Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14801 

First National Bank of Layton ......................................................................................... Layton .................................... Utah. 

Capital Community Bank ................................................................................................ Orem ...................................... Utah. 

Zions First National Bank ............................................................................................... Salt Lake City ........................ Utah. 

Anchor Bank ................................................................................................................... Aberdeen ............................... Washington. 

Bank of the Pacific .......................................................................................................... Aberdeen ............................... Washington. 

Whatcom Educational Credit Union ............................................................................... Bellingham ............................. Washington. 

Kitsap Credit Union ......................................................................................................... Bremerton .............................. Washington. 

Security State Bank ........................................................................................................ Centralia ................................. Washington. 

North Cascades National Bank ...................................................................................... Chelan .................................... Washington. 

Wheatland Bank ............................................................................................................. Davenport .............................. Washington. 

Islanders Bank ................................................................................................................ Friday Harbor ......................... Washington. 

1st Security Bank of Washington ................................................................................... Lynnwood ............................... Washington. 

Heritage Bank ................................................................................................................. Olympia .................................. Washington. 

South Sound Bank .......................................................................................................... Olympia .................................. Washington. 

HomeStreet Bank ........................................................................................................... Seattle .................................... Washington. 

Sound Community Bank ................................................................................................. Seattle .................................... Washington. 

Spokane Teachers Credit Union .................................................................................... Spokane ................................. Washington. 

Sound Banking Company ............................................................................................... Tacoma .................................. Washington. 

TAPCO Credit Union ...................................................................................................... Tacoma .................................. Washington. 

Columbia Community Credit Union ................................................................................ Vancouver .............................. Washington. 

Banner Bank ................................................................................................................... Walla Walla ............................ Washington. 

Security First Bank ......................................................................................................... Cheyenne ............................... Wyoming. 

First National Bank of Wyoming ..................................................................................... Laramie .................................. Wyoming. 

First Bank of Wyoming ................................................................................................... Powell .................................... Wyoming. 

Cowboy State Bank ........................................................................................................ Ranchester ............................. Wyoming. 

Rawlins National Bank .................................................................................................... Rawlins .................................. Wyoming. 

First State Bank .............................................................................................................. Wheatland .............................. Wyoming. 

II. Public Comments 

To encourage the submission of 

public comments on the community 

support performance of Bank members, 

on or before March 27, 2012, each Bank 

will notify its Advisory Council and 

nonprofit housing developers, 

community groups, and other interested 

parties in its district of the members 

selected for community support review 

in the 2010 fifth round review cycle. 12 

CFR 1290.2(b)(2)(ii). In reviewing a 

member for community support 

compliance, FHFA will consider any 

public comments it has received 

concerning the member. 12 CFR 

1290.2(d). To ensure consideration by 

FHFA, comments concerning the 

community support performance of 

members selected for the 2010 fifth 

round review cycle must be delivered to 

FHFA, either by hard-copy mail at the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ninth 

Floor, Housing Mission and Goals 

(DHMG), 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20024, or by electronic 

mail to hmgcommunitysupportprogram

@fhfa.gov on or before the April 27, 

2012 deadline for submission of 

Community Support Statements. 

Dated: March 7, 2012. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5992 Filed 3–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Request for Information (RFI) on 

Design of a Pilot Operational Study To 

Assess Alternative Blood Donor 

Deferral Criteria for Men Who Have 

Had Sex With Other Men (MSM) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Health, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) is seeking to 

identify interest and obtain information 

relevant to the design of a pilot 

operational study (or studies) on 

alternative donor deferral criteria that 

would permit blood and plasma 

donations (subsequently termed ‘‘blood 

donations’’) by men who have had sex 

with other men (MSM). 

Based upon documented higher levels 

of certain transfusion-transmissible 

infections (e.g. Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and 

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)) in some groups 

of men who have had sex with men, all 

men with a history of this behavior 

since 1977 are currently deferred from 

donating blood. However, the increased 

effectiveness of donor testing for HIV, 

HBV, syphilis and other infectious 

agents has greatly enhanced blood 

safety. As a result, questions have been 

raised about the need to continue an 

indefinite deferral of all MSM and 

whether there could be blood donation 

by MSM who may not be at increased 

risk. In June 2010, HHS sought advice 

from its Advisory Committee for Blood 

Safety and Availability (ACBSA) on the 

issue of the current MSM deferral 

policy. The Advisory Committee noted 

that the existing policy is suboptimal, 

but recommended that the policy 

should be retained pending the 

completion of targeted research studies 

that might support a safe alternative 

policy. 

HHS and the agencies responsible for 

blood safety are committed to efforts to 

maintain and enhance the safety of the 

nation’s blood supply, taking into 

account all new and emerging scientific 

information. Consistent with the June 

2010 recommendations of the ACBSA, 

HHS seeks to determine through 

appropriate studies whether blood 

safety can be maintained or enhanced 

under revised blood donor screening 

criteria that would permit donation by 

some MSM. This request for information 

(RFI) is being issued in recognition of 

the challenges of designing such 

studies. 

This RFI seeks information from 

interested parties regarding the design, 

logistics and feasibility of a pilot 

operational study (or studies) to assess 

alternative blood donor eligibility 

criteria for MSM. Responses to this RFI 

will inform HHS on the design, logistics 

and feasibility of such a study, which, 

if feasible, could result in identifying 

potential pathways toward future 

alternate policies that will maintain or 

enhance the current very high levels of 

blood safety. The concept is to conduct 

a pilot operational study, in which 

MSM who meet specified criteria would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

1http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/ 

reports/2009report/index.htm. 

2Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, Ziebell R, Green 

T, Walker F, Lin LS, An Q, Mermin J, Lansky A, 

Hall HI; HIV Incidence Surveillance Group. 

Estimated HIV Incidence in the United States, 

2006–2009. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e17502. Epub 2011 

Aug 3. 

3Blood Products Advisory Committee held 

September 14, 2000 http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/ 

dockets/ac/cber00.htm#Blood%20Prducts. 

Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and 

Availability held June 10–11, 2010 http:// 

www.hhs.gov/ash/bloodsafety/advisorycommittee/ 

recommendations/msm-deferral_qa_20110722- 

final.pdf. 

4FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor 

Deferrals in the NAT Era held March 8, 2006 http:// 

www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ 

NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/ 

TranscriptsMinutes/UCM054430.pdf. 

5Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and 

Availability held June 10–11, 2010 http:// 

www.hhs.gov/ash/bloodsafety/advisorycommittee/ 

recommendations/msm-deferral_qa_20110722- 

final.pdf. 

be permitted to donate blood, with 

additional safeguards in place to protect 

blood recipients during the course of the 

study. Data would be gathered to assess 

the effectiveness of the specified criteria 

to select low risk donors among MSM. 

Upon completing all data collection 

activities, there will be a transparent 

and evidence-based evaluation of 

current and possible future MSM blood 

donation policies. 

This RFI is for information and 

planning purposes only and should not 

be construed as a solicitation or as an 

obligation on the part of HHS. HHS does 

not intend to award a grant or contract 

to pay for the preparation of any 

information submitted or for the use of 

such information by HHS. Whereas all 

responses to this notice will be carefully 

considered, acknowledgment of receipt 

of responses will not be made, nor will 

respondents be notified of the 

evaluation by HHS of the information 

received. No basis for claims against 

HHS shall arise as a result of a response 

to this request for information or to the 

use of such information by HHS as 

either part of our evaluation process or 

in developing specifications for any 

subsequent announcement. 

DATES: All responses must be received 

no later than 4 p.m. EDT on June 11, 

2012 at the address listed below. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket ID number HHS– 

OPHS–2012–0003, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Enter the above 

docket ID number in the ‘‘Enter 

Keyword or ID field and click on 

‘‘Search.’’ On the next page, click the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ action and follow 

the instructions. 

• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions]: 

Richard Henry, M.L., M.P.H., Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Tower 

Building, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 

20852. 

Comments received, including any 

personal information, will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Berger, Acting Director for Blood 

Safety and Availability, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 1101 Wootton 

Parkway, Tower Building, Suite 250, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Blood Safety Strategy 

Current high levels of safety of the 

U.S. blood supply are provided by five 

overlapping layers of protection. These 

include: 

• First, potential donors are provided 

educational materials and also asked 

specific questions about their health, 

and about risk factors for certain 

transfusion-transmissible diseases (i.e., 

medical, behavioral and travel-related 

risks), as a basis for acceptance or 

deferral. 

• Second, the donated blood is tested 

for evidence of transfusion transmissible 

infections by highly sensitive laboratory 

assays. These include tests for infections 

which can be acquired through high risk 

sexual behaviors including HIV, HBV, 

and/or syphilis. 

• Third, blood establishments must 

keep a current list of individuals who 

have been deferred as donors in order to 

prevent future collection or use of their 

blood. 

• Fourth, blood products are 

quarantined until the testing is 

completed and the donation records 

have been verified for suitability of the 

collections. 

• Fifth, blood establishments must 

investigate any breaches of these 

safeguards, correct system deficiencies, 

and maintain records for FDA review. 

Rationale for Current Deferral Policy 

for MSM 

Deferral of potential donors prior to 

donation combined with highly 

sophisticated and sensitive laboratory 

testing of donated blood are among the 

multiple overlapping safeguards 

currently in place to protect the blood 

supply. Of particular concern for blood 

safety are infections known to be 

transmissible by blood transfusion, 

including HIV and HBV. Deferral of 

MSM from donation of blood is based 

on well-documented observations of a 

markedly higher prevalence 1 (current 

infection) and incidence 2 (newly 

acquired infection) of these 

transmissible agents among some MSM 

than in the non-MSM general 

population. Additionally, there is a 

theoretical concern that persons at 

increased risk for known sexually 

transmitted diseases might also be at 

increased risk to acquire sexually and 

blood transmitted infections that may 

emerge in the future and for which no 

donor screening tests exist. 

The risk of infection from a blood 

transfusion is now extremely low (less 

than one in one million units transfused 

for HIV and less than one in 280,000 

units transfused for HBV). These risks 

have diminished dramatically in the 

past three decades as a result of the 

overlapping safeguards. From recently 

published modeling studies, 

transfusion-transmitted infections, 

while rare, are now generally attributed 

to the interplay of three factors: (1) 

Failure of donor selection measures to 

accurately defer an at-risk donor, either 

by deficiencies in the donor screening 

process or failure of a donor to provide 

accurate answers; (2) donation by an 

infected individual during the ‘‘window 

period’’ when early infection cannot yet 

be detected by current testing; and (3) 

inadvertent release of a donated unit of 

blood (a) before all testing is known to 

be negative; (b) before other criteria 

affecting blood safety and quality are 

determined to have been met; or (c) 

despite a positive screening test or other 

finding of unsuitability (Quarantine 

Release Errors or QRE). 

Reconsideration of MSM Deferral 

Policy 

There have been advisory committee 

meetings 3 and a public workshop 4 over 

the past decade, which have reexamined 

the deferral policy, taking into account 

existing scientific evidence related to 

deferral of MSM from blood donation. 

In addition, there has been increased 

interest in changing this policy from 

some members of the U.S. Congress, the 

public and interested advocacy groups. 

Most recently, in June 2010, the HHS 

ACBSA 5 heard presentations of 

currently available scientific data and 

recommended to the HHS Secretary that 

the current MSM deferral policy, while 

suboptimal, should be retained pending 

the completion of targeted research 

studies that might support a safe 

alternative policy. Based on these 

recommendations, the Assistant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14803 

6Current tests include Antibody to HIV–1 and –2 

(Anti-HIV–1, –2), HIV–1 RNA (HIV–1 NAT), 

Antibody to HCV (anti-HCV), HCV RNA (HCV 

NAT), Antibody to HTLV–I and –II (Anti-HTLV–I/ 

II), Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg), Antibody 

to Hepatitis B Core Antigen (Anti-HBc), West Nile 

Virus RNA (WNV NAT), Antibody to Trypanosoma 

cruzi (Chagas’ disease), and a serologic test for 

syphilis. 

Secretary for Health charged relevant 

agencies to develop and carry out such 

studies, including a pilot operational 

study of revised deferral criteria for 

MSM. 

A public workshop was conducted 

and three funded studies are in progress 

to help re-evaluate the MSM deferral 

policy: 

(1) Workshop on Quarantine Release 

Errors (QREs): 

FDA convened a workshop in 

September 2011 to better understand 

and find ways to prevent errors in 

quarantine management that could lead 

to inappropriate release of blood (QREs). 

While only a very low proportion of 

QREs present serious health threats, 

QREs continue to occur, both in 

community based and hospital based 

blood collection establishments. It was 

determined that human error during 

non-computerized operations frequently 

contributes to the QREs that occur. As 

a result of the workshop, AABB is 

establishing an industry-led task force to 

study the QRE issue, to identify best 

practices, and to propose additional 

interventions. In particular, application 

of human factor engineering will be 

brought to bear in a review of blood 

banking practices to better optimize the 

interface between human and 

automated steps as a way to improve 

process controls. The output of the task 

force will be used by government 

agencies to establish guidance on best 

practices in quarantine control of blood 

components. 

(2) Study on the Epidemiology of 

Transfusion-Transmissible Infections in 

U.S. Blood Donors: 

An analysis of data on the prevalence 

and incidence of certain major 

transfusion-transmissible infections (e.g. 

HIV, HBV, and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)) 

obtained from routine donation testing 

of blood donors was initiated in 2011. 

This study will provide baseline 

estimates of the current risks of 

transfusion-transmitted viral infections 

in the U.S. blood supply. Additionally, 

the current risk factors (including 

heterosexual) reported by infected 

donors and their relative prevalence 

compared to other donors as controls 

will be determined, thus providing 

information as to which risk factor(s) 

should be targeted by optimized donor 

screening strategies. This study is 

supported by the National Heart, Lung, 

and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 

is being conducted as part of the second 

Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study 

(REDS–II). This study includes the 

American Red Cross, Blood Systems, 

Inc., and the New York Blood Center 

which together are responsible for 

collecting approximately 60 percent of 

the U.S. blood supply. 

(3) Study on Evaluation of the current 

Blood Donation History Questionnaire 

(DHQ): 

Several factors, including culture, 

social conditions, and language fluency, 

contribute to different interpretations of 

the questions that comprise the current 

blood donation screening questionnaire. 

A study to assess donor understanding 

and interpretation of the DHQ screening 

questions (cognitive evaluation) was 

conducted approximately ten years ago 

by the National Center for Health 

Statistics of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (NCHS, CDC). 

Because techniques for questionnaire 

evaluation have advanced considerably 

over the past decade, the HHS Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Health 

funded NCHS, CDC to re-evaluate the 

DHQ, with particular emphasis on 

donor understanding of the behavioral 

risk questions intended to prevent 

transmissible infections. This study will 

help determine whether the existing 

MSM deferral questions are understood 

and properly interpreted by donors. It 

may also determine more effective ways 

to communicate with at-risk 

populations through donor questions. 

(4) Study on the Attitudes and 

Behaviors of MSM Toward the Blood 

Donation Screening Process: 

Blood donors must accurately assess 

their individual risk(s), and then selfdefer from donation or disclose their 

risk(s) for the current screening process 

to effectively maintain blood safety. 

Failure to self-defer or disclose risk after 

a potential exposure to a transfusiontransmissible infection may result in the 

collection and release of an infectious 

blood donation, which may be 

associated with a false negative 

laboratory test during early infection 

(the ‘‘window period’’). For this reason, 

it is important to evaluate whether MSM 

with increased risk would reliably selfdefer or disclose risks if permitted to 

donate under revised selection criteria. 

A study funded by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) and being carried 

out by the NHLBI REDS–III program 

will assess attitudes and behaviors of 

MSM toward current and possible 

future blood donation policies. This 

study is specifically designed to 

examine whether MSM comply with the 

current deferral criteria and whether 

MSM would be likely to comply with 

potential different deferral criteria. 

Information Requested 

HHS is interested in obtaining 

information about the design, logistics 

and feasibility of a pilot operational 

study to assess alternative blood donor 

acceptance criteria for MSM. 

Specifically, HHS requests information 

from private and public sector 

stakeholders regarding potential pilot 

operational study designs, including 

innovative and cost effective approaches 

to evaluate alternative blood donor 

acceptance criteria for MSM. 

Input is requested for the following: 

(1) Candidate acceptance criteria for a 

pilot operational study that would 

permit blood donation by MSM. For 

example, MSM with one year or five 

years of abstinence from sex with other 

men, or other criteria, subject to study 

designs with additional safeguards. 

(2) Possible study designs that would 

generate useful information regarding 

the safety of candidate acceptance 

criteria while maintaining current levels 

of blood safety during the pilot study. 

Possibilities might include but are not 

limited to the following: 

(a) Pre-donation Donor Testing 

In a pre-donation testing strategy, 

MSM who are presently deferred, but 

who would be eligible to donate during 

the pilot operational study under 

modified acceptance criteria would be 

screened for donation with the 

candidate modified criteria and have a 

blood sample drawn for standard donor 

screening,6 and potentially, additional 

tests at their first session in a blood 

collection center. They would not be 

permitted to donate a unit of blood at 

that time. MSM donors who meet all 

other donor eligibility criteria, and have 

negative pre-donation test results, 

would be invited to return within a 

defined period, at which time standard 

donor screening and testing would be 

performed and blood for use in 

transfusion would then be collected. 

A pre-donation testing strategy would 

focus on the prevalence of HIV and 

other transfusion-transmissible 

infections in the MSM population. 

Infected donors would be identified and 

deferred based on prescreening results. 

Quarantine release errors (QREs) would 

be avoided, because infectious units 

would not be drawn and entered into 

inventory. 

Unanswered questions regarding a 

pre-donation testing option include: (1) 

the added costs of donor testing if 

provided by the collection center; (2) 

the added cost and complexity of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

tracking the results of pre-donation 

testing; (3) the period within which a 

potential MSM donor would need to 

return to complete an actual blood 

donation; (4) concern that pre-donation 

testing of only MSM could be seen as 

discriminatory; and (5) the residual 

impact on safety due to window period 

donations that would not be reduced by 

pre-testing. 

(b) Post-Donation Testing 

In a post-donation testing strategy, 

MSM who are presently deferred, but 

who would be eligible to donate during 

the pilot under modified deferral 

criteria would have a unit of blood 

drawn. This unit would be segregated 

from other units and placed in a 

separate quarantine. The donor would 

be asked to return for ‘‘post-donation 

testing’’ within a specified period 

following the donation that would 

exceed the ‘‘window period’’ for 

transfusion-transmissible infections but 

be within the expiration dating period 

of the unit of blood (i.e., within 14 to 

42 days post-donation for red blood 

cells or from 14 days to within one year 

for plasma for transfusion). For donors 

who continue to meet acceptance 

criteria and have negative ‘‘postdonation test’’ results, the unit would be 

released for transfusion. Such 

collections would be most applicable to 

repeat plasma donations given the 

longer shelf life of frozen plasma, 

providing greater flexibility for the time 

of ‘‘post-donation testing’’ of the donor. 

Also, plasma for transfusion could be 

collected at the time of ‘‘post-donation 

testing’’ initiating a new quarantine for 

a new collection. 

Placing units drawn from MSM 

donors in quarantine until qualifying 

‘‘post-donation testing’’ results are 

obtained would address the issue of 

recent (i.e. ‘‘incident’’) infections. 

Infectious units would be entered into a 

quarantine portion of the blood bank 

inventory prior to the availability of 

screening test results. However, if more 

infectious units are drawn and placed in 

inventory, these units would be subject 

to quarantine release errors. 

There could be the same or similar 

unanswered questions for the postdonation testing strategy as are outlined 

above under the pre-donation testing 

strategy. In addition, blood 

establishments would need to maintain 

stratified and potentially larger 

quarantine inventories and would incur 

the costs of discarding all units in 

quarantine for which a donor failed to 

return for ‘‘post-donation testing.’’ 

(c) Combined Pre-Donation and PostDonation Testing 

Under this scenario, an MSM donor 

seeking to donate under modified 

deferral criteria would be screened with 

a questionnaire and asked to give a predonation testing sample. Assuming the 

blood sample is negative for infectious 

markers, and the donor meets all other 

eligibility criteria, the donor would be 

invited to return within a defined 

period to donate a unit of blood. This 

unit would be placed in quarantine and 

the donor again would be asked to 

return, this time for post-donation 

testing also within a specified time 

period. 

This strategy would provide the 

strictest control over any increase in risk 

to the blood supply. Both incident and 

prevalent infection concerns would be 

addressed. However, this scenario 

would require a potential donor meeting 

the candidate MSM acceptability 

criteria to make three appearances at a 

blood collection facility within 

specified time periods in order to have 

a donation released for transfusion. 

Blood establishments would face 

challenging logistic issues in conducting 

such a study concurrently with normal, 

highly standardized blood collection 

operations. 

(3) Input is requested on the data that 

should be gathered and the criteria used 

to evaluate the results of the pilot 

operational study. For example, should 

MSM donors and non-MSM donors be 

asked to participate in surveys on their 

understanding of the donor screening 

questions, their specific sexual 

behaviors and their motivations to 

donate blood? Should the study 

outcome be based on observed markers 

of transfusion-transmitted infections in 

MSM donors compared with other 

donors? Should MSM donors with 

positive screening tests be interviewed 

to better understand their risk factors, 

their understanding of the donor 

questionnaire and their motivations to 

donate if they did not appropriately selfdefer or disclose their risk? 

Requested RFI Responses: 

Please comment on each of the above 

scenarios, or propose additional pilot 

operational study designs for 

consideration. In your response, please 

address each of the following: 

• Revised criteria that should be 

considered to permit blood donation 

by MSM 

• Blood safety considerations and safety 

mitigations that should be considered 

• Impact on blood establishment 

operations 

• Staff training and staff perceptions 

• Tracking of pre-donation and/or postdonation test results 

• Inventory management 

• Donor perceptions regarding the 

possible changes in deferral policy 

within the operational study scenarios 

(including both MSM and non-MSM 

donors) 

• Public reaction, if any, and impact on 

blood drives 

• Potential venues where the study 

could be conducted 

• Study costs 

• Willingness of blood organizations to 

participate in a pilot study 

• Data elements that should be gathered 

during the study, including those that 

may be associated with future 

emerging infections 

• Criteria for evaluation of the study 

results and conclusions 

• Expected timeframe for each proposed 

study. 

Dated: March 8, 2012. 

Richard Henry, 

Deputy Director, Blood Safety & Availability. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6091 Filed 3–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–41–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Advisory Council on Alzheimer’s 

Research, Care, and Services; Request 

for Nominations 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Request for Nominations. 

SUMMARY: HHS is soliciting nominations 

for a new, non-Federal member of the 

Advisory Council on Alzheimer’s 

Research, Care, and Services to fill the 

position of ‘‘representative of a state 

public health department.’’ 

Nominations should include the 

nominee’s contact information (current 

mailing address, email address, and 

telephone number) and current 

curriculum vitae or resume. 

DATES: Submit nominations by email or 

USPS mail before COB on April 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent 

to Helen Lamont at 

helen.lamont@hhs.gov; Helen Lamont, 

Ph.D., Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Planning and Evaluation, Room 424E 

Humphrey Building, Department of 

Health and Human Services, 200 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen Lamont (202) 690–7996, 

helen.lamont@hhs.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES