13566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

(viii) Date Report Delivered to 

Congress: 24 February 2012 

POLICY JUSTIFICATION 

Kuwait—AIM–9X–2 SIDEWINDER 

Missiles 

The Government of Kuwait has 

requested a possible sale of 80 AIM–9X– 

2 SIDEWINDER Block II All-Up-Round 

Missiles, 26 CATM–9X–2 Captive Air 

Training Missiles, 2 CATM–9X–2 Block 

II Missile Guidance Units, 8 AIM–9X–2 

Block II Tactical Guidance Units, 2 

Dummy Air Training Missiles, 

containers, missile support and test 

equipment, provisioning, spare and 

repair parts, personnel training and 

training equipment, publications and 

technical data, U.S. Government and 

contractor technical assistance and 

other related logistics support. The 

estimated cost is $105 million. 

This proposed sale will contribute to 

the foreign policy and national security 

of the United States by helping to 

improve the security of a friendly 

country that has been, and continues to 

be, an important force for political 

stability and economic progress in the 

Middle East. 

The Kuwait Air Force is modernizing 

its fighter aircraft to better support its 

own air defense needs. The proposed 

sale of AIM–9X–2 missiles will enhance 

Kuwait’s interoperability with the U.S. 

and among other Central Command 

nations, making it a more valuable 

partner in an increasingly important 

area of the world. 

The proposed sale of this weapon 

system will not alter the basic military 

balance in the region. 

The prime contractor will be 

Raytheon Missile Systems Company in 

Tucson, Arizona. There are no known 

offset agreements in connection with 

this potential sale. 

Implementation of this proposed sale 

will require travel of U.S. Government 

or contractor representatives to Kuwait 

on a temporary basis for program 

technical support and management 

oversight. 

There will be no adverse impact on 

U.S. defense readiness as a result of this 

proposed sale. 

Transmittal No. 11–53 

Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of 

Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the 

Arms Export Control Act 

Annex 

Item No. vii 

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 

1. The AIM–9X–2 SIDEWINDER 

Block II Missile represents a substantial 

increase in missile acquisition and 

kinematics performance over the AIM– 

9M and replaces the AIM–9X–1 Block I 

missile configuration. The missile 

includes a high off bore-sight seeker, 

enhanced countermeasure rejection 

capability, low drag/high angle of attack 

airframe and the ability to integrate the 

Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The 

software algorithms are the most 

sensitive portion of the AIM–9X–2 

missile. The software continues to be 

modified via a pre-planned product 

improvement (P3I) program in order to 

improve its counter-countermeasures 

capabilities. No software source code or 

algorithms will be released. 

2. The AIM–9X–2 will result in the 

transfer of sensitive technology and 

information. The equipment, hardware, 

and documentation are classified 

Confidential. The software and 

operational performance are classified 

Secret. The seeker/guidance control 

section and the target detector are 

Confidential and contain sensitive stateof-the-art technology. Manuals and 

technical documentation that are 

necessary or support operational use 

and organizational management are 

classified up to Secret. Performance and 

operating logic of the countercountermeasures circuits are classified 

Secret. The hardware, software, and 

data identified are classified to protect 

vulnerabilities, design and performance 

parameters and similar critical 

information. 

3. If a technologically advanced 

adversary were to obtain knowledge of 

the specific hardware and software 

elements, the information could be used 

to develop countermeasures that might 

reduce weapon system effectiveness or 

be used in the development of a system 

with similar or advanced capabilities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5446 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Notice of Availability for Exclusive, 

Non-Exclusive, or Partially-Exclusive 

Licensing of an Invention Concerning 

a Radiation Detector System for 

Locating and Identifying Special 

Nuclear Material in Moving Vehicles 

AGENCY: Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the 

availability for licensing of the 

invention set forth in ‘‘Radiation 

Detector System for Locating and 

Identifying Special Nuclear Material in 

Moving Vehicles,’’ U.S. Patent 

8,110,807, issued February 7, 2012. This 

invention is owned by the U.S. 

Government and is available for 

licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 

35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious 

commercialization of the results of 

federally-funded research and 

development. 

ADDRESSES: Director, Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency, Attn: General 

Counsel, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 

Mail Stop 6201, Fort Belvoir VA 22060– 

6201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Licensing or patent issues, Ellen Klann, 

Patent Counsel, Office of General 

Counsel, Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency, telephone: (703) 767–4561, fax: 

(703) 767–4550. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

invention uses a series of combined 

passive neutron and gamma ray sensors 

and sensor aggregators, systematically 

placed along a path of commercial 

traffic, for example an airport runway, 

combined with a pulsed source of 

monoenergetic gamma rays and low 

energy neutrons. The pulsed source 

produces a short interrogation pulse of 

monoenergetic gamma rays and low 

energy neutrons. These gamma rays 

induce a fission reaction in any fissile 

material in their path, such as in a 

moving vehicle, creating gamma rays 

and neutrons. The passive sensors 

located in the path of the moving 

vehicle detect the resultant gamma and 

neutron products of the reaction. 

Dated: March 2, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5545 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

DoDEA Grants to Military Connected 

Local Educational Agencies for 

Academic and Support Programs 

(MCASP) 

AGENCY: Department of Defense 

Education Activity, Department of 

Defense. 

ACTION: FY 2012 Grant program 

announcement. 

SUMMARY: DoDEA seeks full applications 

from eligible local educational agencies 

(LEAs). 

DATES:

1. Deadline for Transmittal of Full 

Applications: April 13, 2012. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13567 

2. Applications Package/Instructions 

Available on www.grants.gov: On or 

about March 1, 2012. 

3. Grants Awarded: On or about June 

1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Fatimah Dozier, Grant Program 

Manager, DoDEA, email: 

fatimah.dozier@hq.dodea.edu, 

telephone: 703–588–3129. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Funding Opportunity Description 

The FY 2012 grants to MilitaryConnected Local Educational Agencies 

for Academic and Support Programs 

(MCASP) aim to strengthen familyschool-community relationships and 

enhance student achievement for 

military dependent students. Applicants 

may choose to design their projects with 

academic goals, family engagement 

goals, or a combination of both. Projects 

should focus on no more than two 

program areas. Academically-focused 

projects should strengthen teacher 

content knowledge and skills through 

sustained professional development 

and, in most cases, encourage 

integration of technology into the 

curriculum. Family engagement and 

support projects should address the 

social-emotional needs of military 

families and aim to improve school 

climate. However, grant funds must be 

used for programs that directly support 

the student, and cannot be used for 

programs that only support family 

members. 

Awards will be made to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) on behalf of 

their eligible school(s). LEAs must have 

at least a five percent military 

dependent student enrollment at the 

district level. Eligible schools must have 

at least a 15 percent military dependent 

student enrollment. Although funding is 

related to military dependent student 

enrollment, it is expected that the 

proposed programs will serve all 

students at the target schools. 

The following two caveats should be 

noted: 

• The impact on the military 

dependent student subgroups should be 

demonstrable. 

• Family/support programs must 

focus primarily on military dependent 

students. 

The application package may be 

found at 

www.militaryk12partners.dodea.edu 

and www.grants.gov. The full 

application is due on April 13, 2012. 

Definition of Military Dependent 

Student: The term, military dependent 

student, is defined as an elementary or 

secondary school student who is a 

dependent of a member of the Armed 

Forces or a civilian employee of the 

Department of Defense who is employed 

on Federal property. 

Authorization: 

• Section 574(d) of Public Law 109– 

364, as amended; Title 10 U.S.C. Section 

2192(b) and Title 10 U.S.C. Section 

2193a. 

CFDA Number 

• CFDA 12.556: Competitive Grants: 

Promoting K–12 Student Achievement 

at Military-Connected Schools. 

PK–12 Education 

Research-based strategies: DoDEA 

supports research-based programs that 

aim to increase student achievement; 

strengthen family, school, and 

community engagement; and foster a 

positive school climate for military 

dependent children. Research-based 

strategies: 

• Are not limited to a research-based 

curriculum, but may be teaching and 

learning strategies that often cut across 

all content areas and all grade levels. 

• Include both valid and innovative 

programs. 

Student achievement: Regarding 

academic programs, LEAs must employ 

strategies with demonstrated 

effectiveness in improving student 

achievement. Achievement should 

include but is not limited to 

measurements of performance on state 

norm- and/or criterion-referenced 

assessments. Within this context, 

projects may include research-based 

programs that promote college and 

career readiness or provide extended 

learning opportunities. 

Note: It is understood that some curricular 

areas and grade levels will not have state 

norm- or criterion-referenced tests to 

demonstrate need and reveal improvement. 

However, the LEA must present multiple 

data sources to demonstrate need and 

propose a cost-effective plan to demonstrate 

increased student academic achievement in 

those areas. 

Support programs: Family 

engagement and support programs must 

employ strategies to create a positive 

school climate and address the socialemotional needs of military dependent 

students. This includes, but is not 

limited to, guidance counseling, peer 

support groups, and parental 

involvement programs. 

Priorities 

For the FY12 grant program, there are 

three priorities, and each applicant must 

include at least one priority area in their 

project design. Overall, projects should 

focus on no more than two program 

areas. While applicants are permitted to 

choose more than two program areas, 

submitting an application that addresses 

additional areas may result in an 

unfocused program design. No 

additional points will be assigned to 

proposals that incorporate more than 

one of these priority areas. Proposals 

may include programs outside of these 

priorities. Program areas are any K–12 

academic content support (English, 

Math, Science, Social Studies, ESL, or 

Special Education) and military student 

socio-emotional support. 

Priority #1: Science, technology, 

engineering, and math (STEM): Projects 

include strategies to infuse STEM 

principles throughout the curriculum. 

For example, a project that focuses only 

on math would not be given priority 

points for this area. The intent is to 

encourage STEM-integration across 

several content areas. 

Priority #2: Strategic foreign 

languages: Projects include 

establishment or expansion of foreign 

language learning, specifically less 

commonly taught languages such as 

Asian/Pacific languages and Middle 

Eastern languages. Programs under this 

priority may include virtual learning, 

intensive summer instruction for 

teachers and students, and immersion 

courses. 

Priority #3: Parent, family, and 

community engagement: Projects 

include ongoing, systemic strategies for 

parent and family engagement. 

Strategies may include parent training 

and support, resources and materials, 

and community involvement activities. 

Grant funds must be used for programs 

that directly support the student, and 

cannot be used for programs that only 

support family members. 

In addition, there are two competitive 

priorities: 

High concentration of military 

dependent students: An applicant may 

receive five additional points if one or 

more of the eligible schools have a 

military dependent student enrollment 

of 50 percent or more. 

New applicants: Applicants may 

receive five additional points if the LEA 

has never previously received a DoDEA 

grant award. 

Eligibility 

Applicants are limited to LEAs that 

have at least a 5 percent military 

dependent student enrollment at the 

district level. Eligible schools within the 

district must have at least a 15 percent 

military dependent student enrollment. 

Although funding is related to military 

dependent student enrollment, it is 

expected that the proposed programs 

will serve all students at the target 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

schools. Funds may be used for 

programs at any grade level. 

Current DoDEA grant recipients are 

eligible to apply for a FY 2012 MCASP 

grant if they have eligible schools that 

are not named (that is, not receiving 

services) from any of their existing 

DoDEA grant awards, unless the current 

grant is scheduled to end on August 31, 

2012. 

Funding Formula 

The funding formula is based on the 

number of military dependent students 

at eligible (target) school(s). For 

example, an LEA with 101–200 students 

may propose any amount between 

$135,000 and $270,000. The dollar 

figures below are for the entire 3-year 

grant period. 

Total military 

dependent 

students at target school(s) 

Minimum 

award 

($) 

Maximum 

award 

($) 

100 or fewer ..... $100,000 $135,000 

101–200 ............ 135,000 270,000 

201–300 ............ 270,000 405,000 

301–400 ............ 405,000 540,000 

401–500 ............ 540,000 675,000 

501–600 ............ 675,000 810,000 

601–700 ............ 810,000 945,000 

701–800 ............ 945,000 1,080,000 

801–900 ............ 1,080,000 1,215,000 

901–1,000 ......... 1,215,000 1,350,000 

1,001–1,100 ...... 1,350,000 1,485,000 

1,101–1,200 ...... 1,485,000 1,620,000 

1,201–1,300 ...... 1,620,000 1,755,000 

1,301–1,400 ...... 1,755,000 1,890,000 

1,401–1,500 ...... 1,890,000 2,025,000 

1,501–1,600 ...... 2,025,000 2,160,000 

1,601–1,700 ...... 2,160,000 2,295,000 

Above 1,700 ..... 2,295,000 2,500,000 

Award Information 

Project Period: June 1, 2012 to August 

31, 2015. 

Estimated Available Funds: 

$25,000,000. 

Estimated Range of Awards: $100,000 

to $2,500,000. 

Estimated Average Award Size: 

$1,000,000. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 30. 

Minimum Award: $100,000 (100 or 

fewer military dependent students). 

Maximum Award: $2,500,000 (1,700 

or more military dependent students). 

Expected Dates 

• Full Applications Available: On or 

about February 22, 2012. 

• *Live Technical Assistance 

Webinar #1: March 8, 2012, 3 p.m. ET. 

• *Live Technical Assistance 

Webinar #2: March 9, 2012, 11 a.m. ET. 

• Deadline for Intent to Apply 

(optional): March 14, 2012. 

• Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications through www.grants.gov: 

April 13, 2012, 11:59 p.m. ET. 

• Grants Awarded: On or about June 

1, 2012. 

*See application instructions on 

www.grants.gov for information on how 

to access the webinars. 

Evaluation Criteria 

The Project Narrative may not exceed 

15 pages in length. The Project Narrative 

describes, in sufficient detail, how the 

project will be implemented and 

includes the Evaluation Criteria in 

Sections A–F below. The application 

will be reviewed and scored according 

to the quality of the responses to the 

requirements in Sections A–F. The 

Project Narrative, with all sections 

included, may be no longer than 15 

pages. 

Section A: Needs Assessment (10 

points) 

• Provide relevant school district data 

or background information, including 

the connection to the military 

installation(s). 

• State student achievement needs 

and/or lack of educational opportunities 

at target schools. 

• Cite multiple sources, primarily 

quantitative data, to confirm the need. 

• Explain why current or past efforts 

failed to resolve the need, if applicable. 

• Include other relevant information, 

e.g., the consequences of not addressing 

the need. 

Section B: Project Goals (10 points) 

• Include goals that (1) relate to the 

program’s purpose, (2) lead to the 

desired results, and (3) are achievable 

through the project’s interventions and 

strategies. 

• Express goals broadly, such as: 

Increase K–5 student achievement in 

mathematics. Applications should have 

one goal related to each program area 

selected, with the recommendation that 

no more than two program areas are 

chosen. 

• Include outcomes that are (1) 

measurable and reasonable and (2) 

related to baseline school, district, and 

state data as well as the relevant 

literature. 

• Specify outcome timeframes, 

measurement tools, and target 

populations. Measurement tools should 

be an above school-level assessment(s), 

such as norm- or criterion-referenced 

standardized state or national test. The 

baseline should be referenced. The 

timeframe should be sufficient for 

strategies to achieve the expected 

results. Consider the following example 

of an outcome: 

By June 2015, ll percent of the ll 

grade students in the target schools will 

score proficient or above on the state 

llllllll assessment, an 

increase of ll percent over the SY10– 

11 level. 

• Interim outcomes are tied to the 

goal and are presented as specific 

measurements that assess each year of 

the project. Typically, each goal will 

have multiple interim outcomes. 

By the end of SY11–12, lll percent 

of the ll grade students in the target 

schools will score proficient or above on 

the state llllllll assessment, 

an increase of ll percent over the 

SY10–11 average. 

Notes: 

—Grantees may have many goals, however it 

is highly recommended to design a project 

that includes manageable and reasonable 

data collection and reporting. DoDEA 

requires quarterly reporting so the greater 

the number of goals, the more complex and 

burdensome the evaluation and reporting 

becomes. 

—With academic programs, the measuring 

tool is usually a state assessment. For some 

programs, such as PK–2 Academic and 

Support, other measuring tools must be 

selected. 

—For goals assessed by changes in attitude 

or behavior, grantees should use validated 

surveys or scales. Be aware that baseline 

measurements for the target population 

must be taken in order to be able to 

document changes as a result of project 

activities. 

Section C: Project Plan (30 points) 

• Include strategies that have 

demonstrated effectiveness in 

improving student achievement in the 

core curricular areas. The research base 

should be summarized in this section 

and details, including references and 

links should be provided in the 

appended bibliography. 

• Address the issues identified in the 

needs assessment. If applicable, an 

explanation of how the project fits into 

the district or school’s improvement 

plan or the LEA’s strategic plan should 

be included. 

• Incorporate strategies for sustained 

professional development/capacity 

building related to each program area 

goal. 

Notes: 

—The strategies, actions, and a timeline for 

each goal should be presented. Strategies 

should work as interrelated parts of a 

whole. 

—Actions are specific steps to accomplish 

the strategies that occur at specific times 

and usually involve direct services to 

students, educators, or other stakeholders. 

Strategies must be aligned with the goals 

and outcomes listed above. A well-written 

strategy section should answer: 

1. What strategies are employed? 

2. Why were the strategies selected? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13569 

3. How will the strategies help achieve the 

stated outcomes? 

4. What evidence shows the strategies to be 

effective? 

5. If applicable, how will the strategies 

work together to achieve the outcomes? 

• Describe actions for each strategy. 

The section outlining actions may be 

framed with a chart shown in the 

example below. Charts may use a 10- 

point font. 

Strategies Actions 

EXAMPLE 

Goal 1: Improve <grade levels> student achievement in <curricular area> 

#1: Strategy Name: Teacher professional development.1. Use of Professional Learning Teams for student data analysis. 

2. Professional development to improve teacher content knowledge. 

#2: Strategy Name: Added technology to curriculum.1. Ongoing job embedded coaching in instructional technology. 

2. Benchmark assessments for students. 

3. Pre and Post survey of students’ technology skills. 

• Create an implementation timeline 

for each goal using the model shown 

below. Costs may be broken down by 

actions or by strategies (as shown by the 

partially completed example below). Inkind/matching costs are not required, 

but should be included if they will be 

used for this program. When grant funds 

are listed, the dollar amount is required. 

If in-kind/matching costs are included, 

please cite their purpose, source, and 

amount for example, In-kind 

Professional Development, $25,000. 

EXAMPLE 

Category Start date End date Point of contact Costs 

Goal 1: Title ..................................................................................................... Improve <grade levels> student achievement in <curricular area> 

Strategy 1, Action 1 ......................................................................................... Grant: 

In-kind/Matching: 

Strategy 1, Action 2 .........................................................................................

Strategy 2, Action 1 ......................................................................................... Grant: 

In-kind/Matching: 

Strategy 2, Action 2 .........................................................................................

Strategy 2, Action 3 .........................................................................................

Section D: Project Evaluation (30 

points) 

• Include (1) the fidelity of program 

implementation, (2) formative or 

process evaluation activities that 

provide information to guide program 

improvement, and (3) a summative 

evaluation to assess how the outcomes 

have addressed the academic needs. The 

evaluation should help shape the 

project from inception. The evaluation 

plan must: 

1. Pose questions, in each of the three 

areas above that the evaluation will 

answer. 

2. Describe the data and the data 

collection process (including multiple 

sources). 

3. Describe how the data will be 

analyzed. 

4. Identify who will conduct the 

evaluation. 

5. Indicate what resources will be 

expended in the evaluation. 

6. Explain how the data will be used, 

particularly to inform decisions 

involving curriculum and instruction at 

the classroom, school, and/or district 

levels. 

Notes: 

—The evaluation concept should provide a 

broad framework regarding the data 

collection sources, the available resources, 

and how the data will inform decisions 

involving curriculum and instruction at the 

classroom, school and/or system levels. 

—Data collection instruments should include 

standardized forms (such as validated 

surveys and assessment protocols) 

wherever possible. 

—Grantees must disaggregate data at the 

school level for the military student 

population. 

—Grantees will be required to submit 

quarterly reports regarding evaluation 

activities. 

—Three percent of total grant funds must be 

spent on a third-party/external evaluator. 

Section E: Management Plan (10 points) 

• Indicate the Project Director who 

will be responsible for day-to-day 

management of the grant. 

• Provide information on the 

qualifications of all project leader(s), 

including their role and responsibilities 

relative to the strategies and actions, 

and estimated time commitment to the 

project. 

• The third-party evaluator’s 

qualifications and roles should be 

briefly described. 

• Append re ́sume ́s of project 

leaders—each being 1–2 pages in length. 

If the third-party evaluator has not been 

determined, then his or her role and 

qualifications should be described. 

Section F: Budget Narrative and 

Sustainability (10 points) 

• Align budget with proposed project 

plan, goals, and activities. 

• Provide a narrative justification for 

the items included in the proposed 

budget. 

• Describe existing resources and 

other support the LEA expects to receive 

for the proposed project. 

• Identify how project leaders will 

track budget expenditures. 

• Describe how project activities will 

be sustained after completion of the 

grant period. 

Notes: 

—For budgeting purposes, the grant years 

are: 

Year 1: June 1, 2012–August 31, 2013. 

Year 2: September 1, 2013–August 31, 2014. 

Year 3: September 1, 2014–August 31, 2015. 

Review and Selection Process 

MCASP applications are peer 

reviewed according to the evaluation 

criteria listed above. Applications may 

receive a maximum score of 110 points. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

Narrative (15-page maximum) Points 

Needs Assessment ........................... 10 

Project Goals .................................... 10 

Project Plan ...................................... 30 

Project Evaluation ............................. 30 

Management ..................................... 10 

Budget Narrative and Sustainability 10 

Priority 1: High concentration of military dependent students ............... 5 

Priority 2: New applicants ................. 5 

Total ........................................... 110 

Decisions to fund a grant are based 

on: 

• Strengths and weaknesses of the 

application as identified by peer 

reviewers 

• Availability of funds 

• Equitable distribution of awards in 

terms of geography, Branches of Service, 

repeat awardees, or other factors. 

Required Application Components 

Applications must include the 

required 10 application components. 

Cover page: Cover page must include 

contact information, names of military 

installations served, focus areas, 

enrollment data, and authorized 

signature. 

Abstracts: Both a 50-word and a 200- 

word abstract are required. Abstracts 

must provide a clear overview of the 

project’s purpose, design, and goals. 

Both abstracts may be placed on the 

same page in the application. 

Table of Contents: Proposals should 

include an accurate Table of Contents. 

Project Narrative: The project 

narrative must not exceed 15 pages 

(excluding supporting documents and 

appendices) and should include all 

sections listed under the Evaluation 

Criteria section of this announcement. 

Supporting documents: Supporting 

documents should include needs 

assessment data, re ́sume ́s of key 

personnel, and bibliography. Letters of 

support may be included. 

Evaluation design matrix: The 

evaluation design matrix illustrates 

goals and strategies as outlined in the 

evaluation plan. 

Budget Table: Proposals must include 

a detailed budget. 

SF 424: Standard Form 424— 

Application for Federal Assistance is 

required. 

SF 424A: Standard Form 424A— 

Budget Information for NonConstruction Programs is required. All 

sections on this form must be 

completed. Totals should match the 

detailed budget. 

SF 424B: Standard Form 424B— 

Assurances for Non-Construction 

Programs is required. 

Certifications: Applicants must 

complete the Certification Regarding 

Lobbying form and the Certification 

regarding Debarment, Suspension, and 

Other Responsibility Matters 

(www.grants.gov). 

Funding Requirements 

Cost sharing: Cost sharing/matching 

funds are not required in this program. 

Indirect costs: No grant funds may be 

allocated to administrative or indirect 

costs. Indirect costs are those incurred 

for a common or joint purpose 

benefiting more than one cost objective, 

and not readily assignable to the cost 

objectives specifically benefitted, 

without effort disproportionate to the 

results achieved. For further 

information, see OMB Circular 

A–87 –Attachment B. 

Personnel: Up to 25 percent of Federal 

funds may be allocated to full-time 

equivalent (FTE) positions. However, 

proposed budgets that exceed 25 

percent for FTE personnel may be 

considered. The term, full-time 

equivalent (FTE), usually refers to fully 

benefited positions. For grant purposes, 

the funding category, Personnel, 

includes FTE and non-FTE positions/ 

costs. Examples of non-FTE personnel 

costs include stipends for teachers, 

wages to afterschool tutors, and costs for 

substitute teachers. FTE and non-FTE 

positions must be clearly delineated on 

the detailed budget (Appendix C). 

Fringe benefits: Although fringe 

benefits for grant-funded FTE positions 

are an allowable cost, no grants funds 

may be allocated for administrative or 

indirect costs. Fringe Benefits are 

defined as costs in the form of employer 

contributions or expenses for social 

security; employee life, health, 

unemployment, and worker’s 

compensation insurance (except as 

indicated in OMB Circular A–87 

(Attachment B, No. 22)), and other 

similar benefits for employees expected 

to work solely on this grant. 

Equipment: ‘‘Equipment means 

tangible, nonexpendable, personal 

property having a useful life of more 

than one year and an acquisition cost of 

$5,000 or more per unit. A grantee may 

use its own definition of equipment 

provided that such definition would at 

least include all equipment defined 

above.’’ See DoD 3210.6–Rs 33.3 for 

additional information. 

Evaluation: DoDEA requires that at 

least three percent of grant funds will be 

spent on a third-party evaluator. The 

third-party evaluator may not be a 

current employee of the LEA. 

Grant meeting: In the Year 1 budget, 

LEAs must include $3,000 for the 

project director and the third-party 

evaluator to attend a two-day meeting, 

which is expected to occur in 

September 2012. Any funds not 

expended for the meeting may be 

realigned in the grant for other grant 

usage. Note: An LEA located outside the 

continental United States may wish to 

budget additional funds. 

Submission Requirements 

Applications are due Friday, April 13, 

2012, by 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time). All 

applications must be submitted 

electronically through www.grants.gov 

by the deadline. Applications received 

after the deadline will not be 

considered. 

The following standards should be 

followed: 

D A page is 8.5′′ x 11′′, one side only, 

with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, and 

both sides. 

D Single space all text in the 

application narrative, including titles, 

headings, footnotes, quotations, 

references, and captions, as well as all 

text in charts, tables, figures, and 

graphs. 

D Use a 12-point font; titles may be 

larger; charts may use a 10-point font. 

D Use one of the following fonts: 

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 

New, or Arial. An application submitted 

in any other font (including Times 

Roman or Arial Narrow) may not be 

accepted. 

Proposal Compliance 

Failure to adhere to deadlines to be 

specified in the forthcoming application 

may result in proposal rejection. Any 

proposal received after the exact time 

and date specified for receipt will not be 

considered. DoDEA, at its sole 

discretion, may accept a late proposal if 

it determines that no advantage has 

been conferred and that the integrity of 

the grants process will not be 

compromised. 

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5456 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

[Docket ID: USAF–2012–0007] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of 

Records. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES