Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 4255 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by any of the following methods: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0058 Patent 

Prosecution Highway (PPH) Program’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records 

Management Division Director, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450. 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: January 21, 2015. 

Marcie Lovett, 

Records Management Division Director, 

USPTO, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01392 Filed 1–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2015–0001] 

Request for Information Regarding an 

Initiative on Safe Student Banking 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

information. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) 

seeks feedback on a draft Safe Student 

Account Scorecard that offers 

information to colleges and universities 

when soliciting agreements from 

financial institutions to market safe and 

affordable financial accounts for their 

students. The Bureau seeks comment 

from the public, including student and 

parent consumers, institutions of higher 

education, and financial institutions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2015– 

0001, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: FederalRegisterComments@

cfpb.gov. Include the title and Docket 

No. CFPB–2015–0001 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica 

Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20002. 

Instructions: All submissions should 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this proposal. Because paper 

mail in the Washington, DC area and at 

the Bureau is subject to delay, 

commenters are encouraged to submit 

comments electronically. In general, all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1275 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on 

official business days between the hours 

of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You 

can make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the public record and 

subject to public disclosure. Sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or social security numbers, 

should not be included. Comments 

generally will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general inquiries, submission process 

questions or any additional information, 

please contact Monica Jackson, Office of 

the Executive Secretary, at 202–435– 

7275. 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5511(c). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act (DoddFrank Act) that established the Bureau, 

part of the Bureau’s mission is to 

empower consumers to take control over 

their economic lives. The Bureau is 

specifically charged with promoting 

financial education, researching 

developments in markets for consumer 

financial services and products, and 

providing information, guidance, and 

technical assistance regarding the 

offering and provision of consumer 

financial products or services to 

traditionally underserved consumers 

and communities. 

Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

charges the Bureau with ‘‘collecting, 

researching, monitoring and publishing 

information’’ about consumer financial 

products and services. The Bureau seeks 

feedback on a potential Safe Student 

Account Scorecard that colleges and 

universities can voluntarily use when 

negotiating with providers to ensure 

that financial accounts marketed to their 

students are accounts that the college or 

university deems safe and affordable. 

The Bureau is interested in receiving 

comments to develop a Safe Student 

Account Scorecard. The Bureau is 

therefore interested in responses to the 

questions outlined below. The deadline 

for submission of comments is March 9, 

2015. The Bureau encourages comments 

from the public, including: 

• Student and parent consumers; 

• Student associations and consumer 

organizations; 

• Institutions of higher education and 

affiliated parties; 

• Providers of financial aid 

disbursement services; 

• Financial institutions; and 

• Other interested parties. 

Please note that the Bureau is not 

soliciting individual student account 

information in response to this notice 

and request for information, nor is the 

Bureau seeking personally identifiable 

information (PII) regarding student 

accounts from the parties or any third 

party. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the public record and 

subject to public disclosure. Sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or social security numbers, 

should not be included. Comments 

generally will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information. 

Background 

Colleges and universities have long 

played a role in the offering of financial 

products to students. Institutions of 

higher education have partnered with 

banks and nonbanks to offer a variety of 

financial products and services, 

including loans under the nowdiscontinued Federal Family 

Educational Loan (FFEL) Program, 

private student loans, credit cards, 

student checking accounts, and closedloop stored value card services tied to 

student ID cards. 

In February 2013, the Bureau 

published a Notice and Request for 

Information on Financial Products 

Marketed to Students Enrolled in 

Institutions of Higher Education.1 In 

September 2013, the Bureau hosted the 

Banking on Campus forum, seeking 

comment on the market from 

institutions of higher education, 

nonbank financial companies, 

technology providers, depository 

institutions, students, and consumer 

advocates.2

The Bureau found that financial 

product marketing partnerships have 

shifted from credit cards and preferred 

student lender agreements toward 

student debit and prepaid cards. There 

are now more agreements to market 

student checking, debit, and prepaid 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 

cards than agreements to market credit 

cards.3

According to the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), at least 

852 schools had agreements to provide 

debit or prepaid card services to their 

students as of July 2013. Enrollment at 

these schools accounts for about 40 

percent of all postsecondary students.4

Arrangements Between Institutions of 

Higher Education and Financial 

Institutions 

Institutions of higher education have 

developed commercial arrangements 

with financial institutions to market a 

range of products to students. For 

example, some of these arrangements 

are limited to leasing university-owned 

property while others may be a 

sponsorship agreement or affiliated with 

the institution of higher education’s 

athletics program. In many cases, these 

arrangements provide financial 

institutions unique or special marketing 

access to students.5

Deposit Accounts Linked to Student 

ID Cards. Some institutions of higher 

education automatically link bank 

accounts to their student ID cards, while 

others allow their students to choose 

whether or not to opt in to linking their 

accounts. In 2012, the National 

Association of College and University 

Business Officers (NACUBO) found that 

12 percent of schools surveyed had 

linked student ID cards to deposit 

accounts.6 According to the GAO, the 

ability to link an account might impact 

a student’s choice in adopting a 

financial product.7

Marketing Access on University 

Property. Some financial institutions 

include exclusive marketing, naming 

rights, and other agreements in their 

contracts with schools. In addition to 

co-branding on student ID cards, 

financial institutions sometimes give 

exclusive rights to brand events and 

place signage on university property. 

According to a report published by a 

consumer organization submitted as a 

public comment to the Bureau, many 

students often think of co-branding as 

an endorsement.8

Pay-for-Performance Bonuses. Many 

institutions of higher education receive 

indirect or direct compensation from 

financial institutions in connection with 

the offering of financial products. Some 

financial institutions offer direct 

payments for use of college trademarks 

and branding, others offer bonuses 

based on the number of student account 

sign-ups, while others offer 

discounted—or even completely free— 

services in exchange for marketing 

access. 

Financial Aid Disbursement 

Accounts. Many students receive 

scholarships, grants, and student loans 

that cover more than the amount of their 

tuition, including costs like textbooks 

and transportation. Many institutions of 

higher education partner with thirdparty financial companies to disburse 

these funds directly to students. These 

companies may even seek to promote a 

specific financial product where 

financial aid proceeds could be 

credited. In 2012 and 2014, federal 

agencies issued consent orders that 

involved one of the largest market 

participants in the financial aid 

disbursement market for alleged 

violations of various Federal consumer 

financial laws.9

Additional Challenges and Risks 

While partnerships between financial 

institutions and universities have the 

potential to provide benefits to students, 

there have also been challenges. 

In 2007, the New York Attorney 

General reported questionable conduct 

by school officials, including university 

personnel who were accepting 

compensation and gifts from lenders 

included on school preferred lender 

lists and officials who owned stock in 

companies offering loans to students.10

The Higher Education Opportunity Act 

of 2008 11 addressed many of these 

practices by requiring schools to clearly 

disclose the method and criteria used to 

choose lenders appearing on a 

‘‘preferred lender list’’ and to develop a 

code of conduct. The Act also generally 

restricted co-branding, such as the use 

of a university logo or mascot.12

Many colleges and universities have 

also formed credit card marketing 

agreements with financial institutions, 

which in some cases have resulted in 

targeted marketing and incentive 

payments to the school. The Credit 

CARD Act of 2009 13 restricted the use 

of tangible inducements (‘‘freebies’’) for 

students when marketing a credit card 

on campus, and required credit card 

issuers who enter into ‘‘college card 

affinity agreements’’ to submit 

agreements 14 to a public database now 

administered by the CFPB.15

The CFPB has called on financial 

institutions to voluntarily disclose 

agreements with institutions of higher 

education to market products to 

students.16 Information about these 

arrangements is already required to be 

disclosed when marketing credit cards 

and private student loans to students. 

The CARD Act requirement is limited to 

credit cards and does not include other 

financial products, including prepaid 

cards and deposit accounts with debit 

cards, marketed through schools. The 

CFPB has previously noted that making 

these agreements available for all 

financial products can demonstrate a 

commitment to transparency by 

financial institutions and their partner 

schools, helping students and their 

families understand basic information 

about these arrangements before 

choosing a specific product.17

The GAO also noted that ‘‘increased 

transparency for college card 

agreements could help ensure that the 

terms are fair and reasonable for 

students and the agreements are free 

from conflicts of interest.’’ 18

Additionally, NACUBO has urged 

institutions to publicly disclose the 

terms of these agreements as they relate 

to debit card arrangements used to 

access student loan and scholarship 

proceeds.19

According to a NACUBO survey of 

school officials, 69 percent of debit card 

arrangements are already available to 

the public.20 However, finding these 

agreements can be difficult. For 

example, a student may need to file a 

formal request under a state open 

records law to obtain the information. 

Easier access to these arrangements may 

increase the public’s confidence that 

these agreements are structured in ways 

that consider the interests of students. 

Mechanisms for Developing 

Partnerships 

Institutions of higher education use a 

variety of mechanisms to develop 

partnerships with financial institutions. 

Many colleges solicit marketing partners 

by publishing a Request for Proposal 

(RFP) as part of a formal process to seek 

information from financial institutions. 

According to a NACUBO survey, 60 

percent of schools use a competitive 

bidding process for establishing their 

relationships with vendors.21

The Bureau’s scan of publicly 

available RFPs showed that RFPs from 

institutions of higher education 

generally solicit proposals on a wide 

range of banking services and student 

banking affinity arrangements are 

usually only one component of those 

services. It appears that when evaluating 

these arrangements, scores generally do 

not heavily weigh student account 

features. Evaluation criteria rarely 

included a consideration of product 

features and costs. Some of the RFPs 

included a scoring system, where 

financial compensation to the school 

was heavily weighted. 

In light of recent concerns about the 

quality of banking products being 

offered to students through official 

partnerships, institutions of higher 

education have sought advice from the 

Bureau about how to ensure that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 4257 

product offerings marketed to their 

students are superior to those that are 

generally available. 

Safe Student Account Scorecard 

The Bureau is seeking public input on 

material that institutions of higher 

education can choose to include in their 

RFPs when soliciting marketing 

partnerships with financial institutions. 

The scorecard, once finalized, can help 

committees evaluating contract 

proposals to determine whether product 

offerings have safe features and offer 

superior value to students, as well as 

whether financial institutions are able to 

adhere to certain guidelines for 

transparency and for marketing 

practices. The goal of the Safe Student 

Account Scorecard will be to provide 

responsible institutions of higher 

education with a standardized format to 

solicit critical cost and feature 

information from prospective financial 

institution partners. Schools would be 

able to incorporate any or all aspects of 

the scorecard to meet their unique 

needs. 

For the purposes of soliciting detailed 

comments from the public on a 

scorecard, the Bureau drafted a sample 

version based on the FDIC’s Model Safe 

Accounts Template.22 A sample Safe 

Student Account Scorecard is available 

at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

students/request-for-informationregarding-an-initiative-on-safe-studentbanking/. 

The FDIC’s template describes 

‘‘electronic, card-based accounts that 

limit acquisition and maintenance costs. 

Transaction accounts are checkless, 

allowing withdrawals only through 

automated teller machines, point-ofsale-terminals, automated clearinghouse 

pre-authorizations, and other automated 

means.’’ The Bureau recognizes that the 

FDIC’s template was not developed 

specifically for accounts to be utilized 

by students enrolled in institutions of 

higher education. In addition, the 

template may need to be adapted if 

institutions of higher education choose 

to enter marketing partnerships to offer 

other types of accounts. 

In developing the draft for comment, 

the Bureau also considered public 

comments and testimony received as 

part of its 2013 Request for 

Information,23 as well as public 

proceedings related to the negotiated 

rulemaking held by the U.S. Department 

of Education.24

Below are some general areas for 

which information is being sought. 

Please respond to any or all of the 

questions below: 

1. How can institutions of higher 

education and students benefit from 

soliciting information on the features 

and cost of financial products marketed 

through a partnership with a financial 

institution? 

2. How can the draft scorecard based 

on the FDIC Model Safe Accounts 

template be adapted to meet the needs 

of this specific market and to other 

types of products that institutions of 

higher education seek to offer to their 

students? 

3. What are the potential advantages 

and disadvantages of separately 

negotiating arrangements with 

prospective financial institutions to 

market financial products to students, 

compared to including these 

arrangements as part of a broader 

relationship with a financial institution 

encompassing other services? 

4. What factors would institutions of 

higher education consider when 

determining whether or not to include 

additional information on product 

features and cost as part of a Request for 

Proposal? 

5. What other information would be 

useful for institutions of higher 

education to solicit from potential 

marketing partners to assist them in 

determining whether financial product 

offerings are safe and affordable for their 

students? 

6. What tools or information would be 

helpful for institutions of higher 

education when comparing proposals 

from potential marketing partners and 

selecting the proposal offering the 

safest, most affordable products for 

students? 

7. For existing arrangements between 

institutions of higher education and 

financial institutions to market student 

checking accounts, prepaid cards, and 

other financial products, what fees do 

students most frequently incur? To what 

degree do transaction patterns and fees 

vary among different student 

populations? How does this compare to 

the frequency of fee assessments on 

accounts unrelated to these marketing 

arrangements? 

8. For which student financial 

products would a Safe Student Account 

Scorecard be most useful to institutions 

of higher education? 

1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Request for Information Regarding Financial 

Products to Students Enrolled in Institutions 

of Higher Education, available at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

CFPB-2013-0003 (Feb. 2013). 2Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Banking on Campus Forum, available at 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_

cfpb_banking-on-campus-forum.pdf (Sept. 

2013). 3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

College Credit Card Agreements: Annual 

Report to Congress, available at http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb_

college-card-agreement-report-2014.pdf (Dec. 

2014). 4U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO– 

14–91, COLLEGE DEBIT CARDS: Actions 

needed to Address ATM Access, Student 

Choice, and Transparency, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660919.pdf 

(Feb. 2014). 5Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

What sunshine for student financial products 

can show us, available at http://

www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/whatsunshine-for-student-financial-products-canshow-us/ (Feb. 2014). 6National Association of College and 

University Business Officers (NACUBO), 

Students Refunds and Personal Banking at 

Colleges and Universities, available at 

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/ 

Initiatives/Campus_Card_Survey_Summary_

FINAL.pdf (Oct. 2012). 7U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO– 

14–91, COLLEGE DEBIT CARDS: Actions 

needed to Address ATM Access, Student 

Choice, and Transparency, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660919.pdf 

(Feb. 2014). 8U.S. PIRG, The Campus Debit Card Trap: 

Are Bank Partnerships Fair to Students?, 

available at http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/ 

files/reports/thecampusdebitcardtrap_

may2012_uspef.pdf (May 2012). 9Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, Federal Reserve Board announces 

civil money penalty and issues cease and 

desist order against Cole Taylor Bank, 

available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/

newsevents/press/enforcement/

20140701b.htm (July 2014). 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

FDIC Announces Settlements With Higher 

One, Inc., New Haven, Connecticut, and the 

Bancorp Bank, Wilmington, Delaware for 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices, available at 

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2012/

pr12092.html (Aug. 2012). 10See for example, New York State Office 

of the Attorney General, Press Release, 

Attorney General Cuomo Announces 

Settlement with Education Finance Partners 

Over its Student Loan Practices, available at 

http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/attorneygeneral-cuomo-announces-settlementeducation-finance-partners-over-its (Apr. 

2007). 11Public Law 110–315. 12 20 U.S.C. 1019a. 13Public Law 111–24. 14 15 U.S.C. 1637(r). 15 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

College Credit Card Agreements Database, 

available at http://www.consumerfinance.

gov/credit-cards/college-agreements/. 16 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

CFPB Calls on Financial Institutions to 

Publicly Disclose Campus Financial 

Agreements, available at http://www.

consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-callson-financial-institutions-to-publicly-disclosecampus-financial-agreements/ (Dec. 2013). 17 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

What sunshine for student financial products 

can show us, available at http://

www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/whatsunshine-for-student-financial-products-canshow-us/ (Feb. 2013). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 

18 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO– 

14–91, COLLEGE DEBIT CARDS: Actions 

needed to Address ATM Access, Student 

Choice, and Transparency, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660919.pdf 

(Feb. 2014). 19 National Association of College and 

University Business Officers (NACUBO), 

Students Refunds and Personal Banking at 

Colleges and Universities, available at 

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/

Initiatives/Campus_Card_Survey_Summary_

FINAL.Pdf (Oct. 2012). 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 In January 2011, the FDIC published a 

Model Safe Accounts Template. The Bureau 

reviewed this template and the associated 

docket of public comments when developing 

this draft Safe Student Account Scorecard for 

use by colleges and universities. Available at 

https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/template/

background/. 23 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Request for Information Regarding Financial 

Products Marketed to Students Enrolled in 

institutions of Higher Education, available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;

D=CFPB-2013-0003 (Feb 2013). 24 Department of Education, Negotiated 

Rulemaking 2013–2014 Program Integrity 

and Improvement, available at http:// 

www.2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearule

making/2012/programintegrity.html. 

Dated: January 15, 2015. 

Christopher D’Angelo, 

Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01492 Filed 1–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Information Collection; Submission for 

OMB Review, Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (CNCS) has 

submitted a public information 

collection request (ICR) entitled 2015 

Pay for Success Grant Opportunity for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 

35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation, may be 

obtained by calling the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 

Jennifer Stoff, at 202–606–7570 or email 

to jstoff@cns.gov. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–833–3722 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted, identified by the title of the 

information collection activity, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB 

Desk Officer for the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, by 

any of the following two methods 

within 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register: 

(1) By fax to: 202–395–6974, 

Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk 

Officer for the Corporation for National 

and Community Service; or 

(2) By email to: smar@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of CNCS, including whether 

the information will have practical 

utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Propose ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

• Propose ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments: A 60-day Notice 

requesting public comment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 29, 2014. This comment 

period ended November 29, 2014. No 

public comments were received from 

this Notice. 

Description: The Corporation for 

National and Community Service has 

submitted a public information 

collection request (ICR) titled ‘‘2015 

Application Instructions for Social 

Innovation Fund Pay for Success Grant 

Competition’’ for review and approval 

in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of 

this ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

calling the Corporation for National and 

Community Service, Jennifer Stoff at 

202–606–7570 or email to jstoff@

cns.gov. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–833–3722 

between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday. 

Type of Review: Renewal. 

Agency: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Title: 2015 Application Instructions 

for Social Innovation Fund Pay for 

Success Grant Competition. 

OMB Number: TBD. 

Agency Number: None. 

Affected Public: State and Local 

Government entities, Indian Tribes, 

nonprofit organizations. 

Total Respondents: Approximately 

50. 

Frequency: 24 hours per response. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,200 

burden hours. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): None. 

Dated: January 24, 2015. 

Melissa Bradley, 

Acting Director, Social Innovation Fund. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01478 Filed 1–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Health Board; Notice of 

Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing this notice to announce that 

the following Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting of the Defense 

Health Board will take place. This 

meeting is open to the public. 

DATES: 

Wednesday, February 11, 2015 

8:30 a.m.–12 p.m. (Open Session) 

12 p.m.–1 p.m. (Preparatory Meeting) 

1 p.m.–5 p.m. (Open Session) 

ADDRESSES: Defense Health 

Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Salons 

B–C, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls 

Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; 

see guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, ‘‘Public’s Accessibility to 

the Meeting’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Executive Director of the Defense Health 

Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 

Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls 

Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681–6653, 

Fax: (703) 681–9539, Christine.bader@

dha.mil. For meeting information, 

please contact Ms. Kendal Brown, 7700 

Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls 

Church, Virginia 22042, 

Kendal.Brown.ctr@dha.mil, (703) 681– 

6670, Fax: (703) 681–9539. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

meeting is being held under the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES