail, its web-based email 

product. Google Buzz is a platform that 

allows users to share updates, 

comments, photos, videos, and other 

information through posts or ‘‘buzzes’’ 

made either publicly or privately to 

individuals or groups of users. Google 

used the information of consumers who 

signed up for Gmail, including first and 

last name and email contacts, to 

populate the social network, which, in 

many instances, resulted in certain 

previously private information being 

made public. 

The Commission’s complaint alleges 

that Google violated Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act by falsely representing to users 

signing up for Gmail that it would use 

their information only for the purpose of 

providing them with web-based email. 

The complaint also alleges that Google 

falsely represented to consumers that it 

would seek their consent before using 

their information for a purpose other 

than that for which it was collected. The 

complaint further alleges that Google 

deceived consumers about their ability 

to decline enrollment in certain features 

of Buzz. In addition, the complaint 

alleges that Google failed to disclose 

adequately that certain information 

would become public by default 

through the Buzz product. Finally, the 

complaint alleges that Google 

misrepresented its compliance with the 

U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a 

mechanism by which U.S. companies 

may transfer data from the European 

Union to the United States consistent 

with European law. 

The proposed order contains 

provisions designed to prevent Google 

from engaging in the future in practices 

similar to those alleged in the complaint 

with respect to all Google products and 

services, not only Gmail or Buzz. 

Part I of the proposed order prohibits 

Google from misrepresenting the 

privacy and confidentiality of any 

‘‘covered information,’’ as well as the 

company’s compliance with any 

privacy, security, or other compliance 

program, including but not limited to 

the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. 

‘‘Covered information’’ is defined 

broadly to include an individual’s: (a) 

First and last name; (b) home or other 

physical address, including street name 

and city or town; (c) email address or 

other online contact information, such 

as a user identifier or screen name; (d) 

persistent identifier, such as IP address; 

(e) telephone number, including home 

telephone number and mobile telephone 

number; (f) list of contacts; (g) physical 

location; or any other information from 

or about an individual consumer that is 

combined with (a) through (g) above. 

Part II of the proposed order requires 

Google to give Google users a clear and 

prominent notice and to obtain express 

affirmative consent prior to sharing the 

Google user’s information with any 

third party in connection with a change, 

addition or enhancement to any product 

or service, where such sharing is 

contrary to stated sharing practices in 

effect at the time the Google user’s 

information was collected. This 

provision is limited to users of Google’s 

products and services whom Google has 

identified at the time it shares their 

information with third parties, for 

example, users who are logged into a 

Google product. 

Part III of the proposed order requires 

Google to establish and maintain a 

comprehensive privacy program that is 

reasonably designed to: (1) Address 

privacy risks related to the development 

and management of new and existing 

products and services, and (2) protect 

the privacy and confidentiality of 

covered information. The privacy 

program must be documented in writing 

and must contain privacy controls and 

procedures appropriate to Google’s size 

and complexity, the nature and scope of 

its activities, and the sensitivity of 

covered information. Specifically, the 

order requires Google to: 

• Designate an employee or 

employees to coordinate and be 

responsible for the privacy program; 

• Identify reasonably-foreseeable, 

material risks, both internal and 

external, that could result in the 

unauthorized collection, use, or 

disclosure of covered information and 

assess the sufficiency of any safeguards 

in place to control these risks; 

• Design and implement reasonable 

privacy controls and procedures to 

control the risks identified through the 

privacy risk assessment and regularly 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 

test or monitor the effectiveness of the 

safeguards’ key controls and procedures; 

• Develop and use reasonable steps to 

select and retain service providers 

capable of appropriately protecting the 

privacy of covered information they 

receive from respondent, and require 

service providers by contract to 

implement and maintain appropriate 

privacy protections; and 

• Evaluate and adjust its privacy 

program in light of the results of the 

testing and monitoring, any material 

changes to its operations or business 

arrangements, or any other 

circumstances that it knows or has 

reason to know may have a material 

impact on the effectiveness of its 

privacy program. 

Part IV of the proposed order requires 

that Google obtain within 180 days, and 

on a biennial basis thereafter for twenty 

(20) years, an assessment and report 

from a qualified, objective, independent 

third-party professional, certifying, 

among other things, that: it has in place 

a privacy program that provides 

protections that meet or exceed the 

protections required by Part III of the 

proposed order; and its privacy controls 

are operating with sufficient 

effectiveness to provide reasonable 

assurance that the privacy of covered 

information is protected. 

Parts V through IX of the proposed 

order are reporting and compliance 

provisions. Part V requires that Google 

retain all ‘‘widely disseminated 

statements that describe the extent to 

which respondent maintains and 

protects the privacy and confidentiality 

of any covered information, along with 

all materials relied upon in making or 

disseminating such statements, for a 

period of three (3) years. Part V further 

requires Google to retain, for a period of 

six (6) months from the date received, 

all consumer complaints directed at 

Google, or forwarded to Google by a 

third party, that allege unauthorized 

collection, use, or disclosure of covered 

information and any responses to such 

complaints. Part V also requires Google 

to retain for a period of five (5) years 

from the date received, documents that 

contradict, qualify, or call into question 

its compliance with the proposed order. 

Finally, Part V requires that Google 

retain all materials relied upon to 

prepare the third-party assessments for 

a period of three (3) years after the date 

that each assessment is prepared. 

Part VI requires dissemination of the 

order now and in the future to 

principals, officers, directors, and 

managers, and to all current and future 

employees, agents, and representatives 

having supervisory responsibilities 

relating to the subject matter of the 

order. Part VII ensures notification to 

the FTC of changes in corporate status. 

Part VIII mandates that Google submit 

an initial compliance report to the FTC 

and make available to the FTC 

subsequent reports. Part IX is a 

provision ‘‘sunsetting’’ the order after 

twenty (20) years, with certain 

exceptions. 

The purpose of the analysis is to aid 

public comment on the proposed order. 

It is not intended to constitute an 

official interpretation of the proposed 

order or to modify its terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

J. Thomas Rosch 

I concur in accepting, subject to final 

approval, a consent agreement from 

Google Inc. (‘‘Google) for public 

comment. However, it should be 

emphasized that this consent agreement 

is being accepted, subject to final 

approval. I have substantial reservations 

about Part II of the consent agreement. 

My concerns are threefold. Before I 

describe them, however, I want to make 

clear that I do not mean to defend 

Google. Google can—and should—speak 

for itself. However, I believe that, as a 

Commission, we must always be 

concerned that a consent agreement, 

like a litigated decree, is consistent with 

the public interest. For that reason, I am 

opposed to accepting consent 

agreements that may be contrary to the 

public interest because a party is willing 

to agree to terms that hurt other 

competitors as much or more than the 

terms will hurt that party. That may 

occur, for example, when a consent 

agreement is used as ‘‘leverage in 

dealing with the practices of other 

competitors.’’ Part II of the proposed 

consent order may be susceptible to this 

happening. 

More specifically, the crux of the 

violation alleged in the Complaint is 

that Google represented in its general 

‘‘Privacy Policy’’ that ‘‘When you sign up 

for a particular service that requires 

registration, we ask you to provide 

personal information. If we use this 

information in a manner different from 

the purpose for which it was collected, 

then we will ask for your consent prior 

to such use. However, when Google 

initiated its social networking service 

(‘‘Google Buzz’’) it used personal 

information previously collected for 

other purposes without asking for users’ 

consent prior to this use. Part II of the 

proposed consent order prohibits 

Google, without prior ‘‘express 

affirmative consent’’ (an ‘‘opt-in’’ 

requirement) from engaging in any ‘‘new 

or additional sharing’’ of previously 

collected personal information ‘‘with 

any third party’’ that results from ‘‘any 

change, addition, or enhancement’’ to 

any Google product or service. First, 

Google did not represent in its general 

‘‘Privacy Policy’’ (or otherwise, 

according to the Complaint) that the 

‘‘consent’’ it would seek would require 

consumers to ‘‘opt in’’ as required by 

Part II. Indeed, the Complaint does not 

allege that Google ever asked consumers 

to signify their ‘‘consent’’ by ‘‘opting in’’ 

(as opposed to ‘‘opting out’’). To be sure, 

insofar as Google did not seek ‘‘consent’’ 

at all, its representation in its general 

‘‘Privacy Policy’’ was deceptive in 

violation of Section 5. But the ‘‘opt in’’ 

requirement in Part II is seemingly 

brand new. It does not echo what 

Google promised to do at the outset. In 

the separate Statement that I issued 

when the staff issued its preliminary 

Privacy Report, I expressed concern 

about whether an ‘‘opt in’’ requirement 

in these circumstances might sometimes 

be contrary to the public interest. Then, 

as now, I was concerned that it might be 

used as leverage in consent negotiations 

with other competitors. 

Second, Part II of the proposed 

consent order applies whenever Google 

engages in any ‘‘new or additional 

sharing’’ of previously collected 

personal information ‘‘with any third 

party’’ for the next twenty years, not just 

any ‘‘material’’ new or additional sharing 

of that information. Because internet 

business models (and technology) 

change so rapidly, Google (and its 

competitors) are bound to engage in 

‘‘new or additional’’ sharing of 

previously collected information with 

third parties during that period. That 

means that Part II is certain to apply 

(and with some frequency) during that 

period as long as Google does not warn 

users or consumers in its ‘‘general 

Privacy Policy’’ that it may engage in 

such sharing in the future. 

Third, Part II applies not just to 

Google’s social networking services or 

products, but to every single Google 

service or product that undergoes some 

‘‘change, addition, or enhancement’’ 

(terms that are not defined in Part II) 

that results from the sharing of certain 

information. As a practical matter, this 

means that Google is at risk that Part II 

will apply across the board to every 

existing product or service that Google 

offers, including any product or service 

that involves the tracking and sharing of 

identified Google users’ browsing 

behavior. 

In short, on the face of it, Part II seems 

to be contrary to Google’s self-interest. 

I therefore ask myself if Google willingly 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 18765 

agreed to it, and if so, why it did so. 

Surely it did not do so simply to save 

itself litigation expense. But did it do so 

because it was being challenged by 

other government agencies and it 

wanted to ‘‘get the Commission off its 

back’’? Or did it do so in hopes that Part 

II would be used as leverage in future 

government challenges to the practices 

of its competitors? In my judgment, 

neither of the latter explanations is 

consistent with the public interest. 

Nor am I comforted that the purpose 

and effect of Part II may be to ‘‘fence in’’ 

Google. I am aware of the teaching of 

Jacob Siegel Co. v. FTC, 327 U.S. 608 

(1946) that a ‘‘fencing in’’ order may 

cover legal conduct as long as that 

conduct is ‘‘reasonably related’’ to the 

violation. Even if Part II may be 

considered to cover conduct that is 

‘‘reasonably related’’ to the violation 

here, any consent order, whether 

litigated or negotiated, must be 

consistent with the public interest. I 

look forward to public comment about 

whether Part II of the proposed consent 

order meets that requirement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7963 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

[Document Identifier OS–0990–New; 60-day 

Notice] 

Agency Information Collection 

Request; 60-Day Public Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary (OS), Department 

of Health and Human Services, is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed information collection request 

for public comment. Interested persons 

are invited to send comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect 

of this collection of information, 

including any of the following subjects: 

(1) The necessity and utility of the 

proposed information collection for the 

proper performance of the agency’s 

functions; (2) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology to minimize the information 

collection burden. 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, e-mail your request, 

including your address, phone number, 

OMB number, and OS document 

identifier, to 

Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call 

the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 

690–6162. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections must be directed 

to the OS Paperwork Clearance Officer 

at the above email address within 60 

days. 

Proposed Project: Effects of Insurance 

Market Reforms—OMB No. 0990–NEW– 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). 

Abstract: The Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 

(ASPE) is requesting Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval on a new data collection, 

consisting of a survey of a national 

sample of health insurers to learn about 

the effects of various recent insurance 

market reforms from the Affordable Care 

Act (ACA) on premiums and coverage 

for certain benefits. ASPE will use the 

results of this survey in conjunction 

with other data sources to build a more 

complete picture of the effects of the 

insurance market reforms that went into 

effect in September of 2010. The survey 

instrument will be a one-time, selfadministered web survey sent to eight of 

the 12 largest insurers in each state plus 

the District of Columbia based on total 

2009 comprehensive major medical 

premiums, yielding a targeted sample of 

408 health insurers. Each health insurer 

will be asked to provide self-reported 

data on the percentage of covered lives 

with coverage for various benefits before 

and after the insurance market reforms 

went into effect, any effect of these 

reforms on premiums, and coverage for 

select other benefits under 

consideration for the essential benefits 

package. The survey design and content 

have been reviewed by both the ASPE 

project officer and other ASPE 

personnel, and by several former and 

current chief actuaries at health 

insurers. Data collection activities will 

be completed within 60 days (two 

months) of OMB Clearance. 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE

Forms Type of respondent Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden 

(in hours) per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

Self-administered web survey ........... Chief Actuary at health insurance 

companies.

408 1 45/60 306 

Mary Forbes, 

Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction 

Act Reports Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8034 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

National Advisory Council for 

Healthcare Research and Quality: 

Request for Nominations for Public 

Members 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of request for 

nominations for public members. 

SUMMARY: 42 U.S.C. 299c establishes a 

National Advisory Council for 

Healthcare Research and Quality (the 

Council). The Council is to advise the 

Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the 

Director of the Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality (AHRQ) on 

matters related to activities of the 

Agency to improve the quality, safety, 

efficiency, and effectiveness of health 

care for all Americans. 

Seven current members’ terms will 

expire in November 2011. To fill these 

positions, we are seeking individuals 

who are distinguished: (1) In the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES