### 19467 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2013 / Notices

updated for usability and consistency. The most significant changes on the
form are as follows: Block 1
classification has been clarified to
include activated National Guard
members on State orders and U.S.
citizens who have never resided in the
United States. These individuals had previously been listed as U.S. citizens otherwise granted military/overseas voting rights. The overseas citizen selection previously described as ‘‘I am a U.S. citizen residing outside the U.S.,
and I do not intend to return’’ has been
reworded for citizens who are unsure of their future plans or are hesitant to sign that they do not intend to return to the country. The intent-to-return language
remains on the form due to the October
2008 National Association Secretaries of State (NASS) Survey of State Statues that shows the majority of States have intent as a prerequisite for obtaining a
State ballot. Block 7 has been reworded back to the 2005 FPCA language of ‘‘my voting residence address’’ to ensure military voters with more than one potential U.S. address are not registering in the wrong jurisdiction. Block 8 has been reworded to ‘‘where to send my ballot’’ to ensure voters are using their mailing address and not their U.S. voting address. The Affirmation has
been modified so that voters do not have to reaffirm information already found on the form. The signature block has been highlighted and the text previously found on the signature and date lines
has been moved below it so local election officials can easily read signatures and dates. The Agency
Disclosure Statement has been added to the instruction page of the form as per OMB guidance.

Dated: March 25, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2013–07485 Filed 3–29–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Defense Acquisition Regulations System** 

**[Docket Number DARS–2013–0010]**

**Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition**  **Regulation Supplement (DFARS); DoD**

**Pilot Mentor-Prote  ́**  **ge  ́**  **Program**

**AGENCY :**  Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

**ACTION :**  Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

**SUMMARY :**  In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions
thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection for use through August 31, 2013. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration
date.

**DATES :**  DoD will consider all comments received by May 31, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0332, using any of the following
methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include OMB
Control Number 0704–0441 in the subject line of the message.

Fax: 571–372–6094. Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Lee Renna, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301–3060.

Comments received generally will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ms. Lee Renna, 571–372–6095. The information collection requirements
addressed in this notice are available on
the World Wide Web at: http:// www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/
current/index.html. Paper copies are available from Ms. Lee Renna, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301–3060.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Title, Associated Form, and OMB
Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Appendix I, DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program; OMB Control Number 0704–

0332.

Needs and Uses: DoD needs this
information to evaluate whether thepurposes of the DoD Pilot MentorProtege Program have been met. The purposes of the Program are to (1) provide incentives to major DoD contractors to assist protege firms in enhancing their capabilities to satisfy contract and subcontract requirements; (2) increase the overall participation of protege firms as subcontractors and suppliers; and (3) foster the establishment of long-term business relationships between protege firms and major DoD contractors. This Program implements Section 831 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Pub. L. 101–510) and Section
811 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) (10 U.S.C. 2302 note). Participation in the Program is voluntary.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 115. Responses per Respondent: 1.96. Annual responses: 225. Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1 hour.

Annual Burden Hours for Responses:

225.

Total Recordkeeping Hours: 357. Annual Burden Hours: 582. Frequency: Semiannually (mentor); Annually (prote  ́ ge

 ́ ).

Summary of Information Collection

DFARS Appendix I–112.2(a)–(d) requires mentor firms to report on theprogress made under active mentorprotege agreements semiannually for the periods ending March 31st and September 30th. The September 30th report must address the entire fiscal year. Reports must include—

(1) Data on performance under the mentor-protege agreement, including dollars obligated, expenditures, credit taken under the Program, applicable
subcontract awards under DoD contracts, developmental assistance provided, impact of the agreement, and progress of the agreement; and

(2) For each contract where developmental assistance was credited toward an SDB subcontracting goal, a copy of the Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) or SF 294, and/or the Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) or SF 295, with a statement identifying—

(i) The amount of dollars credited to the applicable subcontracting goal as a result of developmental assistance


### 19468 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2013 / Notices

provided to protege firms under the Program; and

(ii) The number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded to the protege firm(s), broken out per protege.

DFARS Appendix I–112.2(e) requires the protege firm to annually provide data by October 31st on the progress made by the protege firm in employment, revenues, and participation in DoD contracts during each fiscal year of the Program participation term and each of the two fiscal years following the expiration of the Program participation term. During the Program participation term, the firms may provide this data as part of the mentor report required by I–112.2(a) for the period ending September 30th.

Kortnee Stewart, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

[FR Doc. 2013–07462 Filed 3–29–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

**Applications for New Awards; Minority Science and Engineering Improvement**  **Program**

**AGENCY :**  Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education

**ACTION :**  Notice.

Overview Information : Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) .

Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.120A.

**DATES :**  Applications Available: April 1,

2013.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 31, 2013.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: July 30, 2013.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The MSEIP is designed to effect long-range improvement in science and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and to increase the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into scientific and technological careers.

Priorities: This notice contains one competitive preference priority and two invitational priorities. The competitive preference priority is from the notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637).

Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in
which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we will award an additional two points to an application that meets this competitive preference priority.

This priority is: Competitive Preference Priority: Increasing Postsecondary Success

.

Projects that are designed to address the following priority area:

Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who persist in and complete college or other postsecondary education and training.

Note: Applicants seeking to address the competitive priority must do so in the context of meeting all other program requirements, including those provisions requiring a focus on science and engineering education in the grants funded under this program. Applicants should also consider how all elements of their proposed project contribute to the priority.

Invitational Priorities: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which we
make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets these invitational priorities a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

These priorities are: Invitational Priority 1: Institutionalize Practices that have Evidence of Success

. Building institutional capacity to effect long-range improvement in science and engineering education through projects that are supported by strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).

Invitational Priority 2: Improve STEM Education in the First Two Years of College

.

This invitational priority invites applications to eliminate systemic problems and impediments that result in high failure and dropout rates within the introductory years of science and engineering programs. We invite applications for projects that are designed to improve student success and retention in the first two years with actions, including, but not limited to, one or more of the following:

(a) Providing greater exposure to science and engineering real-world problems in the first two years through actions such as the appropriate sequencing of courses.

(b) Introducing recent innovations and discoveries in the first two years to make science and engineering education
relevant. The students should experience real developments such as those led by nanotechnology, cell biology, and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies).

(c) Widespread integration of research courses into the introductory STEM curricula. Expand the use of scientific research and engineering design courses in the first two years.

(d) Increasing opportunities for student research and design in faculty
research laboratories.

(e) Developing new curricula thatintegrate scientific theory with realworld applications in scientific problem-solving and engineering design, in the context of global environmental, energy, and economic problems.

(f) Adopting pedagogy for integrative teaching.

(g) Establishing programs to train faculty in evidence-based teaching practices, and catalyzing widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

(h) Seeking institutional and accreditation support for changes in curricular, pedagogical, and graduation requirements that are necessary to improve the first two years of STEM
coursework.

Definitions: The following definitions
are from the notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637), and apply to the priorities in
this notice:

Carefully matched comparison group design means a type of quasiexperimental study (as defined in this notice) that attempts to approximate an experimental study (as defined in this notice). More specifically, it is a design in which project participants are matched with non-participants based on key characteristics that are thought to be
related to the outcome. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to:

(1) Prior test scores and other
measures of academic achievement (preferably, the same measures that the study will use to evaluate outcomes for the two groups);

(2) Demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level, parents’ educational attainment, and