High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program, 13814-13907 [2010-4869]
Download as PDF
13814
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645,
646, 647, and 694
RIN 1840–AD01
[Docket ID ED–2010–OPE–0002]
High School Equivalency Program and
College Assistance Migrant Program,
the Federal TRIO Programs, and
Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education and Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to
amend current regulations, and
establish new regulations, for the High
School Equivalency Program and
College Assistance Migrant Program
(HEP and CAMP); the Federal TRIO
programs (TRIO Programs—Training
Program for Federal TRIO Programs
(Training), Talent Search (TS),
Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC),
Upward Bound (UB), Student Support
Services (SSS), and the Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement
(McNair) Programs; and the Gaining
Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP)
program.
The purpose of HEP is to help migrant
and seasonal farmworkers and their
immediate family members obtain a
general educational development (GED)
credential, while CAMP assists students
from this background to complete their
first academic year of college and
continue in postsecondary education.
The Federal TRIO programs consist of
five postsecondary educational
opportunity outreach and support
programs designed to motivate and
assist low-income individuals, firstgeneration college students, and
individuals with disabilities to enter
and complete secondary and
postsecondary programs of study and
enroll in graduate programs, and a
training program for project staff
working in one or more of the Federal
TRIO programs. The purpose of the
GEAR UP program is to increase the
number of low-income students who are
prepared to enter and succeed in
postsecondary education.
These proposed regulations are
needed to implement provisions of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA) by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008
(HEOA) that relate to the HEP and
CAMP, Federal TRIO, and GEAR UP
programs.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before April 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time, in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is
available on the site under ‘‘How To Use
This Site.’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
regulations, address them to Pamela
Maimer, U.S. Department of Education,
1990 K Street, NW., Room 8014,
Washington, DC 20006–8014.
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy for
comments received from members of the
public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand
delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should be careful to include in their
comments only information that they wish to
make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, Pamela J. Maimer,
U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K
Street, NW., Room 8014, Washington,
DC 20006–8014. Telephone: (202) 502–
7704 or via the Internet at:
Pamela.Maimer@ed.gov.
For information related to HEP and
CAMP issues, Nathan Weiss, U.S.
Department of Education, Office of
Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Ave.
SW., Room 3E–321, Washington, DC
20202–6135. Telephone: (202) 260–7496
or via the Internet at:
Nathan.Weiss@ed.gov.
For information related to Federal
TRIO issues, Frances Bergeron, U.S.
Department of Education, 1990 K Street,
NW., room 7059, Washington, DC
20006–7059. Telephone: (202) 502–7528
or via the Internet at
Frances.Bergeron@ed.gov.
For information related to GEAR UP
issues, James Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room
6109, Washington, DC 20006–6109.
Telephone: (202) 502–7802 or via the
Internet at: James.Davis@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf, call the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–
877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible
format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to any of the contact persons
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
As outlined in the section of this
notice entitled Negotiated Rulemaking,
significant public participation, through
six public hearings and three negotiated
rulemaking sessions, has occurred in
developing this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM). In accordance with
the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Department invites
you to submit comments regarding these
proposed regulations on or before April
22, 2010. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
final regulations, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific section or
sections of the proposed regulations that
each of your comments addresses and to
arrange your comments in the same
order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866,
including its overall requirements to
assess both the costs and the benefits of
the proposed regulations and feasible
alternatives, and to make a reasoned
determination that the benefits of these
proposed regulations justify their costs.
Please let us know of any further
opportunities we should take to reduce
potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective
and efficient administration of the
programs.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about these proposed regulations by
accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments, in person, in
Room 8033, 1990 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record
On request, we will supply an
appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for these proposed regulations. If
you want to schedule an appointment
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
for this type of aid, please contact one
of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the HEA requires the
Secretary, before publishing any
proposed regulations for programs
authorized by Title IV of the HEA, to
obtain public involvement in the
development of the proposed
regulations. After obtaining advice and
recommendations from the public,
including individuals and
representatives of groups involved in
the discretionary grant programs
authorized under title IV of the HEA,
the Secretary must subject the proposed
regulations to a negotiated rulemaking
process. All proposed regulations that
the Department publishes on which the
negotiators reached consensus must
conform to final agreements resulting
from that process unless the Secretary
reopens the process or provides a
written explanation to the participants
stating why the Secretary has decided to
depart from the agreements. Further
information on the negotiated
rulemaking process can be found at:
https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/
hea08/.
On December 31, 2008, the
Department published a notice in the
Federal Register (73 FR 80314)
announcing our intent to establish five
negotiated rulemaking committees to
prepare proposed regulations. One
committee would focus on issues
related to lender and general loan issues
(Team I—Loans-Lender General Loan
Issues). A second committee would
focus on school-based loan issues (Team
II—Loans-School-based Loan Issues). A
third committee would focus on
accreditation (Team III—Accreditation).
A fourth committee would focus on
discretionary grants (Team IV—
Discretionary Grants). A fifth committee
would focus on general and non-loan
programmatic issues (Team V—General
and Non-Loan Programmatic Issues).
The notice requested nominations of
individuals for membership on the
committees who could represent the
interests of key stakeholder
constituencies on each committee.
This NPRM reflects the work of Team
IV—Discretionary Grants (Team IV)
which met to develop proposed
regulations during the months of
February through April, 2009. This
NPRM proposes regulations relating to
the administration of the HEP and
CAMP, TRIO, and GEAR UP
discretionary grants programs.
The Department developed a list of
proposed regulatory provisions based on
the provisions contained in the HEOA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
and from advice and recommendations
submitted by individuals and
organizations as testimony to the
Department in a series of six public
hearings held on—
• September 19, 2008, at the Texas
Christian University, in Fort Worth,
Texas;
• September 29, 2008, at the
University of Rhode Island, in
Providence, Rhode Island;
• October 2, 2008, at the Pepperdine
University, in Malibu, California;
• October 6, 2008, at Johnson C.
Smith University, in Charlotte, North
Carolina;
• October 8, 2008, at the U.S.
Department of Education, in
Washington DC; and
• October 15, 2008, at Cuyahoga
Community College, in Warrensville
Heights, Ohio.
In addition, the Department accepted
written comments on possible
regulatory provisions submitted directly
to the Department by interested parties
and organizations. A summary of all
comments received orally and in writing
is posted as background material in the
docket for this NPRM. Transcripts of the
regional meetings can be accessed at
https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/
hea08/.
Staff within the Department also
identified additional issues for
discussion and negotiation.
At its first meeting, Team IV reached
agreement on its protocols. These
protocols provided that for each
community of interest identified as
having interests that were significantly
affected by the subject matter of the
negotiations, the non-Federal
negotiators would represent the
organizations listed after their names in
the protocols in the negotiated
rulemaking process.
The Discretionary Grant Team IV
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
included the following members:
Representing the TRIO Programs
• David Megquier and Maureen
Hoyler (alternate), Council for
Opportunity in Education.
• Charlene Manco and Larry
Letourneau (alternate), National
Educational Opportunities Association.
• Laura Qaissaunee and R. Renee
Hampton (alternate), American
Association of Community Colleges.
• Jon Westby, Minneapolis
Community and Technical College and
Mike Henry, Southwest Virginia
Community College (alternate),
representing TRIO two-year institutions.
• Deltha Q. Colvin, The Wichita State
University and Troy Johnson, University
of North Texas (alternate), representing
TRIO four-year institutions.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13815
• Brenda Dann-Messier, Dorcas Place
Adult & Family Learning Center,
representing TRIO community
organizations.
Representing the GEAR UP Program
• Teena L. Olszewski, Northern
Arizona University, Allison G. Jones,
The California State University, and
Weiya Liang, Washington Higher
Education Coordinating Board
(alternate), representing GEAR UP fouryear institutions.
• Louis Niro, Cuyahoga Community
College, representing GEAR UP two-year
institutions.
• Jennifer Martin and Karen
McCarthy (alternate), National
Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators.
• Linda Shiller, Vermont Student
Assistance Corporation representing
GEAR UP State grantees.
Representing the HEP and CAMP
Programs
• Arturo Martinez and Javier
Gonzalez (alternate), The National HEP/
CAMP Association.
Representing Students
• Cedric Lawson, United Council of
University of Wisconsin, and Gregory A.
Cendana (alternate), United States
Student Association.
Representing the Federal Government
• Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of
Education.
Team IV’s protocols also provided
that, unless agreed to otherwise,
consensus on all of the amendments in
the proposed regulations had to be
achieved for consensus to be reached on
the entire NPRM. Consensus means that
there must be no dissent by any
member.
During the meetings, Team IV
reviewed and discussed drafts of
proposed regulations. At the final
meeting in April 2009, the team reached
tentative agreement on the proposed
regulations for the HEP, CAMP and
GEAR UP programs as well as on many
of the proposed TRIO program
regulations. However, some non-Federal
negotiators did not agree to the
Department’s proposed regulations
relating to the use of Talent Search
grants to pay tuition for students to take
courses and the proposed regulations to
implement the new statutory
requirement for a second review of
unsuccessful applications for TRIO
grants. Because the committee did not
agree on the proposed regulations for
the TRIO programs, Team IV did not
reach consensus on the proposed
regulations in this NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13816
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
We propose to accept changes that
reflect the tentative agreements made in
the negotiation sessions for the HEP,
CAMP, and GEAR UP programs in their
entirety. In the TRIO proposed
regulations, we accepted many of the
changes tentatively agreed to in the
negotiation sessions.
More information on the work of
Team IV can be found at https://
www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2009/grants.html.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Proposed Changes
These proposed regulations would
implement changes made by the HEOA
to discretionary grant programs
authorized by title IV of the HEA,
including:
HEP and CAMP Programs
• Expanding eligibility for HEP and
CAMP to allow students to qualify for
the program through their own
qualifying work, or that of an immediate
family member, rather than only
through their own work or that of a
parent, as the statute previously held
(see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
• Defining the term immediate family
member to include only individuals
who are dependent upon a migrant or
seasonal farmworker (see section
418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
• Revising the definition of the term
seasonal farmworker to clarify that the
individual’s primary employment in
migrant and seasonal farmwork must
occur for at least 75 days within the past
24 months (see section 418A(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the HEA).
• Amending the authorized HEP
services section to (1) Provide that
permissible HEP services include
preparation for college entrance
examinations; (2) provide that
permissible HEP services include all
stipends—not only weekly stipends—
for HEP participants; (3) add
transportation and child care as
examples of essential supportive
services; and (4) specify that HEP
services include other activities to
improve persistence and retention in
postsecondary education (see section
418A(b) of the HEA).
• Amending the authorized CAMP
services section to specify that (1)
Permissible CAMP services include
supportive and instructional services to
improve placement, persistence, and
retention in postsecondary education;
(2) these supportive services include
personal, academic, career, economic
education, or personal finance
counseling as an ongoing part of the
program, and (3)permissible CAMP
services include internships (see section
418A(c)(1) of the HEA).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
• Amending the follow-up CAMP
services section to include (1) referring
CAMP students to on-campus or offcampus providers of counseling
services, academic assistance, or
financial aid, and coordinating those
services, assistance, and aid with other
non-program services, assistance, and
aid, including services, assistance, and
aid provided by community-based
organizations, which may include
mentoring and guidance, and (2) for
students attending two-year institutions
of higher education, encouraging the
students to transfer to four-year
institutions of higher education, where
appropriate, and monitoring the rate of
transfer of these students (see section
418A(c)(2) of the HEA).
• Amending the minimum allocation
for HEP and CAMP grants to provide
that the Secretary must not allocate an
amount less than $180,000 (see section
418A(e) of the HEA).
• Adding to the HEP and CAMP
program regulations the criteria the
Department considers in evaluating
prior experience (see section 418A(f) of
the HEA).
Federal TRIO Programs
The HEOA made a number of
significant changes to the Federal TRIO
programs that necessitate changes to the
current regulations. The statutory
changes to the TRIO programs include:
• Amending or adding definitions for
different campus and different
population, which change current
regulatory definitions of these terms for
the SSS program and current practice
with regard to the number of
applications an eligible entity may
submit under each of the TRIO
programs (see section 402A(h)(1) and
(h)(2) of the HEA).
• Amending the services or activities
that projects funded under the Federal
TRIO programs must provide and
services or activities that these projects
may provide (see section 402B(b) and (c)
(TS); section 402C(b), (c) and (d) (UB);
section 402D(b) and (c) (SSS); section
402E(b) and (c) (McNair); section
402F(b) (EOC); and section 402G(b)
(Training) of the HEA).
• Adding new categories of
participants (foster care youth and
homeless children and youth) for whom
projects funded under these programs
are to provide services (see section
402A(e)(3) of the HEA).
• Adding new outcome criteria for
most of the TRIO programs (except for
the Training program) which the
Secretary must use for prior experience
determinations: TS (see section
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA); UB (see
section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA);
McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the
HEA); and EOC (see section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
• Specifying a new procedure for
handling unsuccessful applications
using a two-stage process (see section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA).
• Revising definitions for some terms
and adding new regulatory definitions
to implement amendments to the HEA
by the HEOA:
• Financial and economic literacy
(see section 402B(b)(6) of the HEA (TS),
section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA (UB),
section 402D(b)(4) of the HEA (SSS),
section 402E(c)(1) of the HEA (McNair)),
and section 402F(b)(5) of the HEA
(EOC));
• Foster care youth and homeless
children and youth (see sections
402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7)
(UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS),
402F(b)(11) (EOC), and 402G(b)(5) of the
HEA (Training)).
• Graduate center (see sections 101
and 102 of the HEA and section
402E(d)(2)of the HEA); groups
underrepresented in graduate school
(see section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA); and
research and scholarly activities (see
section 402E(b)of the HEA (McNair)).
• Individual with disabilities (see
sections 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7)
(UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS),
402F(b)(11) (EOC), and 402G(b)(5) of the
HEA (Training)).
• Individual who has a high risk for
academic failure and veteran who has a
high risk for academic failure (see
sections 402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and
402C(e)(2) of the HEA).
• Institution of higher education (see
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA (All
Federal TRIO programs)).
• Regular secondary school diploma
and rigorous secondary school program
of study (see sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii)
and (iv) and 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA
(TS and UB)).
• Veteran (see section 402A(h)(5) of
the HEA (TS, EOC, and UB)).
Additionally, the regulations for the
TRIO programs need to be amended to
reflect other changes made by the
HEOA, other amendments to the HEA,
and established administrative
practices. These changes include the
following:
• Amending the project period for the
TRIO programs. The proposed
regulations would define the project
period as five years for TS, UB, SSS,
McNair, and two years for TRIO
Training (see section 402A(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the HEA).
• Revising the selection criteria
related to ‘‘Objectives’’ for the following
TRIO pre-college and college programs:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA); UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of
the HEA); SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C)
of the HEA); McNair (see section
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA); and EOC (see
section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
• Removing the minimum number of
participants in the regulations for TS,
EOC, UB, Upward Bound Math and
Science, and Veterans Upward Bound
projects (see sections 402A(f), 402A
(b)(3), 402B, 402C, 402F of the HEA).
For each grant competition, the
Department will establish minimum
numbers of participants to be served by
a grantee through the Federal Register
notice inviting application.
• Revising sections of the TRIO
Training regulations to reflect current
law and practice regarding: (1) The need
for the project selection criteria and the
process for ranking applications by
priority; (2) the use of prior experience
points in the ranking of applications for
funding; and (3) the number of prior
experience points that can be earned
(see section 402G(2) of the HEA).
GEAR UP
• Providing that the Secretary award
competitive preference priority points to
an eligible applicant for a State GEAR
UP grant that has both carried out a
successful State GEAR UP grant prior to
August 14, 2008, and prior,
demonstrated commitment to early
intervention leading to college access
through collaboration and replication of
successful strategies; and specifying
how the Department determines
whether a State GEAR UP grant has
been ‘‘successful’’ (see section
404A(b)(3) of the HEA).
• Explaining when a GEAR UP
grantee is allowed to provide services to
students attending an institution of
higher education (see section 404A(b)(2)
of the HEA).
• Requiring grantees that continue to
provide services to students through
their first year of attendance at an
institution of higher education, to the
extent practicable, to coordinate with
other campus programs in order not to
duplicate services (see section
404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
• Revising the matching requirement
to require that a GEAR UP grantee make
substantial progress towards meeting
the matching percentage stated in its
approved application for each year of
the project period. Grantees would no
longer be required to meet the matching
requirement each year of the project
period (section 404C(b)(1) of the HEA).
• Revising the regulations concerning
the matching requirement for
Partnerships by: (1) Providing authority
for the Secretary to waive up to 50 to 75
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
percent of the matching requirement for
up to two years under certain
circumstances; and (2) creating a
multiple-tiered system for different
types of waiver requests (see section
404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
• Providing for tentative approval of
a Partnership applicant’s request for a
50-percent waiver for the entire project
period so that a Partnership applicant
that meets the conditions for such a
waiver has an opportunity to apply for
a grant without needing to identify
additional sources of match funding in
the later years of the project period (see
section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
• Adding a list of required and
allowable activities and separating these
required and allowable activities into
multiple regulatory sections (see section
404D of the HEA).
• Specifying that GEAR UP grantees
may provide activities that support
participating students to develop
graduation and career plans and that
these graduation and career plans may
include career awareness and planning
activities as they relate to a rigorous
academic curriculum (see section
404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).
• Clarifying that GEAR UP funds may
be used to support the costs of
administering a scholarship program as
well as the costs of the scholarships
themselves (see sections 404E(a)(1) and
404D(b)(7) of the HEA).
• Describing the types of services that
a grantee may provide to students in
their first year of attendance at an
institution of higher education and
listing examples of these services (see
section 404D of the HEA).
• Specifying the minimum amount of
scholarship funding for an eligible
student, and providing that the State or
Partnership awarding the GEAR UP
scholarship may reduce the scholarship
amount if an eligible student who is
awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends
an institution of higher education on a
less than full-time basis during any
award year (see section 404E(d) of the
HEA).
• Incorporating the statutory
definition of the term eligible student
(from section 404E(g) of the HEA) in the
program regulations.
• Specifying the amount of funds that
State grantees that do not receive a
waiver of the requirement that States
must expend at least 50 percent of their
GEAR UP funding on scholarships must
hold in reserve for scholarships and
how States must use these funds (see
section 404E(e) of the HEA).
• Clarifying that scholarships must be
made to all students who are eligible
under the definition in § 694.12(b) and
that a grantee may not impose
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13817
additional eligibility criteria that would
have the effect of limiting or denying a
scholarship to an eligible student (see
section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
• Requiring States awarding
scholarships to provide information on
the eligibility requirements for the
scholarships to all participating
students upon the students’ entry into
the GEAR UP program (see section
404E(c) of the HEA).
• Requiring States to provide
scholarship funds to all eligible students
who attend an institution of higher
education in the State, and allowing
States to provide these scholarship
funds to eligible students who attend
institutions of higher education outside
the State (see section 404E(e) and (g) of
the HEA).
• Specifying that a State or
Partnership may award continuation
scholarships in successive award years
to each student who received an initial
scholarship and who is enrolled or
accepted for enrollment in a program of
undergraduate instruction at an
institution of higher education (see
section 404E of the HEA).
• Providing that a GEAR UP
Partnership that does not participate in
the GEAR UP scholarship component
may provide financial assistance for
postsecondary education using nonFederal funds obtained to comply with
the program’s matching requirement
(see section 404C(b) of the HEA).
• Specifying the requirements for the
return of scholarship funds.
Specifically, (1) Providing that
scholarship funds held in reserve by
States under §§ 694.12 (b)(1) or
694.12(c) or by Partnerships under
section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that are
not used by an eligible student within
six years of the student’s scheduled
completion of secondary school may be
redistributed by the grantee to other
eligible students; (2) requiring the return
of remaining Federal funds within 45
days after the six-year period for
expending the scholarship funds
expires; (3) requiring grantees to
annually furnish information, as the
Secretary may require, on the amount of
Federal and non-Federal funds reserved
and held for GEAR UP scholarships and
the disbursement of those funds to
eligible students until these funds are
fully expended or returned to the
Secretary; and (4) providing that a
scholarship fund under the GEAR UP
program is subject to audit or
monitoring by authorized
representatives of the Secretary
throughout the life of the fund (see
section 404E(e)(4) of the HEA).
• Requiring grantees that receive
initial grant awards after the passage of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13818
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the HEOA must continue to serve
students from a previous grant received
by the grantee (see sec 404A(b)(3)(B) of
the HEA).
• Clarifying whom a grantee must
serve if not all students in the cohort
attend the same school after the cohort
completes the last grade level offered by
the school at which the cohort began to
receive GEAR UP services (see section
404B(d) of the HEA).
• Specifying that 21st Century
Scholarship Certificates are to be
provided by the grantees (rather than by
the Secretary to the grantees), and must
indicate the estimated amount.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We group major issues according to
subject, with appropriate sections of the
proposed regulations referenced in
parentheses.
Part 206—Special Educational
Programs for Students Whose Families
Are Engaged in Migrant and Other
Seasonal Farmwork—High School
Equivalency Program and College
Assistance Migrant Program
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
HEP and CAMP Eligibility
Statute: Sections 408(1)(A) and
408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA amend
sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and
418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA, respectively,
to expand the pool of individuals who
may receive HEP and CAMP services
from persons who themselves, or whose
parents, have spent a minimum of 75
days during the past 24 months in
migrant and seasonal farmwork, to
persons who themselves or whose
immediate family have performed such
work. The statute does not define the
term ‘‘immediate family.’’
Current Regulations: Current § 206.3
specifies who is eligible to participate in
a HEP or CAMP project. It does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA
to the HEP and CAMP eligibility
requirements.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise current § 206.3(a)(1)
to specify that in order to be eligible to
participate in a HEP or CAMP project a
person, or his or her immediate family
member, must have spent a minimum of
75 days during the past 24 months as a
migrant or seasonal farmworker. Current
§ 206.3(a)(2), regarding alternative
eligibility for HEP and CAMP on the
basis of eligibility under the Migrant
Education Program authorized under
subpart C of Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (MEP) or
the National Farmworkers Jobs Program
authorized in section 167 of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(NFJP), would remain unchanged except
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
for updating the reference to the MEP
regulations to 34 CFR part 200.
We also are proposing to add to the
list of definitions in current § 206.5
(What definitions apply to these
programs?) a definition of the term
immediate family member. Specifically,
we would redesignate current
§ 206.5(c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as
proposed § 206.5(c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8),
respectively, and then add a new
paragraph (c)(5) to define the term
immediate family member as one or
more of the following: a spouse; a
parent, step-parent, adoptive parent,
foster parent, or anyone with
guardianship; or any person who (1)
claims the individual as a dependent on
a Federal income tax return for either of
the previous two years, or (2) resides in
the same household as the individual,
supports that individual financially, and
is a relative of that individual.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 206.3(a) to specify that in
order to be eligible to participate in a
HEP or CAMP project a person, or his
or her immediate family member, must
have spent a minimum of 75 days
during the past 24 months as a migrant
or seasonal farmworker. This proposed
regulatory change would reflect the
changes made to sections
418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the
HEA by sections 408(1)(A) and
408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA,
respectively. We propose to use the term
immediate family member in § 206.3(a),
rather than the statutory term
‘‘immediate family,’’ for clarity.
During our negotiated rulemaking
sessions, the Department and nonFederal negotiators agreed that defining
the term immediate family member in
these regulations would help ensure
consistency in the application of this
term across HEP and CAMP projects. In
developing a proposed definition for
this term, the Department considered
examples of similar definitions used by
other government programs, as well as
the comments of the non-Federal
negotiators and previous discussions
with stakeholders in the HEP and CAMP
community. Most importantly, the
Department agreed with the non-Federal
negotiators that it is important to ensure
that eligibility for the HEP and CAMP
programs extends only to an individual
who is, or is dependent upon, a migrant
or seasonal farmworker, and defined the
term immediate family member
accordingly.
Finally, we are proposing to revise
current § 206.3(a)(2) to update the
regulatory cross-reference regarding the
MEP, which appears in 34 CFR part 200,
subpart C, not 34 CFR part 201.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
HEP and CAMP Definition of Seasonal
Farmworker
Statute: Sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and
418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA provide that
the services authorized for HEP and
CAMP include services to reach persons
who themselves have spent, or whose
immediate family have spent, a
minimum of 75 days during the past 24
months in migrant and seasonal
farmwork.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 206.5(c)(7) defines seasonal
farmworker as a person who, within the
past 24 months, was employed for at
least 75 days in farmwork, and whose
primary employment was in farmwork
on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is,
not a constant year-round activity). This
definition does not define when and for
how long the ‘‘primary employment’’
must occur.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend newly redesignated
§ 206.5(c)(8) (current § 206.5(c)(7)) to
clarify that the term seasonal
farmworker means a person whose
primary employment was in farmwork
on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is,
not a constant year-round activity) for a
period of at least 75 days within the past
24 months.
Reasons: The Department believes
that the current definition of seasonal
farmworker should be revised to clarify
that the ‘‘primary employment’’ in
migrant and seasonal farmwork must
occur for at least 75 days within the past
24 months. While this was the intended
meaning of the term in current
§ 206.5(c)(7), the Department is
concerned that some have interpreted or
may interpret the current definition to
require that a seasonal worker not only
have been employed for at least 75 days
over the past 24 months in farmwork,
but that the person’s primary
employment over that entire 24 months
have been in farmwork. Because we do
not believe this to be required, we
propose to clarify the term seasonal
farmworker and to ensure consistency
in its application across HEP and CAMP
projects.
Regulations That Apply to HEP and
CAMP
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current § 206.4
lists the regulations that apply to HEP
and CAMP. The list of applicable
regulations in this section was last
updated in 1993.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 206.4 to add four
regulations to the list of regulations that
apply to HEP and CAMP. Specifically,
we are proposing to (1) add 34 CFR part
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
84 (Governmentwide Requirements for
Drug-Free Workplace (Financial
Assistance)); 34 CFR part 97 (Protection
of Human Subjects); 34 CFR part 98
(Student Rights in Research
Experimental Programs, and Testing) for
HEP only; and 34 CFR part 99 (Family
Educational Rights and Privacy) to this
list, and (2) redesignate two paragraphs
in this section.
Reasons: We are proposing to add
these four regulations to the list of
applicable regulations so that the list of
regulations that apply to HEP and
CAMP is complete and accurate. In
order to maintain this list of applicable
regulations in numerical order, we
propose to redesignate § 206.4(a)(6) and
(a)(7) as § 206.4(a)(7) and § 206.4(a)(8),
respectively.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
HEP Services
Statute: Section 408(1)(B) through
(1)(F) of the HEOA amended section
418A(b) of the HEA to (1) authorize as
a HEP service preparation for college
entrance examinations, and activities
beyond those otherwise identified to
improve persistence and retention in
postsecondary education (see sections
418A(b)(3)(B) and 418A(b)(9) of the
HEA, respectively); (2) add
transportation and child care as
examples of essential supportive
services (see section 418A(b)(8) of the
HEA); and (3) remove the limitation that
stipends provided to HEP participants
be ‘‘weekly’’ (see section 418A(b)(5) of
the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current
§ 206.10(b)(1) specifies the types of
services that HEP projects may provide.
It does not reflect the changes made to
the HEA by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent
with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(b) of the HEA, we are
proposing to amend (1)
§ 206.10(b)(1)(iii)(B) to provide that
permissible HEP services include
preparation for college entrance
examinations; (2) § 206.10(b)(1)(v) to
provide that permissible HEP services
include stipends—not only weekly
stipends—for HEP participants; (3)
§ 206.10(b)(1)(viii) to add transportation
and child care as examples of essential
supportive services; and (4)
§ 206.10(b)(1)(ix) to specify that HEP
services include other activities to
improve persistence and retention in
postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 206.10(b)(1) to reflect the
changes in the HEP services authorized
under the HEA, as amended by section
408(1) of the HEOA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
CAMP Services
Statute: Section 408(2) of the HEOA
amended section 418A(c) of the HEA to
provide that CAMP supportive and
instructional services are to improve
placement, persistence, and retention in
postsecondary education (see section
418A(c)(1)(B) of the HEA) and that these
supportive services include, as an
ongoing part of the program, not only
personal, academic, and career
counseling, but economic education or
personal finance counseling as well (see
section 418A(c)(1)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Section 408(2) of the HEOA also
amended section 418A(c) of the HEA to
authorize internships as a CAMP service
(see section 418A(c)(1)(F) of the HEA),
and to provide both that other
supportive services provided as
necessary to ensure the success of
eligible students must be ‘‘essential’’,
and that examples of such essential
supportive services are transportation
and child care (see section 418A(c)(1)(G)
of the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current
§ 206.10(b)(2) specifies the types of
services that CAMP projects may
provide. It does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent
with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(c) of the HEA, we are
proposing to amend (1) § 206.10(b)(2)(ii)
to specify that the permissible CAMP
supportive and instructional services
are to improve placement, persistence,
and retention in postsecondary
education; and (2) § 206.10(b)(2)(ii)(A)
to specify that these supportive services
include, as an ongoing part of the
program, economic education, or
personal finance counseling as well as
the previously authorized personal,
academic, and career services. We also
propose to redesignate § 206.10(b)(2)(vi)
as § 206.10(b)(2)(vii), and to add a new
§ 206.10(b)(2)(vi) to clarify that
permissible CAMP services include
internships. We propose to amend
newly redesignated § 206.10(b)(2)(vii) to
add transportation and child care as
examples of what now must be
‘‘essential’’ supportive service.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 206.10(b)(2) to reflect the
changes made to permissible CAMP
services in section 418A(c) of the HEA
by section 408A(2) of the HEOA.
Follow-Up CAMP Services
Statute: Section 408A(2)(B) of the
HEOA amended section 418A(c)(2) of
the HEA to provide that in addition to
previously authorized referrals of CAMP
students to on- or off-campus providers
of counseling services, academic
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13819
assistance, or financial aid, follow-up
services to CAMP students may include
(1) the coordination of such services,
assistance, and aid with other nonprogram services, assistance, and aid,
including services, assistance, and aid
provided by community-based
organizations, which may include
mentoring and guidance; and (2) for
students attending two-year IHEs,
encouraging the students to transfer to
four-year IHEs where appropriate, and
monitoring the rate of transfer of these
students.
Current Regulations: Current § 206.11
specifies the types of services that
CAMP projects must provide. Under
current § 206.11(a), CAMP projects must
provide ‘‘follow-up services’’ for project
participants after they have completed
their first year of college. Current
§ 206.11(b) provides a list of what
‘‘follow-up services’’ may include.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent
with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA, we are
proposing to amend § 206.11 to provide
that follow-up CAMP services may
include (1) in addition to the previously
authorized referrals of CAMP students
to on- or off-campus providers of
counseling services, academic
assistance, or financial aid, the
coordination of those services,
assistance, and aid with other nonprogram services, assistance, and aid,
including services, assistance, and aid
provided by community-based
organizations, which may include
mentoring and guidance, and (2) for
students attending two-year IHEs,
encouraging the students to transfer to
four-year IHEs, where appropriate, and
monitoring the rate of transfer of these
students.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 206.11 to reflect the changes
made to mandatory CAMP services in
section 418A(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the
HEA by section 408A(2)(B) of the
HEOA.
Minimum Allocations
Statute: Section 418A(f) of the HEA,
as amended by section 408A(4) of the
HEOA, increases from $150,000 to
$180,000 the minimum amount of any
allocation the Secretary makes for any
HEP or CAMP project.
Current Regulations: Consistent with
prior law, current § 206.20(b)(2) requires
each applicant for a HEP or CAMP
award to include an annual budget of no
less than $150,000.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 206.20(b)(2) to
provide that in applying for a HEP or
CAMP grant, an applicant’s grant
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13820
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
application must include an annual
budget of not less than $180,000.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 206.20(b)(2) to reflect the
changes made to minimum allocations
for HEP and CAMP in section 418A(f) of
the HEA by section 408A(4) of the
HEOA.
Prior Experience Points for HEP and
CAMP Service Delivery
Statute: Section 418A(e) of the HEA,
as amended by section 408A(3) of the
HEOA, provides that in making HEP
and CAMP grants, the Department must
consider an applicant’s prior experience
of service delivery under the particular
project for which it seeks further
funding, and must give this prior
experience the same level of
consideration it gives to the prior
experience of applicants for TRIO
grants.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to add a new
§ 206.31(a) to provide that in the case of
an applicant for a HEP award, the
Secretary considers the applicant’s
experience in implementing an expiring
HEP project with respect to (1) whether
the applicant served the number of
participants described in its approved
application; (2) the extent to which the
applicant met or exceeded its funded
objectives with regard to project
participants, including the targeted
number and percentage of (i)
participants who received a general
educational development (GED)
credential; and (ii) GED credential
recipients who were reported as
entering postsecondary education
programs, career positions, or the
military; and (3) the extent to which the
applicant met the administrative
requirements, including recordkeeping,
reporting, and financial accountability
under the terms of the previously
funded award.
We also are proposing to add a new
§ 206.31(b) to provide that in the case of
an applicant for a CAMP award, the
Secretary considers the applicant’s
experience in implementing an expiring
CAMP project with respect to (1)
Whether the applicant served the
number of participants described in its
approved application; (2) the extent to
which the applicant met or exceeded its
funded objectives with regard to project
participants, including the targeted
number and percentage of participants
who (i) successfully completed the first
year of college; and (ii) continued to be
enrolled in postsecondary education
after completing their first year of
college; and (3) the extent to which the
applicant met the administrative
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
requirements, including recordkeeping,
reporting, and financial accountability
under the terms of the previously
funded award.
Reasons: The Department proposes
adding to the HEP and CAMP program
regulations the specific criteria we
would consider in evaluating prior
experience in order to be consistent
with the Department’s approach in
TRIO. The criteria for evaluating prior
experience that we specify in proposed
§ 206.31 is based on the language in
previously approved application
packages for HEP and CAMP. The nonFederal negotiators agreed with this
approach and reached tentative
agreement on this issue.
Note: The TRIO programs have had a
longstanding requirement that only
applicants with an expiring TRIO project are
eligible for the priority for prior experience.
Consequently, in providing the same degree
of consideration for prior experience as
provided under the Federal TRIO programs,
we view this aspect of proposed § 206.31(a)
to be statutorily required.
Federal TRIO Programs—34 CFR Parts
642 (Training Program for Federal
TRIO Programs), 643 (Talent Search),
644 (Educational Opportunity Centers),
645 (Upward Bound Program), 646
(Student Support Services Program),
647 (Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement
Program)
Section 403(a) of the HEOA has
amended section 402A of the HEA to
include a number of new requirements
that apply across the Federal TRIO
programs (i.e., the Talent Search (TS),
Upward Bound (UB), Student Support
Services (SSS), Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement
(McNair), Educational Opportunity
Centers (EOC), and Staff Development
Activities (Training) programs).
Additionally, section 403(b) through (g)
of the HEOA amended sections 402B,
402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and 402G, to
make specific changes to the TS, UB,
SSS, McNair, EOC, and Training
programs, respectively.
Because a number of the statutory
changes made to the HEA by the HEOA
affect multiple Federal TRIO programs
similarly, we have organized the
discussion of proposed changes to the
Federal TRIO program regulations by
first addressing crosscutting issues by
subject matter and then discussing
program-specific issues on a programby-program basis. We group the
crosscutting issues as follows:
• Number of Applications an Eligible
Entity May Submit to Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• Definitions Applicable to More
Than One Federal TRIO program.
• Evaluating Prior Experience—
Outcome Criteria.
• Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants.
Our discussion of issues applicable to
specific programs follows the order of
the Department’s regulations for those
programs (i.e., 34 CFR parts 642
(Training), 643 (TS), 644 (EOC), 645
(UB), 646 (SSS), and 647 (McNair)).
Number of Applications an Eligible
Entity May Submit To Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations
Statute: Section 402A(c)(5) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(2)(C) of the HEOA, provides that
the Secretary may not limit the number
of applications submitted by an eligible
entity under any Federal TRIO program
if the additional applications describe
programs serving different populations
or different campuses. The HEOA
changed section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA
by replacing the term ‘‘campuses’’ with
the term ‘‘different campuses’’.
More significantly, section 403(a)(6)
of the HEOA amended section 402A(h)
of the HEA by adding definitions for the
terms ‘‘different campus’’ and ‘‘different
population’’. Section 402A(h)(1) of the
HEA defines the term ‘‘different
campus’’ as a site of an institution of
higher education that is geographically
apart from the main campus, is
permanent in nature, and offers courses
in educational programs leading to a
degree, certificate, or other recognized
educational credential.
Section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines
the term ‘‘different population’’ as a
group of individuals that an eligible
entity desires to serve using a Federal
TRIO grant and that is separate and
distinct from any other population that
the entity has applied to serve, or a
population that, while sharing some of
the same needs as another population,
has distinct needs for specialized
services.
Current Regulations: Only two of the
Federal TRIO programs, the UB and SSS
programs, have regulations that address
the number of grant applications an
eligible entity may submit.
For the UB program, current
§ 645.20(a) provides that the Secretary
will accept more than one application
from an eligible entity as long as any
additional application describes a
project that serves a different participant
population. The current regulations for
the UB program do not define the term
‘‘different participant population’’.
For the SSS program, current § 646.10
provides that the Secretary accepts more
than one application from an eligible
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
applicant so long as each additional
application describes a project that
serves a different campus, or a different
population of participants who cannot
readily be served by a single project.
Current § 646.7 defines the terms
different campus and different
population of participants for purposes
of the SSS program. Current § 646.7
defines different campus as an
institutional site that is geographically
apart from and independent of the main
campus of the institution. The location
of an institution is ‘‘independent of the
main campus’’ if it is: Permanent in
nature; offers courses in educational
programs leading to a degree, certificate,
or other recognized credential; has its
own faculty and administrative or
supervisory organization; or has its own
budgetary authority. Current § 646.7
defines different population of
participants as a group of (1) lowincome, first-generation college
students, or (2) disabled students.
While the current regulations for the
TS, EOC, and UB programs do not
specifically address the number of
applications an eligible entity may
submit or define the terms ‘‘different
population’’ or ‘‘different campus’’, these
regulations do provide that the
Secretary will consider the ‘‘target area’’
(for the TS, EOC, and UB programs) or
‘‘target school’’ (for the TS and UB
programs) proposed to be served by the
project when selecting applications (see
current §§ 643.21, 644.21, 645.30 and
645.31). Current §§ 643.7(b) (TS),
644.7(b) (EOC), and 645.6(b) (UB)
generally define the term target area as
a geographic area served by a project.
Current §§ 643.7(b) (TS) and 645.6(b)
(UB) define the term target school as ‘‘a
school designated by the applicant as a
focus of project services’’.
Proposed Regulations: To reflect the
new statutory definitions for the terms
different campus and different
population in section 402A(h) of the
HEA, we are proposing to amend the
definitions sections of the applicable
Federal TRIO program regulations to
incorporate the statutory definitions of
these terms. Specifically, we propose to
add the definition of different
population to current §§ 643.7(b) (TS),
644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and
647.7(b) (McNair). We also propose to
add the definition of different campus to
§ 647.7 (McNair). For the SSS program,
we propose to amend § 646.7 by revising
the definition of the term different
campus and by replacing the definition
of the term different population of
participants with the statutory term
different population.
To implement section 402A(c)(5) of
the HEA, which provides that the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Secretary may not limit the number of
applications submitted by an eligible
entity if the additional applications
describe programs serving different
populations or different campuses, we
propose to amend each of the Federal
TRIO program regulations to clarify
when an eligible applicant may submit
more than one application. Specifically:
For the Training program, we propose to
add a new § 642.7 to provide that an
eligible applicant may submit more than
one application for a Training grant as
long as each application describes a
project that addresses a different
absolute priority that is designated in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications.
For the TS program, we propose to
add a new § 643.10(a) to provide that an
eligible applicant may submit more than
one application for TS grants as long as
each application describes a project that
serves a different target area or target
schools, or another designated different
population.
For the EOC program, we propose to
add a new § 644.10(a) to provide that an
eligible applicant may submit more than
one application for EOC grants as long
as each application describes a project
that serves a different target area or
another designated different population.
For the UB program, we propose to
revise § 645.20(a) to provide that an
eligible applicant may submit more than
one application as long as each
application describes a project that
serves a different target area or target
school or another designated different
population.
For the SSS program, we propose to
revise § 646.10(a) to provide that an
eligible applicant may submit more than
one application as long as each
application describes a project that
serves a different campus or a
designated different population.
For the McNair program, we propose
to add a new § 647.10(a) to provide that
an eligible applicant may submit more
than one application as long as each
application describes a project that
serves a different campus or a
designated different population.
In addition, for the TS, EOC, UB, SSS,
and McNair programs, we propose to
add regulatory language that provides
that, for each competition, the Secretary
designates, in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications and other
published application materials for the
competition, the different populations
for which an eligible entity may submit
a separate application (see proposed
§§ 643.10(b), 644.10(b), 645.20(b),
646.10(b), and 647.10(b), respectively).
Reasons: During the negotiated
rulemaking sessions, the negotiators
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13821
discussed whether the new definitions
of the terms different campus and
different population should apply only
to the SSS program (where these terms
are currently used) or to all of the
Federal TRIO programs. The current
regulations for the Federal TRIO
programs are reflect the fact that the
concept of a different campus is only
relevant for the SSS and McNair
programs, which serve college students.
The TS, EOC, and UB programs are precollege programs that do not necessarily
target different campuses. In addition,
for the TS, EOC, and UB programs, the
traditional administrative practice has
been to focus on different populations of
students by identifying where those
students live (target area) or where they
attend school (target schools).
Some non-Federal negotiators
recommended that the Department
continue its current practice and only
apply the new definitions of different
campus and different population to the
SSS program. Other non-Federal
negotiators disagreed, noting that the
HEA now allows applicants applying
under both the pre-college programs
(TS, EOC, and UB) and the college
programs (SSS and McNair) to submit
separate applications to serve different
populations of students. We agree that
the HEA allows applicants under the
TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair programs
to submit more than one application as
long as each application proposes to
serve a different population.
For this reason, we are proposing to
amend the regulations for the TS, EOC,
UB, SSS and McNair programs to
incorporate the statutorily defined term
different population. We propose to use
this term in conjunction with the terms
target area and target school from the
current regulations for TS, EOC, and
UB. By clarifying that applicants can
submit more than one application if
each application proposes to serve a
‘‘different target area or target schools or
another designated different population’’
and incorporating the statutory
definition of the term different
population, we would retain the current
practice of funding separate projects to
serve different target areas and target
schools. We would also ensure that the
regulations are consistent with the
statutory definition of the term different
population in the HEA.
In determining how to reflect the
definition for the term different
population in the proposed regulations,
we also considered how we would
manage applications proposing to serve
different populations. While grantees
must be able to serve more students and
to tailor services to meet the distinct
needs of different populations (as
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13822
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
defined in 402A(h) of the HEA), it is
necessary for the Department to
establish some limitations on the
number of separate applications an
eligible entity may submit for each
competition to serve different
populations. Without such limitations,
adding the definition of the term
different population to the regulations
could have the unintended consequence
of disproportionately increasing funding
at some institutions, agencies, and
organizations that submit several
applications while limiting the funds
available to expand program services to
other areas, schools, and institutions. To
mitigate this risk and ensure fairness
and consistency in the application
process, the Department proposes to
amend the regulations for each of the
TRIO programs. The proposed
regulations would provide that the
Department will define, for each
competition, the different populations
of participants for which an eligible
entity can submit separate applications
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and other published
application materials for the
competition.
This approach would give the
Department the flexibility to designate
the different populations for each
competition based on changing national
needs. It also would permit the
Department to manage more effectively
the program competitions within the
available resources.
For these reasons, under the proposed
regulations, an entity applying for more
than one grant under the TS, EOC, and
UB programs would be able to submit
separate applications to serve different
target areas and different target schools,
and would also be able to submit
separate applications to serve one or
more of the different populations of
participants designated in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications.
Entities applying for grants under the
SSS and McNair programs would be
able to submit separate applications to
serve different campuses and also
would be able to submit separate
applications to serve one or more of the
different populations of participants
designated in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for the
competition.
Finally, we are proposing to amend
the Training program regulations by
adding a new § 642.7 to provide that an
eligible applicant may submit more than
one application for grants as long as
each application describes a project that
addresses a different absolute priority.
This proposed change reflects the
amendments made by the HEOA as well
as the Department’s current practices.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Definitions Applicable to More Than
One Federal TRIO Program (Newly
Redesignated § 642.6 and §§ 643.7,
644.7, 645.6, 646.7, and 647.7)
As a result of the changes made by the
HEOA to sections 402A, 402B, 402C,
402D, 402E, 402F, and 402G of the HEA,
the Department proposes to add new
definitions to the Federal TRIO program
regulations and to revise other
definitions in those regulations. We also
propose to add to the TRIO Program
regulations certain terms and their
definitions that are in other portions of
the HEA and the Department’s
regulations. In the following section, we
discuss those proposed changes to
definitions used in more than one of the
Federal TRIO program regulations. For
proposed changes to definitions that
apply to only one or two programs, we
address those proposed changes under
the specific programs.
Disconnected Students
The HEOA amended the HEA to
provide that each of the TRIO programs
may provide services to ‘‘disconnected
students,’’ but the term ‘‘disconnected
students’’ is never defined in the statute.
‘‘Disconnected students’’ is a broad term
that could apply to a broad spectrum of
students, and could vary depending on
the goals of the particular project. In
these circumstances, we do not believe
it is useful to define the term in these
proposed regulations. Instead, we
believe it is more appropriate for an
applicant proposing to provide
programs and activities specifically
designed for ‘‘disconnected students’’ to
define the term for its proposed project
and to identify and describe in its
application the specific needs of the
‘‘disconnected students’’ to be served by
the project.
Different Campus and Different
Population
Refer to the discussion of these terms
earlier in this preamble, under the
heading Number of Applications an
Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve
Different Campuses and Different
Populations.
Financial and Economic Literacy
Statute: Section 402 of the HEOA
amended the HEA to include education
and counseling services designed to
improve the financial and economic
literacy of students as (1) a required
service for TS grantees (see section
402B(b)(6) of the HEA), UB grantees (see
section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA), and SSS
grantees (see section 402D(b)(4) of the
HEA), and (2) a permissible service for
McNair grantees (see section 402E(c)(1)
of the HEA) and EOC projects (see
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section 402F(b)(5) of the HEA). Section
402A(f)(1) of the HEOA also amended
section 402F(a)(3) of the HEA to provide
that a purpose of the EOC program is to
improve the financial and economic
literacy of students. The HEA does not
define the term ‘‘financial and economic
literacy.’’
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
define the term financial and economic
literacy as knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including
but not limited to knowledge about—
(1) Personal and family budget
planning;
(2) Understanding credit building
principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (including loan to debt ratio,
credit scoring, negative impacts on
credit scores);
(3) Cost planning for secondary
education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant and loan
education (e.g., searches, application
processes, and the differences between
private and government loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
We propose to include this definition
in § 643.7 (TS); § 644.7 (EOC); § 645.6
(UB); § 646.7 (SSS); and § 647.7
(McNair).
Reasons: The proposed definition of
the term financial and economic literacy
is needed to implement the statutory
requirement that TS, EOC, UB, SSS, and
McNair grantees teach and counsel
participants and, as appropriate, their
families, about personal financial
decision making, including financial
planning for postsecondary education.
Foster Care and Homeless Youth
Statute: Section 403(a)(3)(B) of the
HEOA amended section 402A(e)(3) of
the HEA by adding the following two
groups of students that grantees are
encouraged to serve under the Federal
TRIO programs: foster care youth and
homeless children and youth, as defined
in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act. Sections
402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(a)(3) and
(c)(6), 402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
include, among the permissible services
that TRIO projects may provide,
programs and activities that are
specifically designed for homeless
children and youth and students who
are in foster care or are aging out of the
foster care system.
Current Regulations: None.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
add definitions of the terms foster care
youth and homeless children and youth
to the following Federal TRIO program
regulations: newly redesignated § 642.6
(Training); § 643.7 (TS); § 644.7 (EOC);
§ 645.6 (UB); and § 646.7 (SSS). We
propose to define foster care youth as
youth who are in foster care or are aging
out of the foster care system. For the
definition of homeless children and
youth, we propose to add a crossreference to the definition of that term
in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11434a).
Reasons: The HEOA requires projects
funded under the Federal TRIO
programs to make services available to
youth in or aging out of foster care and
to homeless children and youth.
Providing definitions of the terms foster
care youth and homeless children and
youth helps ensure that these groups are
appropriately served under each of the
Federal TRIO programs. The definition
of foster care youth is based on the use
of the term in sections 402A(e)(3),
402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(c)(7), and
402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA.
Consistent with sections 402A(e)(3),
402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(c)(7), and
402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA,
the proposed definition of homeless
children and youth would reference the
definition in the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11434a).
We do not propose to include the
definitions of foster care youth and
homeless children and youth in the
regulations for the McNair program
because section 402E of the HEA, which
authorizes the McNair program, does
not include these two terms.
Individual With Disabilities
Statute: Sections 402B(c)(7),
402C(d)(7), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6),
402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA,
as amended by the HEOA, include
among the permissible services that
TRIO projects may provide programs
and activities that are specifically
designed for students with disabilities.
Other sections of the HEA relating to the
TRIO programs refer to ‘‘individuals
with disabilities’’ (e.g., 402A(f)(2) and
402D(e)(1)(A), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of the
HEA).
Current Regulations: Current § 646.7
(SSS) defines the term individual with
disabilities as a person who has a
diagnosed physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits that
person’s ability to participate in the
educational experiences and
opportunities offered by the grantee
institution. None of the Department’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
current regulations for the other Federal
TRIO programs define the terms
individual with disabilities or students
with disabilities.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to use a slightly modified
version of the definition of the term
individual with disabilities that is in
current § 646.7 (for the SSS program) for
all Federal TRIO programs, except for
the McNair program, which does not
use that term. Under the proposed
definition, an individual with
disabilities would be a person who has
a diagnosed physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits that
person’s ability to participate in
educational experiences and
opportunities. We would no longer
provide that the impairment must limit
the person’s ability to participate in
‘‘educational experiences and
opportunities offered at the grantee
institution.’’ We propose to incorporate
this definition in newly redesignated
§ 642.6 (Training), § 643.7 (TS), § 644.7
(EOC), § 645.6 (UB), and § 646.7 (SSS).
Proposed § 642.11(b)(5), newly
redesignated § 642.24(a)(21), and
proposed §§ 643.4(b)(7), 644.4(k),
645.12(f), and 646.4(b)(6) would be
amended to refer to students or
participants who are individuals with
disabilities.
Reasons: For consistency across the
Federal TRIO programs, we propose to
use the same definition of the term
individual with disabilities for the
Training, TS, EOC, UB, and SSS
program regulations. As noted earlier in
this discussion, we are proposing to use
the definition of individual with
disabilities from the current SSS
regulations except to drop the phrase
‘‘offered at the grantee institution’’ so
that the definition would be applicable
to the other Federal TRIO programs,
some of which serve individuals not
enrolled at the grantee institution. This
proposed definition would help ensure
that the services and activities that TRIO
projects provide for individuals with
disabilities address the educational
needs of individuals with a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment so that
they are able to benefit from the
educational services provided by the
projects.
Institution of Higher Education
Statute: Sections 101 and 102 of the
HEA define the term institution of
higher education.
Current Regulations: The definition of
the term institution of higher education
in current §§ 642.5(b), 643.7(b), 644.7(b),
645.6(b), 646.7(a), and 647.7(b) refers to
sections 481 and 1201(a) of the HEA.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13823
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to correct the cross-references
in the definition of the term institution
of higher education to reference the
definitions provided in sections 101 and
102 of the HEA (see newly redesignated
§ 642.6 (Training) and proposed
§§ 643.7 (TS), 644.7 (EOC), 645.6 (UB),
646.7 (SSS), and 647.7 (McNair)).
Reasons: To correct obsolete crossreferences, we propose to amend the
current regulatory definition of the term
institution of higher education for each
of the Federal TRIO program
regulations.
Veteran
Statute: Section 403(a)(7)(C)(iii) of the
HEOA amended section 402A(h)(5) of
the HEA, which defines the term
‘‘veteran eligibility’’ for purposes of the
Federal TRIO programs. The amended
definition of veteran eligibility provides
that veterans of the Armed Forces
Reserves will not be deemed ineligible
to participate in the Federal TRIO
programs because of age if they served
on active duty for a period of more than
30 days (see section 402A(h)(5)(C) of the
HEA) or in support of a contingency
operation on or after September 11,
2001 (see section 402A(h)(5)(D) of the
HEA).
Current Regulations: The term veteran
is defined in current §§ 643.7 (TS),
644.7 (EOC), and 645.6 (UB) as a person
who served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
(1) for a period of more than 180 days,
any part of which occurred after January
31, 1955, and who was discharged or
released from active duty under
conditions other than dishonorable or
(2) after January 31, 1955, and who was
discharged or released from active duty
because of a service-connected
disability. This definition was based on
the statutory definition of the term
‘‘veteran eligibility’’ prior to the
enactment of the HEOA. The definition
is not included in § 642.6 (Training),
§ 646.7 (SSS), and § 647.7 (McNair).
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
replace the current definition of the
term veteran in §§ 643.7(b), 644.7(b),
and 645.6(b) with the following
definition, which tracks the language in
section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA: A
veteran means a person who: (a) Served
on active duty as a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States for a
period of more than 180 days and was
discharged or released under conditions
other than dishonorable; (b) Served on
active duty as a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States and was
discharged or released because of a
service connected disability; (c) Was a
member of a reserve component of the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13824
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Armed Forces of the United States and
was called to active duty for a period of
more than 30 days; or (d) Was a member
of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces of the United States who served
on active duty in support of a
contingency operation (as that term is
defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code) on or after
September 11, 2001.
Reasons: These changes are made to
reflect the changes made to the
definition of the term veteran eligibility
in section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA. This
provision only affects TS, EOC, and UB
grants that have otherwise applicable
statutory age requirements.
Evaluating Prior Experience—Outcome
Criteria
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to consider,
when making Federal TRIO grants, each
applicant’s prior experience of high
quality service delivery (PE) under the
program for which funds are sought.
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now
identifies the specific outcome criteria
to be used to determine an entity’s PE
under the TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A)
of the HEA), UB (see section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA), SSS (see
section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA),
McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the
HEA), and EOC (see section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA) programs.
These are the same outcome criteria that
the Secretary must use for reporting
annually to Congress on the
performance of each of the Federal TRIO
programs (see 402A(f)(4) of the HEA).
The HEA does not establish specific
outcome criteria for the Training
program and does not specify the
distribution of the PE points among the
outcome criteria for any of the Federal
TRIO programs.
Current Regulations: Current
§§ 642.32 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22
(EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and
647.22 (McNair) explain how the
Secretary evaluates PE and awards PE
points to applicants in grant
competitions for each program. These
regulations include the specific criteria
(measurements) the Secretary uses to
evaluate an applicant’s performance and
the maximum number of points the
applicant may earn for each PE
criterion.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise the outcome criteria
for awarding PE points in §§ 643.22
(TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22
(SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)) to
incorporate the statutorily required
outcome measures in section 402A(f)(3)
of the HEA, and to distribute the PE
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
points among the new outcome criteria
for these programs.
With regard to the Training program’s
outcome criteria for awarding PE points,
we are proposing to make minor
changes to the outcome criteria as well
as changes to reflect the maximum
number of PE points a Training program
grantee may earn. The maximum
number of PE points in the Training
program would change from 8 to 15 (see
proposed § 642.22(b)(1)).
The following is a list of the proposed
outcome criteria for evaluating PE,
organized by regulatory provision, and
the point distribution among the
outcome criteria for evaluating PE under
each of the Federal TRIO programs.
Training (§ 642.22(e))
Number of participants (4 points).
Training objectives (8 points).
Administrative requirements (3
points).
Talent Search (§ 643.22(d))
Number of participants (3 points).
Secondary school persistence (3
points).
Secondary school graduation (regular
secondary school diploma) (3 points).
Secondary school graduation
(rigorous secondary school program of
study) (1.5 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
Postsecondary completion (1.5
points).
Educational Opportunity Centers
(§ 644.22(d))
Number of participants (3 points).
Secondary school diploma (3 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (6 points).
Financial aid assistance (1.5 points).
College admission assistance (1.5
points).
Upward Bound (§ 645.32(e))
Regular Upward Bound and Upward
Bound Math and Science Centers
Number of participants (3 points).
Academic Performance (3 points).
Secondary school retention and
graduation (3 points).
Rigorous secondary school program of
study (1.5 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
Postsecondary completion (1.5
points).
Veterans Upward Bound
Number of participants (3 points).
Academic improvement on
standardized test (3 points).
Education program retention and
completion (3 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
Postsecondary completion (3 points).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Student Support Services (§ 646.22(e))
Number of participants (3 points).
Postsecondary retention (4 points).
Good academic standing (4 points).
Degree completion (4 points) (for an
applicant institution of higher education
offering primarily a baccalaureate or
higher degree) or
Degree completion and transfer (for an
applicant institution of higher education
offering primarily an associate degree)
(4 points).
McNair (§ 647.22(e))
Number of participants (3 points).
Research and scholarly activities (3
points).
Graduate school enrollment (3
points).
Continued enrollment in graduate
school (4 points).
Doctoral degree attainment (2 points).
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
outcome criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded the
applicable project objectives. This
determination would be based on the
information in the grantee’s annual
performance report (see proposed
§§ 642.22(a)(2) (Training), 643.22(a)(2)
(TS), 644.22(a)(2) (EOC), 645.32(a)(2)
(UB), 646.22(a)(2) (SSS), and
647.22(a)(2) (McNair)).
Proposed §§ 642.22 (Training), 643.22
(TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22
(SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) also would
describe the process the Secretary uses
to award PE points. For example, a
grantee that does not serve at least 90
percent of the approved number of
participants to be served in a given
project year would not be eligible to
receive any PE points for that year (see
proposed §§ 642.22(c) (Training),
643.22(b) (TS), 644.22(b) (EOC),
645.32(b) (UB), 646.22(b) (SSS), and
647.22(b) (McNair)).
Under proposed §§ 642.22(d)
(Training), 643.22(c) (TS), 644.22(c)
(EOC), 645.32(c) (UB), 646.22(c) (SSS),
and 647.22(c) (McNair), a grantee that
does not serve its approved number of
participants in a given year would not
receive any PE points for the number of
participants criterion for that year.
For any PE outcome criterion that
measures the performance of all
participants served in a given project
year (e.g., academic improvement and
secondary school retention and
graduation for UB), the Secretary would
use the actual number of participants
served in a given year or the approved
number of participants to be served,
whichever is greater, as the denominator
for calculating whether the applicant
has met its approved objectives (see
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
proposed §§ 645.32(d), 646.22(d), and
647.22(d)).
For a grantee that served less than the
approved number of participants but at
least 90 percent of the approved number
to be served in a given year, the
approved number to be served, not the
actual number served, would be used as
the denominator in calculating whether
the applicant met its approved
objectives (see proposed §§ 645.32(d),
646.22(d), and 647.22(d)).
For any PE outcome criterion related
to measuring outcomes based on a
cohort of students (see proposed
§§ 643.22(d)(3) through (d)(6);
644.22(d)(3); 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through
(e)(1)(vi) and 645.32(e)(2)(iii) through
(e)(2)(v); 646.22(e)(2), (4), and (5);
647.22(e)(3) through (e)(5)), the grantee
would be required to report on all the
participants in the cohort. To report on
these participants, the grantee would
need to track the academic progress of
these participants for the time period
specified in the approved objectives.
Consistent with section 402A(f)(1) of
the HEA, we are proposing to specify in
§§ 643.22(d); 644.22(d); 645.32(e);
646.22(e); and 647.22(e) that the new
outcome criteria for evaluating PE
would be used to evaluate the
performance of a grantee on any new
grant that is awarded after January 1,
2009. We also propose to modify the PE
outcome criteria to make them
consistent across all Federal TRIO
programs (see proposed §§ 642.22
(Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC),
645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22
(McNair)).
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
the outcome criteria in §§ 643.22 (TS),
644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22
(SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) and to
redistribute the 15 PE points among the
new criteria in each of these TRIO
programs to reflect the new outcome
criteria in section 402A(f) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA.
First, we propose to make technical
changes to the PE criteria in the current
regulations so that the criteria align with
section 402A(f)(3) of the HEA and are
consistent (to the extent possible) across
programs.
Second, we are proposing to change
the maximum number of PE points a
Training program grantee may earn from
8 points to 15 points to be consistent
with the maximum PE points for the
other Federal TRIO programs. Section
402A(c)(2) of the HEA provides that the
Secretary must give the PE factor for the
TS, UB, SSS, McNair and EOC programs
the same level of consideration given to
the PE factor for those programs during
fiscal years 1994 through 1997. The
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Department’s regulations for the TS, UB,
SSS, McNair, and EOC programs already
specify that the maximum number of PE
points is 15 and this is the amount used
for the period of time referenced in
section 402A(c)(2). Therefore, the
Department believes it is appropriate to
use the 15 point maximum for all
programs.
We are proposing to provide that PE
points be awarded by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded
applicable project objectives that have
been agreed upon by the grantee and the
Department, to: (1) Be consistent with
section 402A(f)(3) of the HEA; (2)
establish clear performance standards;
(3) promote accountability; and (4)
reward the performance of a grantee that
meets or exceeds its approved objectives
(see proposed §§ 642.22 (Training),
643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB),
646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).
To ensure that PE points are awarded
only to grantees that have met high
performance standards, we propose to
establish an annual performance
threshold that a grantee must meet to
receive any PE points for that year. A
grantee that does not serve at least 90
percent of the approved number of
participants to be served in a given year
will not be eligible for any PE points for
that year (see proposed §§ 642.22(c)
(Training), 643.22(b) (TS), 644.22(b)
(EOC), 645.32(b) (UB), 646.22(b) (SSS),
and 647.22(b) (McNair)).
In addition, we believe that in
specifying when the actual number of
participants and when the approved
number of participants are used to
calculate a grantee’s PE points (as
reflected in proposed §§ 645.32(d) (UB);
§ 646.22(d) (SSS); and § 647.22(d)
(McNair), the Department can clearly
identify the performance standards and
help to ensure that PE points are
awarded in a fair and equitable manner.
These regulatory changes also would
help ensure that all grantees are held to
the same high standards and that
applicants and grantees understand
these standards.
The new statutorily required PE
outcome criteria will be used to evaluate
the performance of a grantee under its
expiring grant if that expiring grant was
awarded after January 1, 2009.
In reviewing the PE sections of the
current regulations, we noted some
differences in the format and regulatory
language used among the six programs.
For consistency and to improve clarity,
we propose standardizing the regulatory
language and the format for the PE
outcome criteria (e.g., we propose using
the same language to describe the
number of participant criterion and to
put this criterion as the first PE criterion
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13825
for all programs). We also propose to
revise the PE criteria to clarify how each
of the criteria would be measured (e.g.,
for the UB program, we explain that
postsecondary enrollment criterion is
measured by the percentage of current
and prior-year participants with an
expected high school graduation date in
the project year) to assist applicants in
understanding the process so they can
set project objectives that are both
ambitious and attainable (see proposed
§§ 642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22
(EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and
647.22 (McNair)).
TRIO Outcome Criteria—Tracking
Participants for Talent Search and
Upward Bound Programs
Statute: Section 402A(f) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides that the outcome
criteria for the TS and UB programs
must include, to the extent practicable,
the postsecondary education completion
of students served by the TS and UB
programs, respectively.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.22
specifies how the Secretary evaluates PE
for the TS program. Current § 645.32
specifies how the Secretary evaluates PE
for the UB program. These provisions do
not reflect the changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend the regulations to address the
postsecondary education completion of
students served. The proposed
regulations would provide that one and
one-half PE points would be awarded
for postsecondary completion under the
TS program in proposed § 643.22(d)(6)
and under the regular UB and UB Math
and Science Centers programs in
proposed § 645.32(e)(1)(vi). Three PE
points will be awarded for
postsecondary completion under the
Veterans UB program in proposed
§ 645.32(e)(2)(v).
For regular UB and Upward Bound
Math and Science (UBMS), under
proposed § 645.32(e)(1)(vi), and for
Veterans UB, under proposed
§ 645.32(e)(2)(v), grantees would be
required to track the academic progress
of all project participants that enrolled
in postsecondary education for the
number of years specified in the
approved objectives to determine if the
applicant met or exceeded its objective
regarding the completion by its students
of a program of postsecondary
education.
For the TS program, under proposed
§ 643.22(d)(6), we would determine
whether an applicant met or exceeded
its objective regarding the completion of
a program of postsecondary education
within the number of years specified in
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13826
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the approved objective by requiring the
grantee to track the postsecondary
degree completion of a randomly
selected sample of participants in
accordance with parameters established
by the Secretary in the notice inviting
applications published in the Federal
Register. TS grantees would not be
required to track all project participants
through completion of postsecondary
degrees.
Reasons: Section 402A(f)(3)(B)(vii) of
the HEA requires that a grantee, to the
extent practicable, report on the
postsecondary completion of project
participants. Based on the relatively
small number of students served each
year by each UB grantee and the
availability of a variety of databases and
other means for tracking a participant’s
postsecondary progress, we believe it is
practicable for UB grantees to track
participants through completion of a
postsecondary degree.
Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA
also requires that a grantee, to the extent
practicable, report on the postsecondary
completion of project participants.
Unlike UB, however, we do not believe
that tracking all TS project participants
through postsecondary completion is
practicable due to the large number of
participants in TS grant projects.
Historically, TS projects have served
large numbers of participants and we
expect that TS will continue to do so.
We believe it would be very difficult for
TS grantees to track all of their project
participants. Therefore, we are
proposing to permit TS grantees to track
and report on the postsecondary
completion of a randomly selected
sample of project participants. To
ensure consistency in the methodology
used among projects to select the
sample, we would issue guidance to TS
projects on sample selection.
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
Statute: Section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(2) of
the HEOA, requires the Department to
establish a formal process for reviewing
unsuccessful applications for TRIO
program grants. Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(i)
of the HEA provides that with respect to
any competition for a grant under the
Federal TRIO program, an applicant
which has otherwise met all of the
requirements for submission of the
application may request a review by the
Secretary if the applicant has evidence
of a specific technical, administrative,
or scoring error made by the
Department, an agent of the Department,
or a peer reviewer, with respect to the
scoring or processing of a submitted
application.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(ii) of the HEA
provides that in the case of evidence of
a technical or administrative error, the
Secretary must review the evidence and
provide a timely response to the
applicant. If the Secretary determines
that a technical or administrative error
was made by the Department or an agent
of the Department, the application must
be reconsidered in the peer review
process for the applicable grant
competition.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iii) of the HEA
provides that in the case of evidence of
a scoring error, when the error relates to
either the calculation of PE points or to
the calculation of the final score of an
application, the Secretary must review
the evidence and provide a timely
response to the applicant. If the
Secretary determines that a scoring error
was made by the Department or a peer
reviewer, the Secretary will adjust the
PE points or the final score of the
application appropriately and quickly,
so as not to interfere with the timely
awarding of grants for the applicable
grant competition.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(I) of the
HEA states that in the case of a peer
review process error, if the Secretary
determines that points were withheld
for criteria not required in a Federal
statute, regulation, guidance governing
the Federal TRIO programs, or the
application for a grant from the Federal
TRIO programs, or determines that
information pertaining to the selection
criteria was wrongly determined
missing from an application by a peer
reviewer, then the Secretary must refer
the application to a secondary review
panel.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(II) of the
HEA provides that the secondary review
panel must conduct its review in a
timely fashion, and the score resulting
from the secondary review must replace
the score from the initial peer review.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the
HEA states that the secondary review
panel must be composed of reviewers,
each of whom: Did not review the
application in the original peer review;
is a member of the cohort of peer
reviewers for the grant program that is
the subject of the secondary review;
and, to the extent practicable, has
conducted peer reviews in not less than
two previous competitions for the grant
program that is the subject of the
secondary review.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(IV) of the
HEA provides that the final peer review
score of an application subject to a
secondary review must be adjusted
appropriately and quickly using the
score awarded by the secondary review
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
panel, so as not to interfere with the
timely awarding of grants.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(V) of the
HEA states that to qualify for a
secondary review under section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA, an
applicant must have evidence of a
scoring error and must demonstrate that
(1) points were withheld for criteria not
required in any statute, regulation, or
guidance governing the Federal TRIO
programs or the application for a grant
for these programs; or (2) information
pertaining to the selection criteria was
wrongly determined to be missing from
the application.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(v)(I) of the HEA
states that a determination by the
Secretary under section 402A(c)(8)(C)(i),
(c)(8)(C)(ii), or (c)(8)(C)(iii) of the HEA is
not reviewable by any officer or
employee of the Department.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(v)(II) of the
HEA provides that the score awarded by
a secondary review panel under
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA is not
reviewable by any officer or employee of
the Department other than the Secretary.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(vi) states that to
the extent feasible based on the
availability of appropriations, the
Secretary will fund applications with
scores that are adjusted upward under
402A(c)(8)(C)(ii), (c)(8)(C)(iii), or
(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA to equal or
exceed the minimum cut off score for
the applicable grant competition.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Secretary
proposes to add new §§ 642.25
(Training); 643.24 (TS); 644.24 (EOC);
645.35 (UB); 646.24 (SSS); and 647.24
(McNair) to implement the new review
process for unsuccessful applicants.
Specifically, proposed §§ 642.25(a)(1)
(Training); 643.24(a)(1) (TS);
644.24(a)(1) (EOC); 645.35(a)(1) (UB);
646.24(a)(1) (SSS); and 647.24(a)(1)
(McNair) would provide that an
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during a competition may
request that the Secretary review the
application if the applicant had met all
of the application submission
requirements in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications and the
other published application materials
for the competition, and the applicant
provides evidence demonstrating that
the Department or an agent of the
Department made a technical or
administrative error in the processing of
the submitted application.
Proposed §§ 642.25(a)(2) (Training);
643.24(a)(2) (TS); 644.24(a)(2) (EOC);
645.35(a)(2) (UB); 646.24(a)(2) (SSS);
and 647.24(a)(2) (McNair) specify what
is considered a technical or
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
administrative error in the processing of
an application.
Proposed §§ 642.25(a)(3) (Training);
643.24(a)(3) (TS); 644.24(a)(3) (EOC);
645.35(a)(3) (UB); 646.24(a)(3) (SSS);
and 647.24(a)(3) (McNair) would
provide that if the Secretary determines
that the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary will have the
application reconsidered and scored,
and if the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary will fund the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
proposed §§ 642.25(c) (Training);
643.24(c) (TS); 644.24(c) (EOC);
645.35(c) (UB); 646.24(c) (SSS); and
647.24(c) (McNair).
Proposed §§ 642.25(b)(1) (Training);
643.24(b)(1) (TS); 644.24(b)(1) (EOC);
645.35(b)(1) (UB); 646.24(b)(1) (SSS);
and 647.24(b)(1) (McNair) would
provide that an applicant that was not
selected for funding during a
competition may request that the
Secretary conduct a second review of
the application if the applicant provides
evidence demonstrating that the
Department, an agent of the Department,
or a peer reviewer made an
administrative or scoring error in the
review of its application, and the final
score assigned to the application is
within the funding band described in
proposed §§ 642.25(d) (Training);
643.24(d) (TS); 644.24(d) (EOC);
645.35(d) (UB); 646.24(d) (SSS); and
647.24(d) (McNair).
Proposed §§ 642.25(b)(2) (Training);
643.24(b)(2) (TS); 644.24(b)(2) (EOC);
645.35(b) (UB); 646.24(b)(2) (SSS); and
647.24(b)(2) (McNair) would provide
that an administrative error that would
require a second review has to be an
error that relates to either the
determination of PE points for the
application or the determination of the
scores assigned to the application by the
peer reviewers. These regulations
specify that an administrative error
relating to the determination of PE
points includes (1) mathematical errors
made by the Department or by the
Department’s agent in the calculation of
the PE points or (2) a failure to correctly
add the earned PE points to the peer
review score. An administrative error
relating to the determination of the peer
review score would include an error
made by applying the wrong peer
reviewer scores to an application.
Proposed §§ 642.25(b)(3) (Training);
643.24(b)(3) (TS); 644.24(b)(3) (EOC);
645.35(b)(3) (UB); 646.24(b)(3) (SSS);
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
and 647.24(b)(3) (McNair) would
provide that a scoring error would
require a second review if it relates to
the peer review process. A scoring error
includes errors caused by a reviewer
who, in assigning points (1) uses criteria
not required by the applicable law or
regulations, the Federal Register notice
inviting applications, other published
application materials for the
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary, or
(2) does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
Proposed §§ 642.25(c) (Training);
643.24(c) (TS); 644.24(c) (EOC);
645.35(c) (UB); 646.24(c) (SSS); and
647.24(c) (McNair) would establish the
following procedures for the second
review of applications:
(1) After the peer review of
applications, the Secretary sets aside a
percentage of the total funds allotted for
the competition to be awarded after the
second review is completed and
establishes a funding band. The funding
band for each competition includes the
applications with a rank-order score
after the first review that is below the
lowest score of applications funded after
the first review and that would be
funded if the Secretary had 150 percent
of the amount of funds that were set
aside for the second review of
applications.
(2) The Secretary makes new awards
in rank order as described in proposed
§§ 642.20 (Training); 643.20 (TS); 644.20
(EOC); 645.30 (UB); 646.20 (SSS); and
647.20 (McNair) based on the available
funds for the competition minus the
funds set aside for the second review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants after the first review, the
Secretary notifies in writing each
unsuccessful applicant whose rankorder score is within the funding band
as to the status of its application and
provides the applicant with copies of
the peer reviewers’ evaluations of the
applicant’s application and the
applicant’s PE score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding during the competition as
described in proposed §§ 642.25(c)(2)
(Training); 643.24(c)(2) (TS);
644.24(c)(2) (EOC); 645.35(c)(2) (UB);
646.24(c)(2) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(2)
(McNair) and whose application
received a score within the funding
band as described in proposed
§§ 642.25(d) (Training); 643.24(d) (TS);
644.24(d) (EOC); 645.35(d) (UB);
646.24(d) (SSS); and 647.24(d) (McNair),
may request a second review if the
applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13827
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded during the competition
as described in proposed §§ 642.25(c)(2)
(Training); 643.24(c)(2) (TS);
644.24(c)(2) (EOC); 645.35(c)(2) (UB);
646.24(c)(2) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(2)
(McNair) and whose application
received a score within the funding
band as described in proposed
§§ 642.25(d) (Training); 643.24(d) (TS);
644.24(d) (EOC); 645.35(d) (UB);
646.24(d) (SSS); and 647.24(d) (McNair)
would have fifteen (15) calendar days
after receiving the written notification
that its application was not funded to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to a designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made an administrative error that relates
to PE points, as described in proposed
§§ 642.25(b)(2)(i) (Training);
643.24(b)(2)(i) (TS); 644.24(b)(2)(i)
(EOC); 645.35(b)(2)(i) (UB);
646.24(b)(2)(i) (SSS); and 647.24(b)(2)(i)
(McNair), the Secretary adjusts the
applicant’s PE score to reflect the
correct number of PE points. If the
adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
proposed §§ 642.25(c)(9) (Training);
643.24(c)(9) (TS); 644.24(c)(9) (EOC);
645.35(c)(9) (UB); 646.24(c)(9) (SSS);
and 647.24(c)(9) (McNair).
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or a
peer reviewer made an administrative
error that relates to the peer review
score, as described in proposed
§§ 642.25(b)(2)(ii) (Training);
643.24(b)(2)(ii) (TS); 644.24(b)(2)(ii)
(EOC); 645.35(b)(2)(ii) (UB);
646.24(b)(2)(ii) (SSS); and
647.24(b)(2)(ii) (McNair), the Secretary
would adjust the applicant’s peer
review score to correct the error. If the
adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13828
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
review of applications described in
proposed §§ 642.25(c)(9) (Training);
643.24(c)(9) (TS); 644.24(c)(9) (EOC);
645.35(c)(9) (UB); 646.24(c)(9) (SSS);
and 647.24(c)(9) (McNair).
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, the
Secretary would convene a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the
HEA.
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review would be used in the second
ranking of applications. The average
score obtained from the second peer
review panel would be the final peer
review score for the application and will
be used even if it is a lower score than
the score in the initial review).
(11) The Secretary would fund
applications in the funding band in rank
order based on any adjusted scores and
the amount of funds that have been set
aside for the second review of
applications.
Proposed §§ 642.25(d) (Training);
643.24(d) (TS); 644.24(d) (EOC);
645.35(d) (UB); 646.24(d) (SSS); and
647.24(d) (McNair) would provide that
(1) for each competition, the Secretary
would establish a funding band for the
second review of applications; (2) the
Secretary would establish the funding
band for each competition based on the
amount of funds the Secretary has set
aside for the second review of
applications; (3) the funding band
would include those applications with a
rank-order score before the second
review that is below the lowest score of
applications funded after the first
review and that would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the amount
of funds that were set aside for the
second review of applications for the
competition.
Proposed §§ 642.25(e) (Training);
643.24(e) (TS); 644.24(e) (EOC);
645.35(e) (UB); 646.24(e) (SSS); and
647.24(e) (McNair) would provide that:
(1) the Secretary’s determination of
whether the applicant has met the
requirements for a second review and
the Secretary’s decision on re-scoring of
an application would be final and not
subject to further appeal or challenge;
and (2) an application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition would not be eligible for
any further review.
Reasons: Section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(2) of
the HEOA, requires the Department to
establish a formal process for reviewing
unsuccessful grant applications in the
TRIO programs. Proposed §§ 642.25
(Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24 (EOC),
645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(McNair) would implement this
requirement and ensure that the review
process is clear, understandable, and
transparent.
We are proposing the funding band
approach to the review process to
ensure that we can meet our fiduciary
responsibility to the taxpayers to
manage the grant programs based on the
appropriated resources available at the
time of each competition. This approach
would also minimize the impact of the
second review on our ability to provide
timely notice of grant awards.
We believe that the process we are
proposing will provide fair, equitable,
specific, clear, and understandable
procedures for applicants to be notified
about the status of their application,
eligibility for a second review, how to
request a second review, and other
information regarding a second review.
We decided to propose a funding
band and determined the specific
parameters for the funding band based
on the Department’s experience and
historical information. In past
competitions, adjustments for
administrative and scoring errors have
increased scores no more than two or
three points; therefore, the funding band
has been designed to include only those
applications that would have a
reasonable chance of being funded if the
second review of the application results
in an adjustment to the score. By
selecting only those applications most
likely to have a chance of being funded
after a second review, we would be
better able to effectively manage the
grant competition and make timely
funding decisions to ensure that the
funds for the competition are obligated
within the fiscal year.
One of the non-Federal negotiators
objected to the Department’s proposal to
set aside a small portion of the
appropriation for the second review.
This negotiator stated that the
Department should commit the full
amount of appropriated funds for the
program prior to the second review of
applications and then request that
Congress appropriate additional funds
in the current or next fiscal year to
support any applications that score in
the funding range following the second
review. This negotiator objected to the
fact that the Department’s proposal to
re-rank applications in the funding band
after the second review might result in
an application that would have been
funded if there was not a second review
process not being funded after the
second review. To avoid creating a
contentious situation, the negotiator
recommended that any application that
received a second review and whose
new score would have resulted in
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
funding during the competition should
only be funded if the Congress provided
additional funds for the program. The
negotiator asserted that this approach
would be consistent with the HEA, as
amended by the HEOA.
We do not agree with this
recommendation. Congress specifically
chose to require the Secretary to
develop a review process for
unsuccessful applications. In doing so,
Congress clearly intended that
applicants whose scores increased to
within the funding range should be
funded. Otherwise, the review process
would provide no significant benefit to
an applicant whose scores were
increased since there would be no
assurance of increased funding from
Congress. Furthermore, we have a
fiduciary responsibility to manage the
grant competitions using the limited
funds appropriated by Congress for the
competition year. The Department
cannot incur costs or make financial
commitments from potential subsequent
appropriations.
Training Program for Federal TRIO
Programs, 34 CFR Part 642
Project Period (Proposed § 642.4)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(2)(B) of the
HEA provides that Training program
grants must be awarded for a period of
two years.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to add § 642.4 to provide that
a project period under the Training
program is two years.
Reasons: We are proposing to add
§ 642.4 to the Training program
regulations to be consistent with section
402A(b)(2)(B) of the HEA.
Applicable Regulations (Current § 642.4,
Proposed § 642.5)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current § 642.4
contains an outdated list of applicable
regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the list of
regulations that apply to the Training
program. We also propose to exclude
section 34 CFR 75.215 through 75.221
from the list of regulations that apply.
Reasons: We are proposing these
changes so that the list of regulations
that apply to the program is
comprehensive and accurate. We are
proposing to exclude the regulations in
34 CFR 75.215 to 75.221 that include
general rules for handling applications
and specific rules for handling
applications that are not funded through
a regular competition. The proposed
new rules governing the process for a
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
grantees may provide. This section
would include all permissible Training
program services listed under current
§ 642.10 and add the following two
services to that list: On-site training and
Definitions (Current § 642.5, Proposed
on-line training.
§ 642.6)
Reasons: Currently we address both
We discuss the statutory authority,
required and permissible training that
current regulations, proposed
Training program grantees provide in
regulations, and reasons for the
§ 642.10. We propose to describe the
proposed regulations with regard to the
required training and permissible
definitions of foster care youth,
training in two separate regulations for
homeless children and youth, individual greater clarity. We are also proposing to
modify the regulations to reflect the
with disabilities, institution of higher
changes in required and permissible
education, and veteran in the
training made by section 403(g) of the
Definitions Applicable to More Than
HEOA.
One Federal TRIO Program section of
We also propose to add on-site and
the preamble.
on-line training as permissible activities
Number of Applications (Proposed
to reflect our current administrative
§ 642.7)
practice and recognize current
We discuss the statutory authority,
educational practices.
current regulations, proposed
Ranking Applications by Priority
regulations, and reasons for changes
(Current § 642.30, Proposed § 642.20(c)
regarding the number of applications an
and (d))
eligible entity may submit to apply for
Statute: Section 402A(c)(3) exempts
a grant under the Training program in
the Training program from the
the Number of Applications an Eligible
requirement that the Secretary must
Entity May Submit to Serve Different
award Federal TRIO program grants in
Campuses and Different Populations
the order of the scores received by
section of the preamble.
applications in the peer review process
Required and Permissible Services
and adjusted for PE.
Current Regulations: Current § 642.30
Statute: Section 402G(b) of the HEA,
does not address how the Secretary
as amended by section 403(g) of the
ranks applications for the Training
HEOA, expands the types of training
program grants.
that grantees are required to provide
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
under the Training program.
Current Regulations: Current § 642.10 redesignate current § 642.30 as § 642.20
and modify it to allow in proposed
specifies the types of training that a
§ 642.20(c) the Secretary to select
grantee is required to provide and the
Training program applications for
types of training that a grantee is
permitted to provide under the Training funding by absolute priority in rank
order on the basis of the average peer
program.
review score. Under proposed
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 642.11 would identify the training that § 642.20(d), for each absolute priority, if
Training program grantees must provide there are insufficient funds to fund all
applications at a particular peer review
and would reflect the training
score, we will add each application’s PE
requirements in section 402G(b)(5) of
score to its peer review score to
the HEA, as amended by section 403(g)
determine an adjusted total score for
of the HEOA. Specifically, in proposed
§ 642.11, we would add the following to each application. Under this proposed
regulation, for applications with the
the list of topics that Training program
same peer review score at the funding
grantees must provide for new project
cut-off level, we would then use the
directors: (1) The use of appropriate
educational technology in the operation adjusted total score to determine which
of the tied applicants will receive
of projects funded under the Federal
funding. If a tie score still exists, the
TRIO programs; and (2) strategies for
Secretary would select for funding the
recruiting and serving hard-to-reach
populations, including students who are applicant that has the greatest capacity
to provide training to eligible
limited English proficient, students
participants in all regions of the nation.
from groups that are traditionally
Reasons: We are proposing § 642.20 to
underrepresented in postsecondary
reflect the Department’s current practice
education, students with disabilities,
students who are homeless children and and provide a specific, understandable,
and fair method for funding new awards
youths, students who are foster care
under the Training program.
youth, or other disconnected students.
Proposed § 642.12 would describe the Specifically, we are proposing to
establish regulations to fund
types of training that Training program
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
second review of unsuccessful TRIO
applications would make the process
outlined in these regulations
unnecessary.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13829
applications by absolute priority to
ensure that one or more training grants
will be funded under each published
priority. In addition, in proposed
§ 642.20 we would specify how we
would handle a tie score.
Evaluation of an Application for a New
Award (Current §§ 642.30 and 642.31,
Proposed §§ 642.20 and 642.21)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 642.30(a)(1) provides that, in
evaluating applications for Training
program grants, the Secretary awards up
to 100 points based on the selection
criteria in § 642.31. Section 642.31(f)
specifies a selection criterion worth 25
points that requires an applicant to
show the need for its proposed Training
program project.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§§ 642.20 and 642.21 would change the
total number of points that may be
awarded in a Training program
competition to 75 instead of 100 points.
Specifically, we are proposing to
remove the selection criteria in current
§ 642.31(f), which is worth 25 points.
Reasons: Current § 642.31(f) provides
that we award up to 25 points to an
applicant that shows a need for its
Training program project. However,
every applicant is required to address
one of the absolute priorities established
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition. With
the absolute priorities, the Department
establishes the need for the proposed
training. Thus, a selection criterion that
requires an applicant to show the need
for its proposed training is no longer
necessary.
Prior Experience (Current § 642.32,
Proposed § 642.22)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes
regarding PE for the Training program in
the Evaluating Prior Experience—
Outcome Criteria section of the
preamble.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal
TRIO Program Applicants (§ 642.25)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for adding new
§ 642.25 in the Review Process for
Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program
Applicants section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (§ 642.26)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, sets the
minimum Training grant amount at
$170,000.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13830
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the regulations to
add a new section that explains how the
Secretary sets the amount of a grant.
This section will specify that the
Secretary uses the available funds to set
the amount of the grant at the lesser of
$170,000 or the amount requested by
the applicant.
Reasons: We are proposing this
change to reflect the change to section
402A(b)(3) of the HEA by the HEOA.
Talent Search (TS) Program, 34 CFR
Part 643
Sections 403(a) and (b) of the HEOA
amended sections 402A and 402B of the
HEA.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Changes to the Purpose of Talent
Search (§ 643.1)
Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA
amended Section 402B of the HEA to
reflect changes to the purposes of the TS
program.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.1
does not reflect the changes made to the
purposes of the TS program by the
HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend § 643.1 to provide that one of the
purposes of the TS program is to have
grantees publicize the availability of,
and facilitate the application for,
student financial assistance and to
encourage persons who have not
completed secondary or postsecondary
education to enter, or reenter, and
complete such programs.
Reasons: The proposed amendment
would conform current § 643.1 to the
changes made to section 402B of the
HEA, by the HEOA.
Applicant Eligibility (§ 643.2)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the HEOA, lists the
types of entities that are eligible for TS
grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA,
a secondary school could apply for a TS
grant under ‘‘exceptional
circumstances.’’ The HEOA eliminates
this restriction on the eligibility of a
secondary school. Further, the HEOA
modified the definition of the public
and private agencies and organizations
that are eligible for grants to include
community-based organizations with
experience in serving disadvantaged
youth.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.2
specifies who is eligible to apply for a
TS grant. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.2 to reflect
the statutory changes to the rules on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
applicant eligibility. Under the revised
regulations, a secondary school would
be eligible to apply for a TS grant
without having to demonstrate
‘‘exceptional circumstances.’’ In
addition, a community-based
organization with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth may apply for a TS
grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 643.2 to reflect the changes
made to the applicant eligibility
provisions for the TS program in section
402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by
the HEOA.
Participant Eligibility (§ 643.3)
Statute: Section 403(b)(1)(B) of the
HEOA amended section 402B(a)(3) of
the HEA by deleting the requirement
that a participant must have the ability
to complete a program of secondary or
postsecondary education.
Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, includes a new outcome
criterion for TS that requires projects to
report on participants who complete a
rigorous secondary school program of
study. The statute does not specify
eligibility criteria for participants
enrolled in a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 643.3(a)(3)(i) requires that a
participant in a TS program have
potential for a program of postsecondary
education. Current § 643.3(a)(3)(ii)
requires that a participant have the
ability to complete a program of
postsecondary education. The current
regulations do not include eligibility
requirements for participants receiving
support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the TS participant
eligibility regulations in § 643.3(a)(3)(i)
by removing the requirement that a
participant have the potential for a
program of postsecondary education.
We are also proposing to amend
§ 643.3(a)(3)(ii) by removing the
requirement that a participant who has
undertaken, but is not presently
enrolled in, a program of postsecondary
education have the ability to complete
such a program.
We are proposing to add participant
eligibility requirements for TS
participants who receive support from a
TS grantee to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Those participants must be accepted
into the TS program by the end of the
first term of the tenth grade, be enrolled
in or be preparing to enroll in a rigorous
secondary school program of study as
defined by his or her State of residence,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and be designated as enrolled in a
rigorous secondary school program of
study on the grantee’s reports to the
Secretary.
Reasons: To reflect the changes made
to section 402B(a)(3) of the HEA and in
response to comments made by the nonFederal negotiators during the
negotiated rulemaking sessions, we are
proposing: (1) To remove the current
regulatory language that requires
potential participants who have not
entered into postsecondary education to
have potential for a program of
postsecondary education; and (2) to
remove regulatory language that
requires potential participants who have
previously dropped out of
postsecondary education to have the
ability to complete such a program.
We are also proposing to add
eligibility requirements for participants
receiving support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study to
help ensure that they receive sufficient
services from the TS project to achieve
at the level needed to be eligible for
grants under the Academic
Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program.
This change would be consistent with
the new HEOA outcome criteria in
section 402A(f)(3)(A)(4) of the HEA for
the TS program, which measures the
extent to which project participants
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study that would make these
students eligible for programs such as
the ACG program.
Required and Permissible Services
(§ 643.4)
Statute: The HEA lists certain services
or activities that projects funded under
the TS program must provide and
services or activities that these projects
may provide. Section 403(b) and (c) of
the HEOA amended section 402B(b) and
(c) of the HEA relating to required and
permissible services or activities for TS
program grantees.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.4
specifies what services a TS project may
provide. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.4 to revise the
list of required and permissible services
or activities to be provided by projects
funded under the TS program to reflect
changes made by the HEOA. The
proposed regulations would list the
services or activities that projects must
provide and the services or activities
that projects may provide.
We are proposing to amend the TS
program regulations to require that
projects provide the following services:
(1) Connecting participants to high
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
quality academic tutoring services to
enable participants to complete
secondary or postsecondary courses; (2)
providing advice and assistance to
participants in secondary school course
selection and, if applicable, initial
postsecondary course selection; (3)
providing assistance to participants in
preparing for college entrance
examinations and completing college
admission applications; (4) providing (i)
information on the full range of Federal
student financial aid programs and
benefits (including Federal Pell Grant
awards and loan forgiveness) and
resources for locating public and private
scholarships and (ii) assistance in
completing financial aid applications,
including the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid; (5) providing
participants with guidance on and
assistance in secondary school reentry,
alternative education programs for
secondary school dropouts that lead to
the receipt of a regular secondary school
diploma, entry into general educational
development (GED) programs, or entry
into postsecondary education; and (6)
connecting participants to education or
counseling services designed to improve
the financial literacy and economic
literacy of participants or the
participants’ parents, including
financial planning for postsecondary
education.
We are proposing to specify that the
following are permissible services for
TS projects: (1) Academic tutoring,
which may include instruction in
reading, writing, study skills,
mathematics, science, and other
subjects; (2) personal and career
counseling or activities; (3) information
and activities designed to acquaint
youth with the range of career options
available to them; (4) exposure to the
campuses of institutions of higher
education, as well as cultural events,
academic programs, and other sites or
activities not usually available to
disadvantaged youth; (5) workshops and
counseling for families of participants
served; (6) mentoring programs
involving elementary or secondary
school teachers or counselors, faculty
members at institutions of higher
education, students, or any combination
of these persons; and (7) the programs
and activities described in items (1)
through (6) that are specially designed
for participants who are limited English
proficient, from groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, individuals
with disabilities, homeless children and
youths, foster care youth, or other
disconnected participants.
Reasons: The proposed amendments
would conform the regulations to the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
statutory amendments made by the
HEOA to section 402B of the HEA. Prior
to enactment of the HEOA projects
funded under the TS program could
choose from a number of permissible
activities and services to provide
participants. Section 403(b) of the
HEOA amended section 402B of the
HEA to require grantees to provide
certain services and give grantees the
option of providing other services. The
proposed amendments reflect these
statutory changes.
Project Period (§ 643.5)
Statute: Prior to enactment of the
HEOA, TS grants were generally
awarded for four years. Grantees whose
peer-review scores were in the highest
ten percent of the scores of all
applicants, received five year grants.
The HEOA amended the HEA so that all
TS grants are for five years.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.5
specifies the length of a TS project
period. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the regulations to
define the project period as five years
for all grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to
conform the regulations to section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA.
Applicable Regulations (§ 643.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 643.6
contains an outdated list of applicable
regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the TS
program. We also propose to exclude 34
CFR 75.215 through 221 from the list of
regulations that apply.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
the proposed amendments in the
discussion of Applicable Regulations for
the Training Program for Federal TRIO
Programs section of this preamble
(current § 642.4, proposed § 642.5).
Definitions (§ 643.7)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the definitions of institution of higher
education and veteran and for the
addition of different population,
financial and economic literacy, foster
care youth, homeless children and
youth, and individual with disabilities
in the Definitions Applicable to More
Than One Federal TRIO Program
section of the preamble. We are also
proposing to define two additional
terms applicable to the TS program in
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13831
these regulations: regular secondary
school diploma and rigorous secondary
school program of study.
Regular Secondary School Diploma
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) of
the HEA was amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA to include a new
outcome criterion for TS that requires
grantees to report on the graduation of
participants who complete secondary
school with a regular secondary school
diploma in the standard number of
years.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.7(b) to define
regular secondary school diploma to
mean a level attained by individuals
who meet or exceed the coursework and
performance standards for high school
completion established by the
individual’s State.
Reasons: We are proposing the
addition of the definition of regular
secondary school diploma to ensure that
there is a clear and consistent
understanding of the term in the TS
program.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of
Study
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of
the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new
outcome criterion for TS that requires
projects to report on participants who
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study. The term rigorous
secondary school program of study is
not defined in the statute.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.7(b) to
include a definition of rigorous
secondary school program of study. The
proposed regulations would define
rigorous secondary school program of
study to mean a program of study that
is—
(1) Established by a State educational
agency (SEA) or local educational
agency (LEA) and recognized as a
rigorous secondary school program of
study by the Secretary through the
process described in 34 CFR § 691.16(a)
through § 691.16(c) for the ACG
Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary
school program established by States
and in existence for the 2004–2005
school year or later school years;
(3) Any secondary school program in
which a student successfully completes
at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics,
including algebra I and a higher-level
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13832
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
class such as algebra II, geometry, or
data analysis and statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including
one year each of at least two of the
following courses: biology, chemistry,
and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than
English;
(4) A secondary school program
identified by a State-level partnership
that is recognized by the State Scholars
Initiative of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education
(WICHE), Boulder, Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
courses from an International
Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International
Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a
‘‘4’’ or higher on the examinations for at
least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
Advanced Placement courses and
receives a score of ‘‘3’’ or higher on the
College Board’s Advanced Placement
Program Exams for at least two of those
courses.
Reasons: We are proposing the
addition of a definition of rigorous
secondary school program of study to
ensure a clear and consistent
understanding of the term for the TS
program and with other Department
programs.
Number of Applications (§ 643.10)
We discuss the statutory authority,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
adding new § 643.10, Number of
applications, in the Number of
Applications an Eligible Entity May
Submit to Serve Different Campuses and
Different Populations section of the
preamble.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Assurances (Current § 643.10; Proposed
§ 643.11)
Statute: Section 402B(d)(1) of the
HEA requires that, as part of its
application, a TS grantee provide an
assurance that two-thirds of the
participants it will serve in its project
will be low-income individuals who are
first generation college students. Section
402B(d)(3) of the HEA requires that a TS
grantees provide an assurance that
individuals participating in the project
will not have access to services from
another TS grantee or an EOC project.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.10
specifies what assurances an applicant
must include in an application. This
provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to re-number the regulations
establishing the required assurances as
§ 643.11 and to amend paragraph (a) to
require that a TS grantee provide an
assurance that at least two-thirds of the
subset of participants selected for the
rigorous academic component of the
grant project will be low-income
individuals who are potential firstgeneration college students.
We are also proposing to amend
paragraph (b) to require TS grantees to
provide an assurance that they will not
provide the same services to
participants as projects funded by
programs serving similar populations,
such as GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, or EOC.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
the TS project assurances to reflect the
requirements of section 402B(d) of the
HEA. Specifically, we are proposing to
modify the regulations to require that at
least two-thirds of the participants
selected for the rigorous secondary
school program of study component of
the project must be low-income
individuals who are potential firstgeneration college students. This
assurance would require projects, in
selecting participants for the rigorous
secondary school program of study
component, to apply the statutory
requirement that at least two-thirds of
the project participants be both lowincome individuals and potential firstgeneration college students to ensure an
equitable and appropriate approach to
participant selection.
We are also proposing to amend the
TS project assurances to require a
grantee to provide an assurance that it
will not provide the same services to
participants that they would receive
under other programs serving similar
populations, such as GEAR UP, UB,
UBMS, or EOC to avoid the duplication
of services between a TS project and
similar projects.
project in designated territories of the
United States.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the
Secretary had the discretion to decide
whether or not to consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds. The
HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate
that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an
application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.20
specifies the procedures the Secretary
uses to award new grants.
Proposed Regulations: We propose
that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an
applicant for each of three project years,
as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications. We also propose that the
Secretary may award an applicant up to
15 PE points for each of the three years
for which the annual performance
report was submitted. The average of the
scores for the three project years would
be the final PE score for the applicant.
We also propose to remove
§ 643.20(a)(3) and to amend the wording
in § 643.20(d) to specify that the
Secretary will not make a new grant to
an applicant if the applicant’s prior
project involved the fraudulent use of
program funds.
Reasons: To provide more
transparency in the process the
Secretary will use to award PE points,
we are proposing to amend
§ 643.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to
remove § 643.20(a)(3) because there is
no longer any statutory authority for this
provision. We also are proposing to
amend § 643.20(d) to reflect the
statutory change that provides that the
Secretary may not consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds.
Making New Grants (§ 643.20)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of
the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use
specific outcome criteria to measure the
performance of Federal TRIO grants,
including those under the TS program.
Specifically, pursuant to section
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA, the Secretary
must measure the performance of TS
grants by examining the extent to which
the entity met or exceeded the entity’s
objectives (as established in the entity’s
approved application) regarding—
(1) Delivery of service to a total
number of students served by the
program;
(2) Continued secondary school
enrollment of such students;
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to consider,
when making Federal TRIO grants, each
applicant’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery under the
program for which funds are sought.
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now
identifies the specific outcome criteria
to be used to determine an entity’s PE
under the TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A)
of the HEA). The HEA does not establish
specific procedures for awarding PE
points.
The HEA, as amended, no longer
includes provisions for awarding
additional points to an application for a
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Selection Criteria (§ 643.21)
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(3) Graduation of such students from
secondary school with a regular
secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years;
(4) Completion by such students of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study that will make such students
eligible for grants under programs such
as the ACG program;
(5) Enrollment of such students in an
institution of higher education; and
(6) To the extent practicable, the
postsecondary education completion of
such students.
These statutory changes necessitate
changes in the grant selection criteria
regarding ‘‘Need for the project’’
(§ 643.21(a)), ‘‘Objectives’’ (§ 643.21(b)),
and ‘‘Plan of operation’’ (§ 643.21(c)).
Further, section 403(a) of the HEOA
amended section 402A of the HEA to
eliminate the provision that limited
secondary school eligibility for the TS
program to exceptional circumstances.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.21
specifies the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a TS grant. This
provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA
applicable to the following selection
criteria: Need for the project
(§ 643.21(a)); Objectives (§ 643.21(b));
Plan of operation (§ 643.21(c)); and
Applicant and community support
(§ 643.21(d)).
Proposed Regulations (Need for the
project): We are proposing to amend
§ 643.21(a) to provide that when
evaluating an application for a new
grant the Secretary will evaluate the
need for the proposed project. To
evaluate the need for the project, we
would distribute 24 points in the
following manner:
(1) Six points for a high number or
high percentage of (a) low-income
families residing in the target area, or (b)
students attending the target schools
who are eligible for free or reduced
priced lunch, as described in sections
9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act.
(2) Two points for low rates of high
school persistence among individuals in
the target schools, as evidenced by the
annual student persistence rates in the
proposed target schools for the most
recent year for which data are available.
(3) Four points for low rates of
students in the target school’s
graduating high school with a regular
secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years for the most
recent year for which data are available.
(4) Six points for low postsecondary
enrollment and completion rates among
individuals in the target area and
schools, as evidenced by (a) low rates of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
enrollment in programs of
postsecondary education by graduates of
the target schools in the most recent
year for which data are available, and
(b) a high number or high percentage of
individuals residing in the target area
with education completion levels below
the baccalaureate degree level.
(5) Two points for the extent to which
the target secondary schools do not offer
their students the courses or academic
support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study or
have low participation by low-income
or first generation students in such
courses.
(6) Four points for other indicators of
need for a TS project, including a high
ratio of students to school counselors in
the target schools and the presence of
unaddressed academic or socioeconomic problems of eligible
individuals, including foster care youth
and homeless children and youth, in the
target schools or the target area.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 643.21(a) (Need for the project) to
reflect the changes made to section
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the
outcome criteria to be used to measure
the performance of TS program grantees.
We are proposing to modify the need for
the TS project selection criteria because
we believe that the revised criteria
would be consistent with the purpose
and goals of the TS program, as reflected
in the outcome criteria established by
Congress. In the application, the
applicant would document the extent of
the need for the proposed TS project in
the proposed target area and would
provide baseline data for the new
outcome criteria that the applicant
would use to establish project objectives
that are ambitious and attainable.
In addition, based on concerns
expressed by some non-Federal
negotiators during the negotiated
rulemaking sessions regarding the
availability of reliable data from the
target schools for purposes of
calculating some of the need criteria, the
proposed regulations would give
applicants options for providing the
number or percentage of low-income
individuals in the proposed target area.
To meet this requirement the applicant
may provide data on either the number
or the percentage of low-income
families residing in the target area or the
number or percentage of students
attending the target schools who are
eligible for free or reduced priced lunch.
Further, to reduce burden, an applicant
would only need to provide data on
high school persistence, graduation, and
postsecondary enrollment for the most
recent year for which data are available;
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13833
current regulations require data for the
three most recent years.
The proposed regulations would also
address a concern some non-Federal
negotiators raised about the current
requirement that an applicant provide
data to show a high student dropout rate
in the proposed target schools in the
preceding three years. These nonFederal negotiators expressed concern
that this provision could penalize
applicants with existing projects that
serve target schools that have already
improved their dropout rates. We are
not proposing to remove the dropout
rate from the criteria. However, in light
of the new statutory outcome criteria
related to the ‘‘continued secondary
school enrollment of participants,’’ we
have also included a criterion that
requires the applicant to provide data
on the annual high school persistence
rates of students in the proposed target
schools.
Proposed Regulations (Objectives):
We are proposing to amend § 643.21(b)
to provide that, in evaluating
applications for TS grants, the Secretary
consider the quality of the applicant’s
proposed objectives on the basis of the
extent to which they are both ambitious
and attainable, given the project’s plan
of operation, budget, and other
resources. We propose to distribute
eight points for this criterion in the
following manner:
(1) Two points for secondary school
persistence.
(2) Two points for secondary school
graduation (regular secondary school
diploma).
(3) One point for secondary school
graduation (rigorous secondary school
program of study).
(4) Two points for postsecondary
education enrollment.
(5) One point for postsecondary
degree attainment.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 643.21(b) (Objectives) to reflect the
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A)
of the HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to
be used to measure performance of the
TS program. We are proposing to reflect
the statutory TS outcome criteria in
§ 643.21(b) as selection criteria because
we believe that the focus at the outset
of the TS discretionary grant process
(i.e., evaluating applications using TS
selection criteria) should be on the
ultimate outcomes the TS program is
intended to attain.
Moreover, during the grant period,
section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA requires
that the Secretary measure the
performance of the grantee based on a
comparison of the targets agreed upon
for the outcome criteria established in
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13834
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the applicant’s approved application to
the actual results achieved during the
grant period. For these reasons, we
believe it is appropriate to use the
outcome criteria from section
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA in the
selection criteria for the TS program.
Outcome criteria are also used to
evaluate an applicant’s PE and to assign
PE points to an application. We discuss
the statutory authority, current
regulations, proposed regulations, and
reasons for changes to evaluating an
applicant’s PE in the Evaluating Prior
Experience—Outcome Criteria section
of the preamble.
Proposed Regulations (Plan of
operation): We are proposing to amend
§ 643.21(c) to provide that the Secretary,
in evaluating an application for a TS
grant, evaluate the quality of the
applicant’s proposed plan of operation
as one of the selection criteria. We
would distribute thirty points for this
criteria in the following manner:
(1) Three points for the plan to inform
the residents, schools, and community
organizations in the target area of the
purpose, objectives, and services of the
project and the eligibility requirements
for participation in the project.
(2) Three points for the plan to
identify and select eligible project
participants, including the project’s
plan and criteria for selecting
individuals who would receive support
to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
(3) Ten points for the plan for
providing the services delineated in
§ 643.4 as appropriate based on the
project’s assessment of each
participant’s need for services.
(4) Six points for the plan to provide
services to students in need of services
to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
(5) Six points for the plan to ensure
the proper and efficient administration
of the project, including timelines,
personnel, and other resources, and the
project’s organizational structure; the
time commitment of key project staff;
financial, personnel, and records
management; and, where appropriate,
coordination with other programs for
disadvantaged youth.
(6) Two points for the plan to follow
former participants as they enter,
continue in, and complete
postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 643.21(c) (Plan of operation) to reflect
the changes made to section
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the
outcome criteria to be used to measure
performance of the TS program. We are
proposing to include the revised TS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
plan of operation criteria in § 643.21(c)
as a selection criteria because the
revised criteria would be consistent
with the purpose and goals of the TS
program outcome criteria. The requested
information would document the
project’s plans with regard to the criteria
relating to a rigorous secondary school
program of study and for following the
academic progress of former
participants through postsecondary
education.
Proposed Regulations (Applicant and
community support): We are proposing
to amend § 643.21(d) to require written
commitments from institutions of higher
education, in addition to the current
requirement for written commitments
from schools and community
organizations, to provide resources to
supplement the grant and enhance
project services.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 643.21(d) (Applicant and community
support) to reflect the changes made to
section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, which
eliminated the limitation on the
eligibility of secondary schools for TS
grants. We agreed with some of the nonFederal members of the negotiated
rulemaking committee who expressed
concern that the current selection
criterion that requires applicants to have
written commitments from schools,
community organization, and others
may provide an advantage to secondary
schools or community organization
applicants for TS grants over
institutions of higher education.
Without a change, institutions of higher
education applying for a TS grant would
have to get letters of commitment from
their potential competitors for grants
while secondary schools and
community organizations would not
have a similar requirement. To ensure a
fair and equitable competition and to
ensure that schools and community
organizations have the full scope of
partners necessary to provide
appropriate services, we would require
those applicants to get letters of
commitment from institutions of higher
education.
Prior Experience Criteria (§ 643.22)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the PE criteria in the Evaluating Prior
Experience—Outcome Criteria section
of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (§ 643.23)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(1) of
the HEOA, increased the minimum TS
grant from $180,000 to $200,000.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Current Regulations: Current § 643.23
specifies how the Secretary sets the
amount of a TS grant. This provision
does not reflect the changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the regulations to
update the statutory minimum grant
amount.
Reasons: We are proposing this
change to reflect the changes to section
402A(b)(3) of the HEA by section
403(a)(3) of the HEOA.
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
(New § 643.24)
We discuss the statutory authority,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
adding new § 643.24 in the Review
Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO
Applicants section of the preamble.
Allowable and Unallowable Costs
(§§ 643.30 and 643.31)
Transportation, Equipment and
Supplies, and Tuition
Statute: Section 403A(b) of the HEOA
amended section 403B(b) of the HEA
and expanded the list of services a TS
grantee may provide to include
instruction in reading, writing, study
skills, mathematics, science, and other
subjects. Section 403A(b) of the HEOA
amended sections 402A and 402B of the
HEA and included outcome criteria to
evaluate the quality and effectiveness of
TS projects. The new outcome criteria
require that TS projects report data on
the graduation of participants from
secondary school with a regular high
school diploma in the standard number
of years, the completion by participants
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study that would make them eligible
for grants under the ACG program, and
the completion by participants of
postsecondary education.
Current Regulations: Current § 643.30
permits a TS project to use grant funds
to pay certain costs. Current § 643.30(a)
permits a grantee to pay some
participant transportation costs. Current
§ 643.30(f) requires a grantee to obtain
approval from the Department to
purchase computers and other
equipment. Current § 643.31(a) prohibits
the payment of tuition for participants.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.30(a)(4) to
permit a TS grantee, under certain
circumstances, to pay the transportation
costs for a participant receiving
instruction that is part of a rigorous
secondary school program of study. We
also are proposing to revise § 643.30 (f)
and add paragraph (g) to allow grantees
to use grant funds for the purchase,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
lease, or rental of computer hardware
that supports the delivery of services to
participants, including technology used
by participants in a rigorous secondary
school program of study, and for project
administration and recordkeeping.
We are proposing to add paragraph (h)
to § 643.30 to permit a TS grantee to pay
tuition, under certain circumstances, for
a participant to take a course that is part
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study. Specifically, we propose to
allow TS funds to be used to pay tuition
costs for a course that is part of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study if—
(1) The course or a similar course is
not offered at the secondary school that
the participant attends or at another
school within the participant’s school
district;
(2) The grantee demonstrates to the
Secretary’s satisfaction that using grant
funds to pay for tuition is the most costeffective way to deliver the course or
courses necessary for the completion of
a rigorous secondary school program of
study for program participants;
(3) The course is taken at an
institution of higher education;
(4) The course is comparable in
content and rigor to courses that are part
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study as defined in § 643.7(b);
(5) The secondary school accepts the
course as meeting one or more of the
course requirements for obtaining a high
school diploma;
(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is
unavailable;
(7) The tuition is paid with TS grant
funds to an institution of higher
education on behalf of a participant; and
(8) The TS project pays for no more
than the equivalent of two courses for a
participant each school year.
We also propose to drop ‘‘tuition’’
from the list of unallowable costs in
§ 643.31(a).
During the negotiated rulemaking
sessions, many of the non-Federal
negotiators noted that they had data to
demonstrate that participants in TS
projects needed tuition support to
complete a rigorous program of study. In
light of these statements we are seeking
public comments and data on the need
to permit TS projects to pay tuition for
participants to take courses that are part
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study. We are requesting data on the
availability of rigorous coursework
offerings at target schools or in target
areas, which may include, but are not
limited to: The number of schools or
districts within the State that do not
provide rigorous curricula; the number
of students who do not have access to
the rigorous coursework or do not take
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
rigorous courses available to them; and
student demographic data on rigorous
course-taking patterns in the target
schools or areas.
We are also requesting information on
how the lack of access to rigorous
programs has impacted the educational
opportunities available to individuals
served by TS projects. We are also
requesting cost estimates, based on
existing TS projects, as to the amount
and percentage of the project budget
that might be used for tuition, if
allowable, and the estimated number of
participants that might benefit each year
from this service. We may reexamine
the need for or scope of this proposal
based on the comments and data that we
receive.
Reasons: Based on comments and
information we received during the
negotiated rulemaking sessions we
believe that it is appropriate for grantees
to use TS funds to pay for computer
equipment and software. Authorizing
this use of funds will permit grantees to
deliver services more efficiently. We
believe that prior approval for these
expenditures is no longer necessary.
With the new statutory outcome
criterion related to a rigorous course of
study, a TS project also may need to
rent, lease, or purchase technology used
by participants in a rigorous academic
program.
Some non-Federal negotiators
recommended revisions to the TS
regulations to allow grantees to pay
transportation and tuition costs for
participants who are trying to complete
a rigorous secondary school program of
study when the course or courses are
not offered at the secondary school the
participant attends or at another school
within the school district.
A number of legal and policy
concerns were discussed regarding this
provision. A significant policy concern
discussed was whether TS is the
appropriate mechanism for addressing
the lack of rigorous courses in some
secondary schools given other new
Federal initiatives and funding to help
all school districts provide a rigorous
program of study. Also of concern was
the potential cost of this provision and
whether this would result in TS projects
being able to serve fewer students.
At the final negotiated rulemaking
session, the Department noted that we
could consider authorizing the use of
funds to pay tuition, but that we needed
more data on the issue before we would
consider including this authority in the
regulations. We pointed out the Federal
policy goal that every secondary school
should offer a rigorous program of study
to its students. We also noted that other
Federal programs support the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13835
establishment of rigorous programs of
study. Accordingly, we were not
convinced that the limited TS funds
should be used for this purpose. The
non-Federal negotiators disagreed,
stating that it is unreasonable to
measure the performance of a TS
grantee on the extent to which
participants complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study if a
grantee cannot use project funds to
support this activity. The non-Federal
negotiators also provided examples of
areas and target schools served by TS
projects that lack courses needed to
meet the State standards for a rigorous
secondary school program of study. If
TS projects serving these areas could
not provide participants with access to
these courses, the non-Federal
negotiators opined, some TS
participants would be denied the
opportunity to qualify for ACG funds.
They also noted that research has shown
that students who take rigorous
coursework in high school are more
likely to enter and complete
postsecondary education.
After further consideration, we
understand that the availability of
rigorous coursework may be an issue in
some schools and communities served
by TS projects and, thus, we have
reconsidered our position on this issue.
We propose to include, under certain
conditions, the payment of tuition for
courses that would allow project
participants to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Providing opportunities for high school
students to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study is
important to ensuring opportunity and
success in postsecondary education.
Nonetheless, we need data to
understand the extent to which areas
and schools served by TS projects lack
rigorous coursework. Further, we need
data to perform cost-benefit analyses
that help us determine whether to
permit the use of limited TS grant funds
for this purpose. We cannot base policy
decisions on the appropriate use of
limited program funds on anecdotal
evidence. The TS program has a
national scope, and we must consider
the cost implications of this proposal.
The use of TS funds for tuition and
other related costs would reduce the
availability of funding for other program
services and would reduce the number
of participants that could be served by
a TS project. Additionally, as the
Department seeks improvements in
education, we need to ensure that
Federal programs are used in a
coordinated way to leverage educational
reform and opportunities that would
benefit all students. Therefore, we are
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13836
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requesting that commenters provide us
with information and data regarding the
tuition provisions in these proposed
regulations.
To ensure that TS funds are only used
to pay tuition in exceptional situations,
the proposed regulations would permit
the payment of tuition for courses that
are part of a rigorous secondary school
program of study only if the: course to
be taken by the participant or a similar
course is not offered in the school
district; the participant takes the course
at an institution of higher education; the
course is comparable in rigor to courses
that are part of the State’s rigorous
secondary school program of study; and
the course is accepted by the
participant’s secondary school as
meeting one or more of the course
requirements for a high school diploma.
We would also require an applicant
proposing to use TS funds for tuition to
provide detailed information in their
application on the appropriateness and
cost effectiveness of using the TS funds
for this purpose.
What Other Requirements Must a
Grantee Meet? (§ 643.32)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Changes to Number of Participants
(643.32(b))
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
establishes a minimum grant of
$200,000 for TS. The HEA does not
specify the number of participants a
project must serve.
Current Regulations: Section
643.32(b) requires a TS project to serve
a minimum of 600 participants; the
Secretary may reduce this number if the
amount of the grant for the budget
period is less than $180,000, which was
the minimum TS grant amount prior to
the HEOA amendments.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.32(b) to
remove the current requirement that a
TS grantee serve a specific minimum
number of participants and to
redesignate the paragraphs that follow.
Reasons: We are proposing to remove
the minimum number of participants
from regulations so the Department has
flexibility in each competition to
establish the number of participants,
and to adjust these numbers in
subsequent competitions based on
experience, cost analyses, and other
factors.
The Department is committed to
encouraging TS grantees to identify and
adopt the most cost-effective strategies
for disadvantaged youth to complete
secondary school programs, enroll in or
reenter education programs at the
postsecondary level, and complete
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
postsecondary education programs. The
Department intends to design future TS
grant competitions to achieve this
objective. Future grant competition
notices will set parameters that are
consistent with the statute to encourage
adoption of cost effective practices
using the best available evidence. This
may include setting a minimum number
of program participants for each
competition to promote adoption of
cost-effective practices.
We intend to stipulate the minimum
and maximum grant award amounts and
to address the number of participants a
TS project will be expected to serve
each year of the grant cycle through the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition. We
also intend to establish a per-participant
cost in the Federal Register notice to be
used to determine the amount of the
grant for an applicant proposing to serve
fewer participants than required for the
minimum grant award for the
competition.
Changes to Recordkeeping
Requirements (§ 643.32(b))
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of
the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new
outcome criterion for TS that requires
projects to report on participants who
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 643.32(c) specifies the recordkeeping
requirements for TS grantees. This
provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the goals and
services of the TS program.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to redesignate current
paragraph (c) as (b) and to amend newly
redesignated § 643.32(b) to include new
recordkeeping requirements for TS
program participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
the recordkeeping requirements to
reflect the changes made to the TS
program by the HEOA. The proposed
change to the regulations is also
consistent with the recommendation of
the non-Federal negotiators during the
negotiated rulemaking sessions to
require a grantee to keep a list of courses
taken by participants who are enrolled
in a rigorous secondary school program
of study. This change would ensure that
a TS project grantee maintain the
documentation needed to determine
that participants in a rigorous secondary
school program of study have taken the
courses needed to qualify for ACG
grants, as required by section
402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Changes to Full-Time Director
Requirement (§ 643.32(d))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the
HEA requires that the Secretary permit
the Director of a Federal TRIO program
to administer one or more additional
programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 643.32(d) requires a grantee to employ
a full-time project director unless the
grantee requests a waiver.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 643.32(d) to
amend the provision that required a
grantee to have a full time Project
Director unless the project met certain
conditions and requested a waiver.
Specifically, under the proposed
regulations, a waiver would not be
required for a Director who is less than
full-time on the project if the Director is
also administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students. A
grantee would have to request a waiver
of the full-time director requirement for
the Director to administer more than
three programs.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
would be consistent with section
402A(c)(6) of the HEA. In addition, the
change would reduce the administrative
burden on grantees by eliminating the
requirement that a grantee request a
waiver of the full-time director
requirement under certain
circumstances.
Educational Opportunity Centers
(EOC), 34 CFR Part 644
Changes to the EOC Program Purpose
(§ 644.1)
Statute: Section 403(f)(1)(C) of the
HEOA amended section 402F(a) of the
HEA and modified the purposes of the
EOC program.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.1
specifies the purpose of the EOC
program. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend § 644.1 by adding a new
paragraph (c) containing the following
text: ‘‘To improve the financial literacy
and economic literacy of participants on
topics such as basic personal income,
household money management, and
financial planning skills and basic
economic decision-making skills.’’
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 644.1 to reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the EOC program
authority statement in section 402F(a) of
the HEA.
Applicant Eligibility (§ 644.2)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the
HEA, as amended by section
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
403(a)(1)(A) of the HEOA lists the types
of entities that are eligible for EOC
grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA,
a secondary school could apply for an
EOC grant under ‘‘exceptional
circumstances.’’ The HEOA eliminates
this limitation on the eligibility of a
secondary school. Further, the HEOA
defines public and private agencies and
organizations that may apply for a grant
to include community-based
organizations with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.2
specifies who is eligible to apply for an
EOC grant. This provision does not
reflect the changes made to applicant
eligibility by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 644.2 to conform
to the statutory changes to applicant
eligibility. Under the proposed
regulations, a secondary school would
be able to apply for an EOC grant
without having to demonstrate
‘‘exceptional circumstances.’’ In
addition, a community-based
organization with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth may apply for a
grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 644.2 to conform to the
changes made by the HEOA in applicant
eligibility in section 402A(b)(1) of the
HEA.
Required and Permissible Services
(§ 644.4)
Statute: Section 403(f)(2) of the HEOA
amended section 402F(b) of the HEA,
which defines the permissible services
or activities in the EOC program. As
amended, the HEA lists certain services
or activities that projects funded under
the program may provide.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.4
specifies what services an EOC project
may provide. This provision does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA
to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 644.4 and add to
the permissible services that projects
may provide under the EOC program in
accordance with the changes made by
the HEOA. Specifically, we propose to
remove personal counseling services
from the list of permissible services and
replace it with individualized personal,
career, and academic counseling
services. We are also proposing to
specify that permissible services
includes programs and activities
described in § 644.4 that are specially
designed for participants who are
limited English proficient, participants
from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary
education, participants who are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
individuals with disabilities,
participants who are homeless children
and youth, participants who are foster
care youth, or other disconnected
participants. Finally, we are proposing
to add education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of
participants to the list of permissible
services for EOC projects.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
would amend § 644.4 to revise the list
of services that EOC projects are
allowed to provide to conform with
section 402F(b) of the HEA.
Project Period (§ 644.5)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA, provides
that all EOC grants are for five years.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, EOC
grants were awarded for four years,
except for applicants whose peer review
scores were in the highest 10 percent of
the scores of all applicants; those
applicants received five-year grants.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.5
specifies the length of an EOC project
period. This provision does not reflect
the change made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise the regulations to
define the project period under the EOC
program as five years for all grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to
conform § 644.5 with section 402A(b)(2)
of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Applicable Regulations (§ 644.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 644.6
specifies which regulations apply to the
EOC program. This provision contains
an outdated list of applicable
regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the EOC
program. We also propose excluding
§§ 75.215 through 75.221 from the list of
regulations that apply.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
the changes in the Applicable
Regulations for the Training program
section of the preamble.
Definitions (§ 644.7)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the definitions of institution of higher
education and veteran and for the
addition of definitions of different
population, financial and economic
literacy, foster care youth, homeless
children and youth, and individual with
disabilities in the Definitions Applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13837
to More Than One Federal TRIO
Program section of the preamble.
Number of Applications (New § 644.10)
We discuss the statutory authority,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
adding new § 644.10, Number of
applications, in the Number of
Applications an Eligible Entity May
Submit to Serve Different Campuses and
Different Populations section of the
preamble.
Assurances (Current § 644.10, Proposed
§ 644.11)
Statute: Section 402F(c)(3) of the HEA
requires that EOC grantees provide an
assurance that individuals participating
in the project do not have access to
services from another EOC or a TS
project.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.10
specifies what assurances an applicant
must include in an application.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to re-number the regulations
establishing the required assurances as
§ 644.11 and to revise paragraph (b) to
require EOC grantees to provide an
assurance that they will not provide the
same services to participants as projects
funded by programs serving similar
populations, such as Veterans Upward
Bound (VUB), and TS.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
the EOC project assurances to prohibit
EOC projects from providing the same
services to participants that the
participants would receive under other
programs serving similar populations,
such as VUB and TS, to avoid the
duplication of services between an EOC
project and similar projects.
Making New Grants (§ 644.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to consider,
when making Federal TRIO grants, each
applicant’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery under the
program for which funds are sought.
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now
identifies the specific outcome criteria
to be used to determine an entity’s PE
under the EOC (see section 402A(f)(3)(E)
of the HEA). The HEA does not establish
specific procedures for awarding PE
points.
The HEA, as amended, no longer
includes provisions for awarding
additional points to an application for a
project in designated territories of the
United States.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the
Secretary had the discretion to decide
whether or not to consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13838
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
fraudulent use of program funds. The
HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate
that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an
application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.20
specifies the procedures the Secretary
uses to make new grants. Section
644.20(a)(2) needs to be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary
will use to award PE points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 644.20 would be expanded to specify
the procedures the Secretary would use
to award PE points. We are proposing
that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an
applicant for each of three project years
as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points
for each of the three years for which the
annual performance report was
submitted. The average of the scores for
the three project years will be the final
PE score for the applicant.
We also propose to remove
§ 644.20(a)(3) and to amend the wording
in § 644.20(d) to specify that the
Secretary will not make a new grant to
an applicant if the applicant’s prior
project involved the fraudulent use of
program funds.
Reasons: To provide more
transparency in the process the
Secretary will use to award PE points,
we are proposing to amend
§ 644.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to
remove § 644.20(a)(3) because there is
no longer statutory authority for this
provision and to amend § 644.20(d) to
reflect the statutory change that
provides that the Secretary may not
consider an application from an
applicant that carried out a project
involving the fraudulent use of program
funds.
Selection Criteria (§ 644.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, requires the Secretary to use
specific outcome criteria to measure the
performance of Federal TRIO grants,
including those under the EOC program.
Specifically, pursuant to section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA, the Secretary
must measure the performance of EOC
grantees by examining the extent to
which the grantee met or exceeded the
grantee’s objectives (as established in
the entity’s approved application)
regarding: (1) The enrollment of
students without a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent
and who were served by the program in
programs leading to a diploma or its
equivalent; (2) the enrollment of
secondary school graduates who were
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
served by the program in programs of
postsecondary education; (3) the
delivery of services to the total number
of students served by the program, as
agreed to by the entity and the
Secretary; and (4) the provision of
assistance to students served by the
program in completing financial aid
applications and college admission
applications. These statutory changes
necessitate a change in the grant
selection criteria for ‘‘Objectives’’
(§ 644.21(b)).
Further, section 402A(b) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(a)(1) of the
HEOA, eliminated the ‘‘in exceptional
circumstances clause’’ that limited
secondary school eligibility to apply for
an EOC grant. This statutory change
necessitates a change in the grant
selection criteria regarding ‘‘Applicant
and community support’’ (§ 644.21(d)).
Current Regulations: Current § 644.21
specifies the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for an EOC grant. This
provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA
applicable to the following selection
criteria: Objectives (§ 644.21(b)) and
Applicant and community support
(§ 644.21(d)).
Proposed Regulations (Objectives):
We are proposing to amend § 644.21(b)
to provide that, in evaluating
applications for EOC grants, the
Secretary will consider the quality of
the applicant’s proposed objectives and
proposed targets (percentages) on the
basis of the extent to which they are
both ambitious and attainable, given the
project’s plan of operation, budget, and
other resources. We propose to
distribute eight points for this criterion
in the following manner: (1) Two points
for enrollment of participants who do
not have a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent in programs
leading to a secondary school diploma
or its equivalent; (2) four points for
postsecondary enrollment; (3) one point
for applying for student financial aid
assistance; and (4) one point for
students applying for college admission
assistance.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 644.21(b) to reflect the changes made
to section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding
the outcome criteria to be used to
measure the performance of the EOC
program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory EOC outcome criteria in
§ 644.21(b) as selection criteria because
we believe that the focus of the process
of selecting EOC grant applications
should be on the ultimate outcomes the
EOC program is designed to attain.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Moreover, during the grant period,
section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA requires
the Secretary to measure the
performance of the grantee based on a
comparison of the targets agreed upon
for the outcome criteria established in
the applicant’s approved application to
the actual results achieved during the
grant period. For this reason, we believe
it is appropriate to use the outcome
criteria from section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the
HEA as the selection criteria for the EOC
program.
Outcome criteria are also used to
evaluate an applicant’s PE and to assign
PE points to an application. We discuss
the statutory authority, current
regulations, proposed regulations, and
reasons for changes to evaluating an
applicant’s PE in the Evaluating Prior
Experience—Outcome Criteria section
of the preamble.
Proposed Regulations (Applicant and
community support): We are proposing
to amend § 644.21(d) to require written
commitments from institutions of higher
education, in addition to the current
requirement for written commitments
from schools and community
organizations, to provide resources to
supplement the grant and enhance
project services. In paragraph (d) of this
section, we also clarify that the current
requirement for written commitments
applies to secondary schools by adding
the word ‘‘secondary’’ to the regulations.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
the proposed changes to the Selection
Criteria—Applicant and Community
Support in the TS section of the
preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (§ 644.22)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the PE criteria in the TRIO Outcome
Criteria—Prior Experience section of the
preamble.
Amount of a Grant (§ 644.23)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, increased the
minimum EOC grant from $180,000 to
$200,000.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.23
specifies how the Secretary sets the
amount of a grant. This provision does
not reflect the changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the regulations to
update the statutory minimum grant
amount to $200,000.
Reasons: We are proposing this
change to reflect the changes to section
402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
(New § 644.24)
We discuss the statutory authority,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
adding a new review process for
unsuccessful applicants, in the Review
Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO
Program Applicants section of the
preamble.
Allowable Costs (§ 644.30)
Statute: The statute does not
specifically address allowable costs in
the EOC program.
Current Regulations: Current § 644.30
allows EOC funds to be used for
participant field trips for observing
persons employed in various career
fields only if the trips are within the
target area. Current § 644.30 requires a
grantee to obtain prior approval from
the Secretary to use program funds to
purchase computer and other
equipment.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise § 644.30(a)(3) by
removing the words ‘‘in the target area’’
and by rewording the paragraph for
clarity; we also are proposing to revise
§ 644.30(f) to allow grantees to use
program funds for the purchase, lease,
or rental of computer hardware,
computer software, or other equipment
for participant development, project
administration, or project recordkeeping
without requesting prior approval.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
permitting EOC grantees to purchase
computer equipment without prior
approval in the Changes to the
Allowable Costs section of the TS part
of this preamble. We also believe that
career field trips should not be limited
to the grant target area, as this might
limit EOC participants’ exposure to
various careers.
Other Requirements of a Grantee
(§ 644.32)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Changes to Number of Participants
(§ 644.32(b))
Statute: The HEA does not stipulate
the number of participants a project
must serve.
Current Regulations: Section
644.32(b) requires an EOC project to
serve a minimum of 1,000 participants;
however, the Secretary may reduce this
number if the amount of the grant for
the budget period is less than $180,000
(which was the minimum grant amount
in the EOC program prior to enactment
of the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 644.32(b) to
remove the requirement that an EOC
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
grantee serve a minimum number of
participants.
Reasons: We are proposing to remove
from the regulations the requirement
that an EOC grantee serve a minimum
number of participants to give the
Department flexibility to establish the
number of participants to be served
based on the available resources for
each competition and to adjust these
amounts for subsequent competitions
based on experience. We intend to
stipulate the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts and address the
number of participants an EOC project
is expected to serve each year of the
grant cycle through the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for the
competition. The Federal Register
notice would also establish a per
participant cost to be used to determine
the amount of the grant for an applicant
proposing to serve fewer participants
than required for the minimum grant
award for the competition.
Changes to Full-Time Director
Requirement (Old § 644.32(d); New
§ 644.32(c))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the
HEA requires that the Secretary permit
the Director of a Federal TRIO program
to administer one or more additional
programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Section
644.32(d) requires a grantee to employ
a full-time project director unless the
grantee requests a waiver.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
reorganize section 644.32 by removing
paragraph (d), redesignating § 644.32(c)
as § 644.32(b), and adding a new
§ 644.32(c). The new § 644.32(c) would
include some of the provisions in
current § 644.32(d), but would not
include the requirement that a grantee
request a waiver if the Project director
is administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students.
Specifically, a grantee would not need
a waiver from the Secretary to have a
director that is less than full-time on the
project if the director is also
administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students.
Under the proposed regulation,
however, a grantee would be required to
request a waiver of the full-time director
requirement for the director to
administer more than three programs.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
permitting the Director of a Federal
TRIO program to administer one or
more additional programs for
disadvantaged students in the Changes
to Full-Time Director Requirement in
the TS section of the preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13839
Upward Bound (UB) Program, 34 CFR
Part 645
Applicant Eligibility (§ 645.2)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(A) of the HEOA, lists the types
of entities that are eligible for UB grants.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a
secondary school would be eligible to
apply for a UB grant if it could show
‘‘exceptional circumstances.’’ The HEOA
eliminates this limitation. Further, the
HEOA defines public and private
agencies and organizations that may
apply for a grant to include communitybased organizations with experience in
serving disadvantaged youth.
Current Regulations: Current § 645.2
specifies who is eligible to apply for an
UB grant. This provision does not reflect
the changes made to applicant eligibility
by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 645.2 to conform
to the statutory changes to applicant
eligibility. As with other eligible
applicants, a secondary school may
apply for an UB grant without having to
demonstrate ‘‘exceptional
circumstances.’’ In addition, under
proposed § 645.2, a community-based
organization with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth may apply.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
current § 645.2 to conform to section
402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by
the HEOA.
Grantee Requirements (§ 645.4)
Statute: Section 402A(e)(1) and (2) of
the HEA provides lists of acceptable
documentation of a participant’s status
as a low-income individual. The HEOA
made no substantive changes to this
section of the statute.
Current Regulations: Section 645.4(a)
duplicates requirements in § 645.21. In
addition, the heading for § 645.4 is not
descriptive of the requirements in it.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to remove § 645.4(a) of the
current regulations and redesignate the
paragraphs that follow. We also propose
to revise the section heading to read as
follows: ‘‘What are the grantee
requirements for documenting the lowincome and first-generation status of
participants?’’
Reasons: Except for paragraph (a), the
current regulation reflects the statutory
requirements for documenting a
participant’s low-income and potential
first-generation status. Therefore, we are
proposing to revise the heading for this
section to clearly describe the grantee’s
documentation requirements with
regard to participant eligibility. We are
proposing to remove paragraph (a) of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13840
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
this section because it duplicates
requirements in § 645.21.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of
Study
Applicable Regulations (§ 645.5)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(B)(v) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of
the HEOA, includes a new outcome
criterion for UB that requires the
Secretary to consider to the extent to
which a grantee met or exceeded its
objectives on project participants that
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study that will make such
students eligible for programs such as
the ACG program.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the definitions in
§ 645.6(b) to include a definition of
rigorous secondary school program of
study. The proposed regulations would
define rigorous secondary school
program of study to mean a program of
study that is—
(1) Established by a State educational
agency (SEA) or local educational
agency (LEA) and recognized as a
rigorous secondary school program of
study by the Secretary through the
process described in 34 CFR § 691.16(a)
through § 691.16(c) for the ACG
Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary
school program established by States
and in existence for the 2004–2005
school year or later school years;
(3) Any secondary school program in
which a student successfully completes
at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics,
including algebra I and a higher-level
class such as algebra II, geometry, or
data analysis and statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including
one year each of at least two of the
following courses: biology, chemistry,
and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than
English;
(4) A secondary school program
identified by a State-level partnership
that is recognized by the State Scholars
Initiative of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education
(WICHE), Boulder, Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
courses from an International
Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International
Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a
‘‘4’’ or higher on the examinations for at
least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
Advanced Placement courses and
receives a score of ‘‘3’’ or higher on the
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 645.5(a)
contains an outdated list of applicable
regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the UB
program. We also propose to specifically
exclude 34 CFR 75.215 through 75.221
from the list of applicable regulations
that apply.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
the changes in the Applicable
Regulations for the Training program
section of the preamble.
Definitions (§ 645.6)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the definitions of institution of higher
education and veteran and for the
addition of different population,
financial and economic literacy, foster
care youth, homeless children and
youth, and individual with disabilities
in the Definitions Applicable to More
Than One Federal TRIO Program
section of the preamble. In addition, we
propose to include definitions for two
terms applicable to both the TS and UB
programs (regular secondary school
diploma and rigorous secondary school
program of study) and two terms
applicable to new UB requirements
(individual who has a high risk for
academic failure and veteran who has a
high risk for academic failure).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regular Secondary School Diploma
Statute: Section 402C(b) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(c)(1) of the
HEOA, requires a UB grantee to provide:
‘‘guidance on and assistance in
alternative education programs for
secondary school dropouts that lead to
the receipt of a regular secondary school
diploma.’’
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 645.6(b) to
include a definition of regular
secondary school diploma. The
proposed regulations would define
regular secondary school diploma to
mean a level attained by individuals
who meet or exceed the coursework and
performance standards for high school
completion established by the
individual’s State.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
this new definition in the Definitions in
the TS section of the preamble.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
College Board’s Advanced Placement
Program Exams for at least two of those
courses.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
this new definition in the Definitions in
the TS section of the preamble.
Individual who has a high risk for
academic failure and veteran who has a
high risk for academic failure
Statute: The HEOA amended section
402C(e)(2) of the HEA to include
‘‘students who have a high risk for
academic failure’’ as a group eligible to
be served by an UB project.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to add a definition of an
individual who has a high risk for
academic failure for participants in
regular UB projects and a definition of
a veteran who has a high risk for
academic failure for participants in a
VUB project.
For regular UB, an individual who has
a high risk for academic failure would
mean an individual who: (1) Has not
achieved at the proficient level on State
assessments in reading or language arts;
(2) has not achieved at the proficient
level on State assessments in math; (3)
has not completed pre-algebra, algebra,
or geometry; or (4) has a grade point
average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for
the most recent school year for which
grade point averages are available.
For VUB, a veteran who has a high
risk for academic failure would mean a
veteran who: (1) Has been out of high
school or dropped out of a program of
postsecondary education for five or
more years; (2) has scored on
standardized tests below the level that
demonstrates a likelihood of success in
a program of postsecondary education;
or (3) meets the definition of an
individual with disabilities as defined
in 645.6(b).
Reasons: We have proposed a
definition of a high risk student based
on our experience in administering the
TRIO programs and that we believe
appropriately identifies students most
in need of academic assistance.
During the negotiated rulemaking
sessions, we initially proposed that only
regular UB projects be required to
include students who are at high risk of
academic failure as eligible participants.
Because of the different populations
served by UBMS and VUB projects, we
did not think this provision should
apply to these two project types. Many
of the non-Federal negotiators agreed
that UBMS projects should not be
required to serve high-risk students
since UBMS projects are special focus
projects designed to prepare high school
students for postsecondary education
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
programs that lead to careers in math
and science fields.
Many of the non-Federal negotiators,
however, felt that the requirement to
serve high-risk students should apply to
VUB projects. The proposed definition
of a veteran who has a high risk for
academic failure reflects the suggestions
of some of the non-Federal negotiators.
This proposed change is intended to
ensure that VUB projects help veterans
who can most benefit from the services
offered. Additionally, to ensure that
disabled veterans can benefit from the
educational services and activities the
VUB project provides, the VUB
definition would include individuals
who meet the proposed definition of an
individual with disabilities.
UB Required Services (§ 645.11)
Statute: Section 403(c) of the HEOA
amended sections 402C of HEA and
modified the required services or
activities for a UB grantee.
Current Regulations: Current § 645.11
does not reflect the changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: To conform
with the HEA, we are proposing to
amended the regulations to require that
UB grantees provide the following
services: (1) Academic tutoring to
enable students to complete secondary
or postsecondary courses, which may
include instruction in reading, writing,
study skills, mathematics, science, and
other subjects; (2) advice and assistance
in secondary and postsecondary course
selection; (3) assistance in preparing for
college entrance examinations and
completing college admission
applications; (4)(i) providing
information on the full range of Federal
student financial aid programs and
benefits (including Federal Pell Grant
awards and loan forgiveness) and
resources for locating public and private
scholarships; and (ii) assistance in
completing financial aid applications,
including the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid described in
section 483(e) of the HEA; (5) guidance
on and assistance in secondary school
reentry, alternative education programs
for secondary school dropouts that lead
to the receipt of a regular secondary
school diploma, entry into general
educational development (GED)
programs, or entry into postsecondary
education; and (6) education or
counseling services designed to improve
the financial literacy and economic
literacy of students or the student’s
parents, including financial planning for
postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing these
changes to align the regulations with
section 402C of the HEA as amended by
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
the HEOA. Prior to enactment of the
HEOA, UB grantees could choose
participants services from among a
number of permissible activities and
services. Section 403(c) of the HEOA,
however, amended the HEA to require
grantees to provide certain services. The
proposed amendments reflect the
statutory change.
UB and UBMS Permissible Services
(§ 645.12)
Statute: Section 403(c)(4) of the
HEOA amended section 402C(d) of the
HEA, which defines the permissible
services or activities in the UB program.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 645.11(b) specifies what services an
UB project may provide. This provision
does not reflect changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to reflect the changes made
by the HEOA and specify that UB and
UBMS grantees may provide the
following permissible services: (1)
Exposure to cultural events, academic
programs, and other activities not
usually available to disadvantaged
youth; (2) information, activities, and
instruction designed to acquaint youth
participating in the project with the
range of career options available to the
youth; (3) on-campus residential
programs; (4) mentoring programs
involving elementary school or
secondary school teachers or
counselors, faculty members at
institutions of higher education,
students, or any combination of these
persons; (5) work-study positions where
youth participating in the project are
exposed to careers requiring a
postsecondary degree; and (6) programs
and activities described in (1) through
(5) above and are specially designed for
participants who are limited English
proficient, participants from groups that
are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, participants
with disabilities, participants who are
homeless children and youths,
participants who are foster care youth,
or other disconnected participants.
Reasons: We are proposing these
changes to align the regulations with
section 402C(d) of the HEA as amended
by the HEOA. Prior to enactment of the
new law, projects funded under the UB
program could choose from among a
number of permissible activities and
services to provide participants. Section
403(c) of the HEOA, however, amended
section 402C of the HEA to require
grantees to provide certain services to
provide participants and gives grantees
the option of providing other services.
The proposed amendments would
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13841
reflect the statutory changes relating to
permissible services or activities.
VUB Permissible Services (§ 645.15)
Statute: Section 403(c) of the HEOA
amended section 402C of the HEA
governing the UB program which
defines the required and permissible
services or activities for VUB grantees.
Current Regulations: Current
regulations do not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to modify § 645.15 to specify
that VUB grantees may provide special
services, including mathematics and
science preparation, to enable veterans
to make the transition to postsecondary
education.
Reasons: We are proposing this
change to align the regulations with the
statutory amendment made by section
403(c) of the HEOA to section 402C of
the HEA.
Number of Applications (§ 645.20)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the number of applications an eligible
applicant may submit (§ 645.20) in the
Number of Applications an Eligible
Entity May Submit To Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations
section of the preamble.
Assurances (§ 645.21)
Statute: Section 403(c)(5) of the
HEOA amended section 402C(e) of the
HEA, which requires UB grantees to
provide certain assurances as part of the
application process. Prior to enactment
of the HEOA, a UB grantee had to
provide an assurance that all
participants in its project would be
either low-income or first-generation
college students with at least two-thirds
of the participants a being both lowincome and first-generation. The
remaining participants could be either
low-income individuals or firstgeneration college students. The HEOA
amended section 402C(e) of the HEA, to
modify this last group to include
individuals who are at high risk for
academic failure as a separate group of
eligible participants. The HEOA also
requires applicants to provide an
assurance that no student will be denied
participation in the applicant’s UB
project because the student entered the
project after completing the 9th grade.
Current Regulations: Current § 645.21
specifies what assurances an applicant
for a UB grant must include in an
application. This provision does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA
to the HEA.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13842
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend § 645.21 to include assurances
for each of the three project types: UB,
UBMS, and VUB. We are also proposing
to add a new provision that would
require that a UB grantee provide an
assurance that the project will not
provide participants the same services
they are receiving from other programs
serving similar populations.
An applicant for a regular UB grant
would have to provide assurances that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project’s participants will be lowincome individuals who are potential
first-generation college students;
(2) The remaining participants will be
low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration college students, or
individuals who have a high risk for
academic failure;
(3) No student will be denied
participation in a project because the
student will enter the project after the
9th grade;
(4) Individuals who are receiving
services from a GEAR UP project under
34 CFR part 694, another UB or UBMS
project under 34 CFR part 645, a TS
project under 34 CFR part 643, an EOC
project under 34 CFR part 644, or a
project under other programs serving
similar populations will not receive the
same services under the proposed
project.
An applicant for an UBMS grant
would have to provide assurances that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project’s participants will be lowincome individuals who are potential
first-generation college students;
(2) The remaining participants will be
either low-income individuals or
potential first-generation college
students; and
(3) No student will be denied
participation in a project because the
student would enter the project after the
9th grade; and
(4) Individuals who are receiving
services from a GEAR UP project under
34 CFR part 694, a regular UB or another
UBMS project under 34 CFR part 645,
a TS project under 34 CFR part 643,
EOC under 34 CFR part 644, or a project
under other programs serving similar
populations will not receive the same
services under the proposed project.
An applicant for a VUB grant must
have to provide assurances to the
Secretary that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project’s participants will be lowincome individuals who are potential
first-generation college students;
(2) The remaining participants will be
low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration college students, or veterans
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
who have a high risk for academic
failure; and
(3) Individuals who are receiving
services from another VUB project
under 34 CFR part 645, a TS project
under 34 CFR part 643, an EOC project
under 34 CFR part 644, or a project
under other programs serving similar
populations will not receive the same
services under the proposed project.
Reasons: The changes to the listing of
required assurances in § 645.21 are
needed to conform the regulations to the
changes made to the HEA. Also, to
ensure no duplication of services
between an UB project and other similar
programs, we are proposing that UB
grantees provide an assurance that they
will not provide the same service to a
participant also participating, as
applicable, in a project funded by GEAR
UP, UB, UBMS, VUB, TS, EOC, or other
programs serving similar populations.
Making New Grants (§ 645.30)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to consider,
when making Federal TRIO grants, each
applicant’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery under the
program for which funds are sought.
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now
identifies the specific outcome criteria
to be used to determine an entity’s PE
under the UB programs (see section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA). The HEA
does not establish specific procedures
for awarding PE points.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the
Secretary had the discretion to decide
whether or not to consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds. The
HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate
that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an
application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current § 645.30
specifies the procedures the Secretary
uses to make new grants. Section
645.30(a)(2) needs to be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary
will use to award PE points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 645.30 would be expanded to specify
the procedures the Secretary would use
to award PE points. We are proposing
that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an
applicant for each of three project years
as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points
for each of the three years for which the
annual performance report was
submitted. The average of the scores for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the three project years will be the final
PE score for the applicant.
We also propose to amend the
wording in § 645.30(d) to specify that
the Secretary will not make a new grant
to an applicant if the applicant’s prior
project involved the fraudulent use of
program funds.
Reasons: To provide more
transparency in the process the
Secretary will use to award PE points,
we are proposing to amend
§ 645.30(a)(2). We also are proposing to
amend § 645.30(d) to reflect the
statutory change that provides that the
Secretary may not consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds.
Selection Criteria (§ 645.31)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of
the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use
specific outcome criteria to measure the
performance of Federal TRIO grants,
including those funded under the UB
program. Specifically, pursuant to
section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA, the
Secretary must measure the
performance of UB grantees by
examining the extent to which the
grantee met or exceeded the grant’s
objectives (as established in the
grantee’s approved application)
regarding: (1) The delivery of service to
the total number of students served by
the program, as agreed upon by the
entity and the Secretary for the period;
(2) the students’ school performance, as
measured by the students’ grade point
average, or its equivalent; (3) the
students’ academic performance, as
measured by standardized tests,
including tests required by the students’
State; (4) the retention in, and
graduation from, secondary school of
the students; (5) the completion by these
students of a rigorous secondary school
program of study that will make these
students eligible for programs such as
the ACG; (6) the enrollment of the
students in an institution of higher
education; and, (7) to the extent
practicable, the postsecondary
education completion of the students.
These statutory changes necessitate a
change in the grant selection criteria for
‘‘Objectives’’ (§ 645.31(b)).
Further, section 402A(b) of the HEA,
as amended by section 403(a)(1) of the
HEOA, eliminated the ‘‘in exceptional
circumstances clause’’ that limited the
eligibility of secondary schools to apply
for grants. This statutory change
necessitates a change in the grant
selection criteria regarding ‘‘Applicant
and community support’’ (§ 645.31(d)).
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Current Regulations: Current § 645.31
specifies the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for an UB grant. This
provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA
applicable to the following selection
criteria: Objectives (§ 645.31(b)) and
Applicant and community support
(§ 645.31(d)).
Proposed Regulations (Objectives):
We are proposing to amend § 645.31(b)
to provide that, in evaluating UB grant
applications, the Secretary will consider
the quality of the applicant’s proposed
objectives and proposed targets
(percentages) on the basis of the extent
to which they are both ambitious and
attainable, given the project’s plan of
operation, budget, and other resources.
We propose to distribute nine points for
this criterion in the following manner
for UB and UBMS: (1) One point for
academic performance (GPA); (2) one
point for academic performance
(standardized test scores); (3) two points
for secondary school graduation (with
regular secondary school diploma); (4)
one point for completion of a rigorous
secondary school program of study; (5)
three points for postsecondary
enrollment; and (6) one point for
postsecondary completion.
For VUB, we propose to distribute
nine points for this criterion in the
following manner: (1) Two points for
academic performance (standardized
test scores); (2) three points for
education program retention and
completion; (3) three points for
postsecondary enrollment; and (4) one
point for postsecondary completion.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 645.31(b) to reflect the changes made
to section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding
the outcome criteria to be used to
measure the performance of the UB
program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory UB outcome criteria in
§ 645.31(b) as selection criteria because
we believe that the focus at the outset
of the UB discretionary grant process
(i.e., the evaluation of applications
using UB selection criteria) should be
on the ultimate outcomes the UB
program is intended to attain.
Moreover, during the grant period,
section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA requires
the Secretary to measure the
performance of the grant based on a
comparison of the targets agreed upon
for the outcome criteria established in
the applicant’s approved application to
the actual results achieved during each
year of the grant period. For this reason,
we believe it is appropriate to reflect the
outcome criteria from section
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA as the selection
criteria for the UB program.
Outcome criteria are also used to
evaluate an applicant’s PE and assign PE
points to an application. We discuss the
statutory authority, current regulations,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
changes to evaluating an applicant’s PE
in the Evaluating Prior Experience—
Outcome Criteria section of the
preamble.
Proposed Regulations (Applicant and
community support): We are proposing
to amend § 645.31(d)(2) to require
written commitments from institutions
of higher education, in addition to the
current requirement for written
commitments from schools and
community organizations, to provide
resources to supplement the grant and
enhance project services.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
the proposed changes to the Selection
Criteria—Applicant and Community
Support in the TS section of the
preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (§ 645.32)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the PE criteria in § 645.32 in the TRIO
Outcome Criteria—Prior Experience
section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (§ 645.33)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, increased the
minimum UB grant from $190,000 to
$200,000.
Current Regulations: Current § 645.33
specifies how the Secretary sets the
amount of a grant. This provision does
not reflect the changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the regulations to
reflect the statutory minimum grant
amount.
Reasons: We are proposing this
change to reflect the changes made to
section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA by the
HEOA.
Project Period (§ 645.34)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA, provides
that all UB grants are for five years.
Prior to the HEOA, UB grants were
awarded for four years, except for
applicants whose peer review scores
were in the highest 10 percent of the
scores of all applicants; these applicants
received five year grants.
Current Regulations: Current § 645.34
specifies the length of an UB project
period. This provision does not reflect
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13843
the change made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise the regulations to
define the project period under the UB
program as five years for all grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to
conform § 645.34 with section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA as amended by
the HEOA.
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
(§ 645.35)
We discuss the statutory authority,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
providing a new review process for
unsuccessful applicants in the Review
Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO
Program Applicants section of the
preamble.
Allowable Costs (§ 645.40)
Statute: The statute does not address
the use of UB program funds to
purchase equipment.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 645.40(n) requires a grantee to obtain
prior approval from the Secretary to
purchase computer and other
equipment.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise § 645.40(n),
redesignate § 645.40(o) as § 645.40(p),
and add a new § 645.45(o) to permit an
UB grantee, under certain
circumstances, to purchase, lease or rent
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment and supplies that support
the delivery of services to participants,
including technology used by
participants in a rigorous secondary
school program of study and for project
administration and recordkeeping
without requiring prior approval from
the Department.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
permitting an UB grantee to purchase,
lease, or rent computer equipment
without prior approval in the Changes
to the Allowable Costs section of the TS
preamble.
Stipends (§ 645.42)
Statute: Section 403(c)(6) of the
HEOA amended section 402C(f) of the
HEA regarding the payment of stipends
to UB project participants. The HEOA
amended the HEA by deleting the words
‘‘during June, July, and August’’ and
replacing them with ‘‘during the
summer school recess, for a period not
to exceed three months.’’
Current Regulations: Current § 645.42
specifies the terms of the payment of
stipends in the UB program. This
provision does not reflect changes made
by the HEOA to the HEA.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13844
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend the current regulations to state
that the stipend may not exceed $60 per
month for the summer school recess for
a period not to exceed three months
except for participants in a work-study
position who may be paid $300 per
month during the summer recess.
Reasons: The proposed change would
amend the regulations to reflect the
change to section 402C(f) of the HEA by
section 403(c)(6) of the HEOA.
Other Requirements of a Grantee
(§ 645.43)
In these proposed regulations, current
§ 645.43(a) and (b) would be removed, a
new § 645.43(a) would be added, and
§ 645.43(c) would be redesignated as
§ 645.43(b).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Changes to Number of Participants
(Current § 645.43(a) Would Be
Removed)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
establishes a minimum grant of
$200,000 for UB. The HEA does not
establish a minimum number of
participants a UB project must serve.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 645.43(a)(1) and (2) require a regular
UB project to serve between 50 and 150
participants; a UBMS project to serve
between 50 and 75 participants; and a
VUB project to serve a minimum of 120
participants. Current § 645.43(a)(3) gives
the Secretary the authority to waive the
number of participant requirements if
the applicant demonstrates that the
project will be more cost effective and
consistent with the objectives of the
program if a greater or lesser number of
participants will be served.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
remove current § 645.43(a).
Reasons: We are proposing to remove
from the regulations the requirement
that UB grantees serve a minimum
number of participants to give the
Department the flexibility to establish
the number of participants to be served
based on the available resources for
each competition and to adjust these
numbers for subsequent competitions
based on experience, changing
priorities, and cost analyses.
We plan to stipulate the minimum
and maximum grant award amounts and
address the number of participants a UB
project is expected to serve each year of
the grant cycle through the Federal
Register notice inviting applications for
the competition. The Federal Register
notice would also establish a per
participant cost to be used to determine
the amount of the grant for an applicant
proposing to serve fewer participants
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
than required for the minimum grant
award for the competition.
Changes to Full-Time Director
Requirement (New § 645.43(a))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the
HEA requires that the Secretary permit
the Director of a Federal TRIO program
to administer one or more additional
programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 645.43(b) requires a grantee to employ
a full-time project director unless the
grantee requests a waiver.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
add a new § 645.43(a), that would
include some of the provisions in
current § 645.43(b), but would eliminate
the requirement for a waiver if a project
director is administering one or two
programs for disadvantaged students. A
grantee would not need a waiver from
the Secretary to have a director that is
less than full-time on the project if the
director is also administering one or two
additional programs for disadvantaged
students. A grantee would be required
to request a waiver of the full-time
director requirement for the director to
administer more than three programs.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
permitting the Director of a Federal
TRIO program to administer one or
more additional programs for
disadvantaged students in the Changes
to Full-Time Director Requirement in
the TS section of the preamble.
Student Support Services (SSS), 34 CFR
Part 646
SSS Program Purpose (§ 646.1)
Statute: Section 403(d)(1) of the
HEOA amended section 402D(a) of the
HEA, and modified the purpose of the
SSS program.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 646.1(c) does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend § 646.1(c) and add paragraph (d)
as follows:
(c) Foster an institutional climate
supportive of the success of students
who are limited English proficient,
students from groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, students with
disabilities, students who are homeless
children and youth, students who are in
foster care or are aging out of the foster
care system, or other disconnected
students; and
(d) Improve the financial literacy and
economic literacy of students in areas
such as—
(1) Basic personal income, household
money management, and financial
planning skills; and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Basic economic decision-making
skills.
Reasons: The proposed changes are
necessary to conform the regulations to
section 402D(a)(3) of the HEA.
Required and Permissible Services
(§ 646.4)
Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA
amended section 402D of the HEA to
require SSS grantees to provide certain
services and to permit them to offer
other permissible services.
Current Regulations: Current § 646.4
specifies what services a SSS grantee
may provide. Prior to the changes made
by the HEOA, SSS grantees could
choose from among a number of
permissible activities and services to
provide participants. The current
regulations do not identify any required
services or activities that an SSS grantee
must provide.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would revise § 646.4 to
reflect the required and permissible
services or activities for SSS grantees
under the HEA.
Consistent with section 402D of the
HEA, proposed § 646.4 would require
that SSS projects provide the following
services and activities: (1) Academic
tutoring, directly or through other
services provided by the institution, to
enable students to complete
postsecondary courses, which may
include instruction in reading, writing,
study skills, mathematics, science, and
other subjects; (2) advice and assistance
in postsecondary course selection; (3)(i)
information on both the full range of
Federal student financial aid programs
and benefits (including Federal Pell
Grant awards and loan forgiveness) and
resources for locating public and private
scholarships, and (ii) assistance in
completing financial aid applications,
including the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid; (4) education or
counseling services designed to improve
financial literacy and economic literacy
of students, including financial
planning for postsecondary education;
(5) activities designed to assist students
participating in the project in applying
for admission to, and obtaining financial
assistance for enrollment in, graduate
and professional programs; and (6)
activities designed to assist students
enrolled in two-year institutions of
higher education in applying for
admission to, and obtaining financial
assistance for enrollment in, a four-year
program of postsecondary education.
The proposed regulations would
specify the following permissible
services or activities for SSS projects: (1)
individualized counseling for personal,
career, and academic matters provided
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
by assigned counselors; (2) information,
activities, and instruction designed to
acquaint students participating in the
project with the range of career options
available to the students; (3) exposure to
cultural events and academic programs
not usually available to disadvantaged
students; (4) mentoring programs
involving faculty or upper class
students, or a combination thereof; (5)
securing temporary housing during
breaks in the academic year for students
who are homeless children and youths
(as that term is defined in section 725
of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 1134a)) or
were formerly homeless children and
youths, and students who are in foster
care or are aging out of the foster care
system; and (6) programs and activities
described in items (1) through (5) above
that are specially designed for students
who are limited English proficient,
students from groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, students who
are individuals with disabilities,
students who are homeless children and
youths, students who are foster care
youth, or other disconnected students.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
§ 646.4 to conform to changes made by
the HEOA.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Project Period (§ 646.5)
Statute: Section 403a(1)(B)(i) of the
HEOA amended the HEA to provide that
all SSS grants are for five years. Prior to
enactment of the HEOA, SSS grants
were awarded for four years, except for
applicants whose peer review scores are
in the highest ten percent of the scores
of all applicants. Applicants with peer
review scores in the highest ten percent
of all applicants receive five-year grants.
Current Regulations: Current § 646.5
specifies the length of an SSS project
period. This provision does not reflect
the change made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise § 646.5 to define the
project period as five years for all
grantees.
Reasons: The proposed changes are
necessary to conform to section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by
the HEOA.
Applicable Regulations (§ 646.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 646.6
specifies which regulations apply to the
SSS program. This provision contains
an outdated list of applicable
regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the SSS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
program. We also propose to exclude
§§ 75.215 to 75.221 from the list of
applicable regulations.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
the changes elsewhere in this preamble
under the Applicable Regulations
heading for the Training program.
Definitions (§ 646.7)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the definition of institution of higher
education and individual with
disabilities and for the addition of
different campus, different population,
financial and economic literacy, foster
care youth, and homeless children and
youth in the Definitions Applicable to
More Than One Federal TRIO Program
section of the preamble. In addition, we
propose to include definitions of the
terms low-income individual and first
generation college student.
Statute: Section 402A(h) of the HEA
includes definitions of the terms ‘‘lowincome individual’’ and ‘‘first generation
college student.’’
Current Regulations: Section 646.7(a)
currently includes cross-references to
statutory definitions of low-income
individual and first-generation college
student, but does not include those
definitions. Current § 646.7(b) includes
a list of the terms used in Part 646 that
are defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Current
§ 646.7(c) defines certain terms, some of
which apply to all of the Federal TRIO
programs, and some that are specific to
the SSS program.
Proposed Regulations: Current
§ 646.7(a), which includes references to
terms defined in the HEA, would be
removed, and the definitions of the
terms currently listed in § 646.7(a)
would be included in proposed
§ 646.7(c). Current § 646.7(b) would be
redesignated as § 646.7(a) and would
include the list of terms defined in 34
CFR 77.1 that apply to the SSS program.
Finally, current § 646.7(c) would be
redesignated as § 646.7(b), and would
include definitions of terms that apply
to the SSS program, some of which
apply to all the Federal TRIO programs,
as discussed elsewhere in this preamble.
We also propose to add the definitions
of low-income individual and firstgeneration college student to § 646.7(c).
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
§ 646.7 and add the definitions for lowincome individual and a first-generation
college student to provide for
consistency across the regulations for
the Federal TRIO programs.
Number of Applications (§ 646.10)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13845
regulations, and reasons for modifying
§ 646.10 in the Number of Applications
an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve
Different Campuses and Different
Populations section of the preamble.
Assurances (§ 646.11) (Title To Be
Changed to: ‘‘What Assurances and
Other Information Must an Applicant
Include in an Application?’’)
Statute: Under section 402D(e) of the
HEA as amended by the HEOA, the
Secretary, in approving applications,
shall consider an SSS applicant’s past
history in providing sufficient financial
assistance to meet the full financial
need of each student in the project and
maintaining loan burden of each student
at a manageable level. Prior to this
amendment section 402D(e) of the HEA
specified certain assurances that an
applicant must provide to the Secretary.
Current Regulations: Section 646.11
does not reflect the statutory
requirement that an applicant provide
information on its efforts in providing
sufficient financial assistance to meet
the full financial need of each student
in the project and maintaining the loan
burden of each student at a manageable
level.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 646.11 would require an applicant to
describe, in its application, its efforts,
and where applicable, its past history,
in providing sufficient financial
assistance to meet the full financial
need of each student in the project and
maintaining the loan burden of each
student at a manageable level. In
addition, we propose to change the
section heading to ‘‘What assurances
and other information must an applicant
include in an application?’’
Reasons: The proposed changes are
necessary to reflect statutory
requirements. We are proposing the
change to the heading for § 646.11 to
include a reference to ‘‘other
information’’ because the proposed
regulations would require an applicant
to include information that is not an
assurance.
Making New Grants (§ 646.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to consider,
when making Federal TRIO grants, each
applicant’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery under the
program for which funds are sought.
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now
identifies the specific outcome criteria
to be used to determine an entity’s PE
under the SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C)
of the HEA). The HEA does not establish
specific procedures for awarding PE
points.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13846
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the
Secretary had the discretion to decide
whether or not to consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds. The
HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate
that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an
application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current § 646.20
specifies the procedures the Secretary
uses to make new grants. Section
645.30(a)(2) needs to be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary
will use to award PE points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 646.20 would be expanded to specify
the procedures the Secretary would use
to award PE points. We are proposing
that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an
applicant for each of three project years
as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points
for each of the three years for which the
annual performance report was
submitted; the average of the scores for
the three project years will be the final
PE score for the applicant.
We also propose to amend § 646.20(d)
to specify that the Secretary will not
make a new grant to an applicant if the
applicant’s prior project involved the
fraudulent use of program funds.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 646.20(a)(2) to provide more
transparency in the process the
Secretary will use to award PE points.
We are also proposing to modify
§ 646.20(d) to be consistent with the
language used for similar provisions in
the proposed regulations for the other
Federal TRIO programs.
Selection Criteria (§ 646.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a) of
the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use
specific outcome criteria to measure the
performance of Federal TRIO grantees,
including grantees who receive funding
under the SSS program. Specifically,
pursuant to section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the
HEA, the Secretary must measure the
performance of SSS grantees by
examining the extent to which the
grantee met or exceeded the grant’s
objectives (as established in the
grantee’s approved application)
concerning: (1) The delivery of service
to the total number of students served,
as agreed upon by the entity and the
Secretary for the period; (2) retention in
postsecondary education of the students
served by the SSS project; (3) students
served by the SSS project who remain
in good academic standing; and (4)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
completion of postsecondary education
degrees or certificates, and transfer to
institutions of higher education that
offer baccalaureate degrees of project
participants. These statutory changes
necessitate changes to § 646.21(b).
Current Regulations: Current § 646.21
specifies the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a SSS grant. The
regulations do not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 646.21(b) to
provide that, in evaluating SSS grant
applications, the Secretary will consider
the quality of the applicant’s proposed
objectives on the basis of the extent to
which they are both ambitious and
attainable, given the project’s plan of
operation, budget, and other resources.
We propose to distribute eight points for
this criterion in the following manner:
(1) Three points for retention in
postsecondary education; (2) two points
for students in good academic standing
at the grantee institution; (3) for twoyear institutions only: (a) one point for
certificate or degree completion; and (b)
two points for certificate or degree
completion and transfer to a four-year
institution; or (4) for four year
institutions only, three points for
completion of a baccalaureate degree.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 646.21(b) to reflect the changes made
to section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA by
section 403(a) of the HEOA regarding
the outcome criteria to be used to
measure performance of the SSS
program. We are proposing to reflect the
revised SSS outcome criteria in
§ 646.21(b) as selection criteria because
we believe that the focus at the outset
of the SSS discretionary grant process
(i.e., the evaluation of applications
using SSS selection criteria) should be
on the ultimate outcomes the SSS
program is designed to attain.
Moreover, section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to measure
the performance of the grantee based on
a comparison of the targets agreed upon
for the outcome criteria established in
the applicant’s approved application to
the actual results achieved during the
grant period. For this reason, we believe
it is appropriate to reflect the outcome
criteria from section 402A(f))(3)(C) of
the HEA in the selection criteria for the
SSS program.
Outcome criteria are also used to
evaluate an applicant’s PE and assign PE
points to an application. We discuss the
statutory authority, current regulations,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
changes to evaluating an applicant’s PE
in the Evaluating Prior Experience—
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Outcome Criteria section of the
preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (§ 646.22)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the SSS PE criteria in the TRIO
Outcome Criteria—Prior Experience
section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (§ 646.23)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(1) of
the HEOA, increased the minimum SSS
grant from $170,000 to $200,000.
Current Regulations: Current § 646.23
specifies how the Secretary sets the
amount of a grant. This provision does
not reflect the changes made by the
HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend the regulations to
update the statutory minimum grant
amount to $200,000.
Reasons: We are proposing this
change to reflect the change made by the
HEOA.
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
(§ 646.24)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons adding a new
review process for unsuccessful
applicants in the Review Process for
Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program
Applicants section of the preamble.
Allowable and Unallowable Costs
(§§ 646.30 and 646.31)
Statute: The HEOA amended section
402D(d)(1) of the HEA to allow a
recipient of an SSS grant that
undertakes any of the permissible
services in section 402D(c) to use its
grant funds to provide grant aid to
students under certain circumstances.
Further, the HEOA amended section
402D(c)(5) of the HEA to include, in the
list of permissible services in the SSS
program, securing temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year for
participants who are homeless, or were
formerly homeless, or who are in foster
care. The statute does not address the
use of grant funds to purchase
computers and other equipment.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 646.30(f) does not reflect the new
statutory provisions. Current § 646.30(f)
requires a grantee to obtain prior
approval from the Secretary to use grant
funds to purchase computers and other
equipment. Current § 646.31(b)
prohibits the use of program funds for
tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of direct financial support for staff and
participants.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 646.30 by revising
paragraph (f) to include as an allowable
cost the purchase, lease or rental of
computer hardware for participant
development, project administration,
and recordkeeping without requiring
prior approval by the Secretary. We are
also proposing to add as allowable costs
the use of SSS funds for grant aid in a
new paragraph (i) and to pay the costs
of temporary housing for homeless and
foster care youth in a new paragraph (j).
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
permitting a SSS project to purchase
computer equipment without prior
approval from the Secretary in the
Changes to the Allowable Costs section
of the TS preamble.
The HEOA placed significant
emphasis on the need for SSS grantees
to provide services for homeless and
foster care youth to help eliminate the
barriers these students face in pursuing
their educational goals. In addition,
because securing temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year for
participants who are homeless, or were
formerly homeless, or who are in foster
care is now included in the list of
permissible services in section
402D(c)(5) of the HEA, we believe that
the use of SSS funds for these purposes
should be included as an allowable cost.
The proposed change to allow grant
funds to be used for grant aid for
participants is to conform the
regulations to the statute.
Other Requirements of a Grantee
(§ 646.32)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Changes to Full-Time Director
Requirement (§ 646.32(c))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the
HEA requires that the Secretary permit
the Director of a Federal TRIO program
to administer one or more additional
programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 646.32(c) requires a grantee to employ
a full-time project director unless the
grantee requests a waiver to allow the
Director to administer more than one
program for disadvantaged students.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend § 646.32(c) to eliminate the
requirement for a waiver if a Director is
administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students. A
grantee must request a waiver of the
full-time director requirement for the
Director to administer more than three
programs.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
permitting the Director of a Federal
TRIO program to administer one or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
more additional programs for
disadvantaged students in the Changes
to Full-Time Director Requirement in
the TS section of the preamble.
Matching Requirements for Grant Aid
(§ 646.33)
Statute: Section 402D(d)(1) of the
HEA permits a grantee to use SSS funds
to provide grant aid to students who
meet the requirements in section
402D(d)(2) and (3) of the HEA. Section
402D(d)(4) of the HEA stipulates that
grantees that use program funds for
grant aid must provide a non-Federal
match, in cash, of not less than 33
percent of the Federal funds used for
grant aid. A grant recipient that is an
institution of higher education eligible
to receive funds under part A or part B
of title III of the HEA or under title V
of the HEA, is not required to match the
Federal funds used for grant aid. Section
402D(d)(5) limits the percentage of SSS
program funds that may be used for
grant aid to no more than 20 percent of
the SSS funds.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
add a new § 646.33 that would specify
the statutory matching and other
requirements for a grantee that uses SSS
funds for grant aid.
Reasons: These changes are necessary
to reflect statutory changes.
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate
Achievement (McNair) Program, 34
CFR Part 647
Required and Permissible Services
(§ 647.4)
Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA
amended section 402E of the HEA to
require McNair grantees to provide
certain services that were previously
permissible and by adding a new list of
permissible services.
Current Regulations: Current § 647.4
includes a list of permissible services
under the program.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent
with section 402E(b) of the HEA,
proposed § 647.4(a) would require that
McNair grantees provide: (1)
Opportunities for research or other
scholarly activities at the grantee
institution or at graduate centers that are
designed to provide students with
effective preparation for doctoral study;
(2) summer internships; (3) seminars
and other educational activities
designed to prepare students for
doctoral study; (4) tutoring; (5)
academic counseling; and (6) assistance
to students in securing admission to,
and financial assistance for, enrollment
in graduate programs.
Consistent with section 402E(c) of the
HEA, proposed § 647.4(b) would specify
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13847
that the following are permissible
services or activities for McNair
grantees: (1) Education or counseling
services designed to improve the
financial literacy and economic literacy
of students, including financial
planning for postsecondary education;
(2) mentoring programs involving
faculty members at institutions of higher
education, students, or a combination of
faculty members and students; and (3)
exposure to cultural events and
academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
Reasons: We are proposing these
changes to align the regulations with the
statutory amendments made by section
403(b) of the HEOA to section 402E(b)
and (c) of the HEA.
Project Period (§ 647.5)
Statute: Section 403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the
HEOA amended section 402A(b)(2) of
the HEA to provide that all grants under
the McNair program will be for five
years. Prior to enactment of the HEOA,
McNair grants were awarded for four
years except for applications that score
in the highest ten percent of all
applications approved for new grants,
which are for five years.
Current Regulations: Current § 647.5
specifies the length of a McNair project
period. This provision does not reflect
the change made by the HEOA to the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 647.5 would reflect the statutory
change that establishes the project
period as five years for all grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to
conform to section 402A(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Applicable Regulations (§ 647.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 647.6
specifies which regulations apply to the
McNair program. This provision
contains an outdated list of regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the McNair
program. We also propose to exclude
sections 75.215 to 75.221 from the list
of applicable regulations.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for
these changes in the Applicable
Regulations for the Training program
section of the preamble.
Definitions (§ 647.7)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the definition of institution of higher
education and for the addition of
different campus, different population,
and financial and economic literacy, in
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13848
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the Definitions Applicable to More Than
One Federal TRIO Program section of
the preamble.
We are also proposing to revise the
definitions for three additional terms
that are applicable only to the McNair
program: graduate center; groups
underrepresented in graduate school;
and research or scholarly activity.
Graduate Center
Statute: Sections 101 and 102 of the
HEA define the term institution of
higher education.
Current Regulations: The definition of
graduate center in current § 647.7(b)
includes outdated statutory citations to
the definition of an educational
institution.
Proposed Regulations: The definition
of graduate center in § 647.7 would be
revised to reference the definitions
provided in sections 101 and 102 of the
HEA.
Reasons: This proposed change is
necessary to correct incorrect crossreferences.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Groups Underrepresented in Graduate
School
Statute: Section 402E(d)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
specifically identifies Alaska Natives,
Native Hawaiians, and Native American
Pacific Islanders as groups
underrepresented in graduate education.
Current Regulations: The definition of
groups underrepresented in graduate
school in current § 647.7(b) includes
Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, and
American Indian/Alaskan Native.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to modify § 647.7(b) to add
Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and
Native American Pacific Islanders to the
list of groups underrepresented in
graduate education. Consistent with
section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA, the
proposed definition would reference the
definition of Alaska Native in section
7306 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA), the definition of Native
Hawaiians in section 7207 of the ESEA,
and the definition of Native American
Pacific Islanders as defined in section
320 of the HEA.
Reasons: The changes are necessary to
conform to statutory changes.
Research or Scholarly Activity
Statute: Section 402E(b) of the HEA
requires McNair grantees to provide
opportunities for students to participate
in research and other scholarly activities
at the institution or at graduate centers
designed to provide students with
effective preparation for doctoral study.
Section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, which
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
includes the outcome criteria for the
McNair program, also refers to the
provision of appropriate scholarly
research activities for students served by
the McNair program.
Current Regulations: The term
research and scholarly activities is not
defined in current § 647.7.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 647.7 would define research and
scholarly activity as an educational
activity that is more rigorous than is
typically available to undergraduates in
a classroom setting, that is definitive in
its start and end dates, contains
appropriate benchmarks for completion
of various components, and is
conducted under the guidance of an
appropriate faculty member with
experience in the relevant discipline.
Reasons: We are proposing the
addition of the definition of research
and scholarly activity to provide for a
clear and consistent understanding of
the term. Because the term is used in the
outcome criteria that will be used to
evaluate a grantee’s performance under
the McNair program, it is important that
grantees understand what constitutes
research and scholarly activities. The
proposed definition is similar to the one
currently used in the McNair annual
performance report and the McNair
grant application package.
Number of Applications (§ 647.10)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the number of applications that an
entity can submit under the McNair
program in the Number of Applications
an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve
Different Campuses and Different
Populations section of the preamble.
Making New Grants (§ 647.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to consider,
when making Federal TRIO grants, each
applicant’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery under the
program for which funds are sought.
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now
identifies the specific outcome criteria
to be used to determine an entity’s PE
under the McNair program (see section
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA). The HEA
does not establish specific procedures
for awarding PE points.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the
Secretary had the discretion to decide
whether or not to consider an
application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds. The
HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate
that discretion and prohibit the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Secretary from considering an
application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current § 647.20
specifies the procedures the Secretary
uses to make new grants. Section
647.20(a)(2) needs to be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary
will use to award PE points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 647.20 would be expanded to specify
the procedures the Secretary would use
to award PE points. We are proposing
that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an
applicant for each of the three project
years as designated by the Secretary in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points
for each of the three years for which the
annual performance report was
submitted. The average of the scores for
the three project years will be the final
PE score for the applicant.
We also propose to amend the
wording in § 647.20(d) to specify that
the Secretary will not make a new grant
to an applicant if the applicant’s prior
project involved the fraudulent use of
program funds.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 647.20(a)(2) to provide more
transparency in the process the
Secretary will use to award PE points.
We also are proposing to amend
§ 647.20(d) to reflect the statutory
change that provides that the Secretary
may not consider an application from an
applicant that carried out a project
involving the fraudulent use of program
funds.
Selection Criteria (§ 647.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the
HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of
the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use
specific outcome criteria to measure the
performance of Federal TRIO grants,
including those under the McNair
program. Specifically, pursuant to
section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, the
Secretary must measure the
performance of McNair grantees by
examining the extent to which the
grantee met or exceeded the grant’s
objectives (as established in the
grantee’s approved application)
regarding: (1) The delivery of service to
the total number of students served by
the program, as agreed upon by the
entity and the Secretary for the period;
(2) the provision of appropriate
scholarly and research activities for the
students served by the program; (3) the
acceptance and enrollment of these
students in graduate programs; and (4)
the continued enrollment of such
students in graduate study and the
attainment of doctoral degrees by former
program participants. These statutory
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
changes necessitate a change in the
grant selection criteria for ‘‘Objectives’’
(§ 647.21(b)).
Current Regulations (Objectives):
Current § 647.21 specifies the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a McNair grant. This
regulation does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to amend § 647.21(b) to
provide that, in evaluating McNair
applications, the Secretary considers the
quality of the applicant’s proposed
objectives on the basis of the extent to
which they are both ambitious and
attainable, given the project’s plan of
operation, budget, and other resources.
We propose to distribute nine points in
the following manner: (1) Two points
for research; (2) three points for
enrollment in a graduate program; (3)
two points for continued enrollment in
graduate study; and (4) two points for
doctoral degree attainment.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend
§ 647.21(b) to reflect the changes made
to section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding
the outcome criteria to be used to
measure performance of the McNair
program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory McNair outcome criteria in
§ 647.21(b) in the selection criteria
because we believe that the focus at the
outset of the McNair discretionary grant
process (i.e., evaluating applications
using McNair selection criteria) should
reflect the ultimate outcomes the
McNair program is designed to attain.
Moreover, section 402A(f)(4) of the
HEA requires the Secretary to measure
the performance of the grantee during
the grant period based on a comparison
of the targets agreed upon for the
outcome criteria established in the
applicant’s approved application to the
actual results achieved during the grant
period. For this reason, we believe it is
appropriate to reflect the outcome
criteria from section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the
HEA in the selection criteria for the
McNair program.
Outcome criteria are also used to
evaluate an applicant’s PE and assign PE
points to an application. We discuss the
statutory authority, current regulations,
proposed regulations, and reasons for
changes to evaluating an applicant’s PE
in the Evaluating Prior Experience—
Outcome Criteria section of the
preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (§ 647.22)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to
the PE criteria under the McNair
program in the TRIO Outcome Criteria—
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Prior Experience section of this
preamble.
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
(§ 647.24)
We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for adding a
review process for unsuccessful TRIO
applicants under the McNair program in
the Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
section of this preamble.
Allowable Costs (§ 647.30)
Statute: Section 402E(f) of the HEA
provides that students participating in
research under a McNair project may
receive an award that includes a stipend
not to exceed $2,800 per year. The
statute does not address the use of grant
funds to purchase equipment.
Current Regulations: Under current
§ 647.30(b) of the regulations the
maximum stipend for students
participating in research is $2,400.
Current § 647.30(d) of the regulations
requires a grantee to obtain approval
from the Secretary to use McNair funds
to purchase computer and other
equipment.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to increase the maximum
stipend amount in § 647.30(b) to $2,800.
We also are proposing to revise
paragraph (d) to allow grantees to use
grant funds for the purchase, lease, or
rental of computer hardware for
participant development, project
administration, and recordkeeping
without prior approval from the
Secretary.
Reasons: The change in the maximum
stipend amount is necessary to conform
to the statute. We discuss the reasons for
permitting a McNair project to purchase
computer equipment without prior
approval in the Changes to the
Allowable Costs section of the TS
preamble.
Part 694—Gaining Early Awareness
and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR UP)
Funding Rules
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.1
describes how the Secretary calculates
the maximum amount that the Secretary
may award each fiscal year to a
Partnership or a State under the GEAR
UP program.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department proposes to amend current
§ 694.1 to clarify that the Secretary may
establish in a notice published in the
Federal Register the maximum amount
that may be awarded for each fiscal year
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13849
to any GEAR UP Partnership grantee.
Although the Secretary already has the
authority to set a maximum award for a
grant under 34 CFR 75.101(a)(2) and
75.104 of the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR), the proposed provision would
provide explicit regulatory authority for
the Secretary to set a maximum award
for GEAR UP Partnership grants. Under
current § 694.1, the Secretary already
sets a maximum award for State GEAR
UP grants by publication of a notice in
the Federal Register.
Proposed § 694.1(a) would also
specify that the maximum amount for
which a Partnership may apply may not
exceed the lesser of the maximum
amount established by the Secretary, if
applicable, or, as in § 694.1(a) as
currently exists, the amount calculated
by multiplying $800 by the number of
students the Partnership proposes to
serve that year, as stated in the
Partnership’s plan.
Reasons: Although the Secretary
already has the authority to set a
maximum award for GEAR UP
Partnership grants under 34 CFR
75.101(a)(2) and 75.104, the proposed
changes to § 694.1(a) would provide
explicit regulatory authority for the
Secretary to set a maximum award for
GEAR UP Partnership grants. Our
proposal would apprise the public of
the Secretary’s authority in this area by
having § 694.1 address establishment of
a maximum award for both State grants
and Partnership grants.
We propose to keep the $800 per
student cap in § 694.1(a), because
regardless of whether the Secretary
decides to set a maximum Partnership
award through a notice published in the
Federal Register, we believe that it is
important to ensure that the amount of
a grant is proportionate to the number
of students served and that excessive
costs are discouraged. The $800 per
student cap has proven to be sufficient
for current GEAR UP Partnership
grantees, and its retention ensures some
consistency across grants with regard to
the intensity of services provided to
students.
Changes in the Cohort
Statute: Sections 404B(d) and
404C(a)(2)(F) of the HEA, as amended,
address the cohort approach but do not
specify which students a State or
Partnership must serve when there are
changes in the cohort.
Section 404B(d) of the HEA continues
to provide that, under the cohort
approach, Partnership grantees must
provide services to (1) at least one grade
level of students, beginning not later
than seventh grade, in a participating
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13850
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
school that has a seventh grade and in
which at least 50 percent of the students
enrolled are eligible for free or reducedprice lunch under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act or,
(2) if a State or a Partnership determines
that it would promote the effectiveness
of a program, an entire grade level of
students, beginning not later than
seventh grade, who reside in public
housing as defined in section 3(b)(1) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937.
Under section 404C(a)(2)(F) of the HEA,
as amended by section 404(c)(2) of the
HEOA, a State that chooses to use a
cohort approach or a Partnership must
include in its application a description
of how it will define the cohorts of
students to be served, and how it will
serve the cohorts through grade 12.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.4
describes which students a State or
Partnership must serve when there are
changes in the cohort. Specifically, if
not all of the students in the cohort
attend the same school after the cohort
completes the last grade level offered by
the school at which the cohort began to
receive GEAR UP services, it requires a
State or a Partnership to continue to
provide GEAR UP services to at least
those students in the cohort who attend
participating schools that enroll a
substantial majority of the students in
the cohort.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to amend
§ 694.4 to provide that if not all students
in the cohort attend the same school
after the cohort completes the last grade
level offered by the school at which the
cohort began to receive GEAR UP
services, a Partnership or a State must
continue to provide GEAR UP services
to at least those students in the cohort
who attend one or more participating
schools that together enroll a substantial
majority of the students in the cohort.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
current § 694.4 in this manner in
response to a request by the non-Federal
negotiators to clarify who a grantee must
serve if not all students in the cohort
attend the same school after the cohort
completes the last grade level offered by
the school at which the cohort began to
receive GEAR UP services.
Changes to Matching Requirements
Statute: Section 404C(b)(1) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(c)(3) of
the HEOA, changes the GEAR UP
matching requirement by permitting a
GEAR UP grantee’s required matching
funds from State, local, institutional or
private funds to be accrued over the full
duration of the grant award period
provided that the grantee makes
‘‘substantial progress’’ towards meeting
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
the matching requirement in each year
of the grant award period.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.7
is the regulatory provision addressing
matching fund requirements and it does
not reflect changes made to the HEA by
the HEOA. Current § 694.7(a)(2) requires
that the Partnership comply with the
matching percentage stated in its
application for each year of the project
period. In addition, § 694.7(b)(2)
contains authority for a Partnership
with three or fewer IHEs as members to
have a matching requirement of 30 to 50
percent of total project costs.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 694.7(a)(2) would require that a GEAR
UP grantee make substantial progress
towards meeting the matching
percentage stated in its approved
application for each year of the project
period. We would remove the provision
regarding reduction of the match
requirement for Partnerships with three
or fewer IHEs from current § 694.7(b),
and address both reduction and waiver
of the matching requirement in new
proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9.
Reasons: The Department proposes to
amend § 694.7 and to address reduction
and waiver of the matching requirement
in new proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9 to
more closely align these regulations
with the corresponding matching
requirements in the HEA, and to ensure
that the regulations are clear and
understandable to the public. The
following section entitled Waiver of
Matching Requirements discusses, in
more detail, the statutory basis and
rationale for the Department’s proposal
to add new §§ 694.8 and 694.9.
Waiver of Matching Requirements
Statute: Section 404C(b)(2) of the
HEA, prior to the enactment of the
HEOA, allowed the Secretary to modify,
by regulation, the matching requirement
applicable to a Partnership. Section
404C(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by
section 404(c)(3)(C) of the HEOA,
retains this provision and also
authorizes the Secretary to approve the
following types of requests for reduction
to the matching requirement: (1)
Requests made at the time of an
application, if the applicant
demonstrates a significant economic
hardship that precludes it from meeting
the matching requirement, (2) requests
made at the time of application by a
Partnership applicant to count
contributions to scholarship funds
established under section 404E of the
HEA on a two-to-one basis, and (3)
requests made by a grantee
demonstrating that the matching funds
identified in its approved application
are no longer available, and the grantee
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
has exhausted all revenues for replacing
these matching funds.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 694.7(b)(2) specifies the circumstances
under which the Department permits an
eligible Partnership grantee to reduce its
obligation to match funds to less than 50
percent of the total cost over the project
period. It does not reflect changes made
to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA by the
HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: As discussed
in the previous section, the Department
proposes to remove paragraph (b)(2)
from current § 694.7. The Department
also proposes to add new § 694.8 (Under
what conditions may the Secretary
approve a request from a Partnership
applying for a GEAR UP grant to waive
a portion of the matching requirement?).
Proposed § 694.8(a) would provide that
the Secretary may approve a Partnership
applicant’s request for a waiver of up to
75 percent of the matching requirement
for up to two years if the applicant
demonstrates in its application a
significant economic hardship that
stems from a specific, exceptional, or
uncontrollable event, such as a natural
disaster, that has a devastating effect on
the members of the Partnership and the
community in which the project would
operate. For purposes of this preamble,
we refer to this waiver as the ‘‘75
Percent Waiver.’’
Proposed § 694.8(b) would provide
that the Secretary may approve a
Partnership applicant’s request to waive
up to 50 percent of the matching
requirement for up to two years if the
applicant demonstrates in its
application a pre-existing and an ongoing significant economic hardship
that precludes the applicant from
meeting its matching requirement. For
purposes of this preamble, we refer to
this waiver as the ‘‘50 Percent Waiver.’’
Proposed § 694.8(b)(2) would specify
that in determining whether an
applicant is experiencing an on-going
economic hardship that is significant
enough to justify a 50 Percent Waiver,
the Secretary considers documentation
of applicable factors and lists examples
of these factors. Proposed § 694.8(b)(3)
would state that, at the time of
application, the Secretary may provide
tentative approval of an applicant’s
request for a 50 Percent Waiver for all
remaining years of the project period.
This proposed section would specify
that grantees that receive tentative
approval of a 50 Percent Waiver for
more than two years under § 694.8(b)(3)
must submit to the Secretary every two
years, by such time as the Secretary may
direct, documentation that demonstrates
that (1) the significant economic
hardship upon which the waiver was
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
granted still exists; and (2) the grantee
tried diligently, but unsuccessfully, to
obtain contributions needed to meet the
matching requirement.
Consistent with section 404C(c)(1) of
the HEA, proposed § 694.8(c) would
provide that the Secretary may approve
a Partnership applicant’s request in its
application to match its contributions to
its scholarship fund, established under
section 404E of the HEA, on the basis
of two non-Federal dollars for every one
Federal dollar of GEAR UP funds.
Also, similar to provisions in current
§ 694.7(b)(2), proposed § 694.8(d) would
provide that the Secretary may approve
a request by a Partnership applicant that
has three or fewer institutions of higher
education as members to waive up to 70
percent of the matching requirement if
the Partnership applicant meets the
criteria set forth in proposed
§ 694.8(d)(1) through (3).
We propose to add new § 694.9
(Under what conditions may the
Secretary approve a request from a
Partnership that has received a GEAR
UP grant to waive a portion of the
matching requirement?). This section
would provide that after a grant is
awarded, the Secretary may approve a
Partnership grantee’s written request for
a waiver of up to (1) 50 percent of the
matching requirement for up to two
years if the grantee demonstrates that
the matching contributions described
for those two years in the grantee’s
approved application are no longer
available and the grantee has exhausted
all funds and sources of potential
contributions for replacing the matching
funds; or (2) 75 percent of the matching
requirement for up to two years if the
grantee demonstrates that matching
contributions from the original
application are no longer available due
to an uncontrollable event, such as a
natural disaster, that has a devastating
economic effect on members of the
Partnership and the community in
which the project would operate.
Proposed § 694.9(b) would also
specify that in determining whether the
grantee has exhausted all funds and
sources of potential contributions for
replacing matching funds, the Secretary
considers the grantee’s documentation
of key factors. This section would
include a list of examples of these
factors (e.g., a reduction of revenues
from State government, County
government, or the local educational
agency; an increase in local
unemployment rates; and significant
reductions in the operating budgets of
institutions of higher education that are
participating in the grant).
Proposed § 694.9(c) would provide
that if a grantee has received one or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
more waivers under §§ 694.8 or 694.9,
the grantee may request an additional
waiver of the matching requirement
under § 694.9 no earlier than 60 days
before the expiration of the grantee’s
existing waiver. Finally, proposed
§ 694.9(d) would provide that the
Secretary may grant additional waiver
requests for up to 50 percent of the
matching requirement for a period of up
to two years upon the expiration of any
previous waivers.
In order to accommodate these new
proposed provisions, we propose to
redesignate current §§ 694.8 and 694.9
as §§ 694.10 and 694.11, respectively.
We also propose to redesignate current
§ 694.12 as § 694.17. We made no
substantive changes to these three
provisions when redesignating them.
Reasons: The Department is
proposing to add new §§ 694.8 and
694.9 to incorporate suggestions made
by non-Federal negotiators to (1) limit
the waiver of the matching requirement
to 50 to 75 percent of the requirement;
(2) limit the period of the waiver to two
years, unless the grantee reapplies for
another waiver; and (3) create a
multiple-tiered system for different
types of waiver requests. We are
proposing this new regulatory language
because we believe that it will help
preserve the integrity of the GEAR UP
program as a partnership model with a
significant matching requirement
component, and balance this aspect of
the program with fair, understandable,
statutorily-based waiver options. In this
regard, the 50 Percent and 75 Percent
Waivers that we are proposing are
consistent with the views expressed by
the non-Federal negotiators. Also
consistent with their views, we believe
that while a maximum 50 percent
waiver is reasonable for projects with
partners and communities facing
chronic economic difficulties, a larger
waiver is appropriate where areas are
facing significant economic hardship
due to events such as a natural disaster.
In accordance with the recommendation
of the non-Federal negotiators, we
propose a maximum 75 percent waiver
for these circumstances, believing as the
non-Federal negotiators expressed, that
with the availability of in-kind matching
contributions the Partnership should
still be able to provide a 25 percent
annual matching contribution.
Proposed § 694.8(b)(3) would specify
that, at the time of application, the
Secretary may provide tentative
approval of an applicant’s request for a
50 Percent Waiver for the entire project
period. This would allow an applicant
that meets the conditions for a waiver to
apply for a grant without needing to
identify additional sources of match
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13851
funding for the later years of the project
period. On-going significant economic
hardship may preclude an applicant
from being able to identify additional
sources of match funding in a proposed
budget for later years of the project and
we do not believe that this should bar
the applicant from obtaining a grant.
Proposed § 694.8(b)(3) would require
that grantees who received tentative
approval of a waiver for more than two
years submit documentation to the
Secretary every two years with regard to
continuation of significant economic
hardship and efforts to meet the
matching requirement. We believe that
this proposal both will encourage
grantees to seek alternative sources of
match during their project period, and
help the Department to provide
appropriate oversight concerning the 50
Percent Waiver.
The non-Federal negotiators provided
examples of factors the Secretary may
consider in determining whether to
provide an applicant or grantee a 50
Percent Waiver of the matching
requirement. The Department
incorporated the non-Federal
negotiators’ examples in proposed
§§ 694.8(b)(2) and 694.9(b) because we
believe that these examples will help
the public, including applicants and
grantees, to better understand the
process for seeking a waiver of a portion
of a GEAR UP Partnership matching
requirement, and the Department’s
expectations in reviewing any waiver
requests. We included regulatory
language regarding additional waiver
requests in proposed § 694.9(c) and (d)
to allow grantees that continue to meet
the conditions for a waiver to request
and receive a waiver for a period of up
to two additional years. Because no
waiver of more than two years would be
granted, the Secretary has an
opportunity at least every two years to
review whether a grantee continues to
meet the conditions for a waiver.
The Department is proposing to
divide the matching provisions into two
separate sections, with provisions for
Partnership applicants in § 694.8 and
provisions for Partnership grantees in
§ 694.9 to make these provisions easier
to follow and understand. The
Department also is proposing to move
the waiver provision in current
§ 694.7(b)(2) to new § 694.8, and is
proposing slight modifications to the
wording of that provision so that it
aligns with the new waiver provisions
in proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9.
Scholarship Component
Statute: Section 404E(b)(1) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of
the HEOA, requires GEAR UP grantees
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13852
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to use not less than 25 percent and not
more than 50 percent of GEAR UP grant
funds for activities described in section
404D of the HEA, i.e., required and
permissible pre-college or university
activities, (except for the activity
described in section 404D(a)(4) of the
HEA, i.e., a State’s use of funds for
scholarships under section 404E), with
the remainder of the funds to be used
for a scholarship program under section
404E of the HEA. However, section
404E(b)(2) allows a GEAR UP grantee to
use more than 50 percent of GEAR UP
grant funds for pre-college or university
activities if (1) it demonstrates that it
has another means of providing the
students with the financial assistance
described in section 404E of the HEA,
and (2) describes these means in its
project application.
Section 404E(c) of the HEA, as
amended by section 404(e) of the HEOA,
mandates that each grantee providing
scholarships under section 404E must
provide information on the eligibility
requirements for the scholarships to all
participating students upon the
students’ entry into the GEAR UP
program.
Section 404(e) of the HEOA amended
section 404E(d) of the HEA regarding
the minimum amount of a GEAR UP
scholarship. Now the HEA states that
the minimum amount of a GEAR UP
scholarship for each fiscal year is the
minimum Federal Pell Grant award
under section 401 of the HEA for that
award year. Prior law had made the
minimum scholarship amount for each
fiscal year the lesser of 75 percent of the
average cost of attendance for an inState student in a 4-year instructional
program at an IHE in each State or the
maximum Federal Pell grant for that
year.
Section 404E(e)(1) and (2) of the HEA,
as amended by section 404(e) of the
HEOA, provides that States that receive
a GEAR UP grant must hold in reserve
funds for scholarships for eligible
students, as defined in section 404E(g)
of the HEA, in an amount that is not less
than the minimum scholarship amount
multiplied by the number of students
that the State estimates will (1)
complete a secondary school diploma,
its recognized equivalent, or another
recognized alternative standard for
individuals with disabilities, and (2)
enroll in an IHE. We address the
definition of an ‘‘eligible student’’ in our
discussion of proposed § 694.13(d)
under the ‘‘Proposed Regulations’’ part
of this section.
Finally, section 401(c) of Public Law
111–39, technical amendments to the
HEOA enacted into law on July 1, 2009,
amended section 404 of the HEOA to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
provide that section 404E(e) of the HEA
is not applicable to grants made before
August 14, 2008, except that the
recipient of a grant made prior to that
date may elect to apply the
requirements contained in section 404E
if the recipient informs the Secretary of
this election. Section 401(c) of Public
Law 111–39 goes on to provide that a
grant recipient may make this election
only if the election does not decrease
the amount of the scholarship promised
to an individual student under the
grant.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.10
is the regulatory provision that specifies
the requirements for GEAR UP
scholarships under the HEA, as
previously authorized. Current § 694.11
provides that GEAR UP Partnership
grantees that do not participate in the
GEAR UP scholarship component may
provide financial assistance for
postsecondary education with GEAR UP
funds, or non-Federal funds used to
comply with the matching requirement,
to students who participate in the early
intervention component of GEAR UP if
(1) the financial assistance is directly
related to, and in support of, other
activities of the Partnership under the
early intervention component, and (2) it
complies with the requirements for
scholarship awards in § 694.10. These
sections do not reflect the changes made
by the HEOA to the statutorily required
priorities.
Proposed Regulations: To
accommodate the proposed addition of
regulatory provisions, as discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, the
Department proposes to redesignate
current §§ 694.10 and 694.11 as
proposed §§ 694.13 and 694.15. We also
propose to add a new § 694.12 and
§ 694.14 to address the changes made by
section 401(c) of Public Law 111–39.
Specifically, proposed § 694.12(a)
would provide that (1) State grantees
must establish or maintain a financial
assistance program that awards section
404E scholarships to students in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 694.13 or § 694.14, as applicable, and
(2) Partnership grantees that choose to
award scholarships to eligible students
pursuant to section 404E of the HEA
must likewise comply with the
requirements of § 694.13 or § 694.14, as
applicable. Consistent with section
401(c) of Public Law 111–39, proposed
§ 694.12(b) would clarify that a State or
Partnership grantee providing section
404E scholarships with GEAR UP funds
that were awarded to it prior to August
14, 2008, must provide such
scholarships in accordance with the
requirements of § 694.13 unless it (1)
elects to provide the scholarships in
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accordance with the requirements of
§ 694.14 (which governs grantees with
initial GEAR UP awards made on or
after August 14, 2008), and (2) pursuant
to § 694.12(b)(2), notifies the Secretary
of this election, and ensure that the
election does not decrease the amount
of a GEAR UP scholarship that had been
promised to a student. Finally, proposed
§ 694.12(c) would clarify that a State or
Partnership grantee making section
404E scholarship awards using GEAR
UP funds that were awarded on or after
August 14, 2008, must provide such
scholarships in accordance with the
requirements of § 694.14.
Newly redesignated § 694.13 would
provide basic requirements for section
404E scholarships for grantees who
received their initial GEAR UP grant
awards prior to August 14, 2008, and
who choose not to make the election
described in the paragraph above.
Specifically, § 694.13(a) would provide
that (1) the maximum scholarship
amount that an eligible student may
receive under this section must be
established by the grantee; (2) the
minimum scholarship amount that an
eligible student receives in a fiscal year
pursuant to this section must not be less
than the lesser of (a) 75 percent of the
average cost of attendance for an inState student, in a four-year program of
instruction, at public IHEs in the
student’s State, or (b) the maximum
Federal Pell Grant award under section
401 of the HEA for the award year in
which the scholarship is awarded; and
(3) if an eligible student who is awarded
a GEAR UP scholarship attends an IHE
on a less than full-time basis during any
award year, the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may
reduce the scholarship amount, but the
percentage reduction in the scholarship
may not be greater than the percentage
reduction in tuition and fees charged to
that student.
Like § 694.10(e) of the current
regulations, proposed § 694.13(b) would
provide that scholarships made in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 694.13 may not be considered for the
purpose of awarding Federal grant
assistance under title IV of the HEA.
Proposed § 694.13(b), like current
§ 694.10(c), would go on to clarify that
in no case may the total amount of
student financial assistance awarded to
a student under title IV of the HEA
exceed the student’s total cost of
attendance.
Proposed § 694.13(c)(1) would specify
that grantees providing section 404E
scholarship awards in accordance with
§ 694.13 must award GEAR UP
scholarships first to students who will
receive, or are eligible to receive, a
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Pell Grant during the award
year in which the GEAR UP scholarship
is being awarded. Proposed
§ 694.13(c)(2) would specify that if a
grantee providing section 404E
scholarship awards in accordance with
§ 694.13 has funds remaining after
awarding scholarships to students under
§ 694.13(c)(1), it may award GEAR UP
scholarships to other eligible students
(i.e., students who are not eligible to
receive a Federal Pell Grant) after
considering the need of those students
for GEAR UP scholarships. These
proposed provisions are similar to
§ 694.10(b)(1) and (2) of the current
regulations.
Proposed § 694.13(d) would provide
that for purposes of § 694.13, an eligible
student is a student who (1) Is less than
22 years old at the time of award of the
student’s first GEAR UP scholarship; (2)
has received a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent on
or after January 1, 1993; (3) is enrolled
or accepted for enrollment in a program
of undergraduate instruction at an IHE
that is located within the State’s
boundaries, except that, at the grantee’s
option, a State or a Partnership may
offer scholarships to students who
attend IHE outside the State; and (4) has
participated in the activities under
§§ 694.21 or 694.22.
Proposed § 694.13(e) (like proposed
§ 694.14(d)) would provide that States
using a priority approach may award
scholarships under § 694.13(a) to
eligible students identified by priority at
any time during the grant award period
rather than reserving scholarship funds
for use only in the seventh year of a
project or after the grant award period.
Proposed § 694.13(f) would provide
that a State or a Partnership that
provides scholarship awards in
accordance with § 694.13 must award
continuation scholarships in successive
award years to each student who
received an initial scholarship and who
is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in
a program of undergraduate instruction
at an IHE. This provision is similar to
current § 694.10(d).
New § 694.14 would establish
requirements for section 404E
scholarship awards made by grantees
whose initial GEAR UP grant awards
were made on or after August 14, 2008.
Proposed § 694.14(a) would provide that
(1) the maximum scholarship amount
that an eligible student may receive
under section 404E must be established
by the grantee; (2) the minimum
scholarship amount that an eligible
student receives in a fiscal year must
not be less than the minimum Federal
Pell Grant award under section 401 of
the HEA at the time of award; and (3)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
if an eligible student who is awarded a
GEAR UP scholarship attends an IHE on
a less than full-time basis during any
award year, the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may
reduce the scholarship amount, but in
no case may the percentage reduction in
the scholarship be greater than the
percentage reduction in tuition and fees
charged to that student.
Proposed § 694.14(b) would repeat the
description of eligible student that we
propose in § 694.13(d), except that the
fourth element of proposed § 694.14(b)
would differ from proposed
§ 694.13(d)(4). The fourth element of
section 694.14(b) would specify that the
student must have participated in the
activities required under § 694.21 while
the fourth element of § 694.13(d) would
require that the student participated in
activities under §§ 694.21 or 694.22.
Proposed § 694.14(c) would provide
that (1) by the time students who have
received services from a State grant have
completed the twelfth grade, a State that
has not received a waiver under section
404E(b)(2) of the HEA of the
requirement to spend at least 50 percent
of its GEAR UP funds on scholarships
must have in reserve an amount that is
not less than the minimum Federal Pell
Grant multiplied by the number of
students the State estimates will enroll
in an institution of higher education; (2)
consistent with §§ 694.14(a) and
694.16(a), States must use funds held in
reserve to make scholarships to eligible
students; (3) scholarships must be made
to all students who are eligible under
the definition in § 694.14(b); and (4) a
grantee may not impose additional
eligibility criteria that would have the
effect of limiting or denying a
scholarship to an eligible student.
Proposed § 694.14(d) would specify
that States using a priority approach
may award scholarships under
§ 694.14(a) to eligible students
identified by priority at any time during
the grant award period rather than
reserving scholarship funds for use only
in the seventh year of a project or after
the grant award period.
Proposed § 694.14(e) would require
States awarding scholarships under this
provision to provide information on the
eligibility requirements for the
scholarships to all participating
students upon the students’ entry into
the GEAR UP program.
Proposed § 694.14(f) would specify
that a State must provide scholarship
funds as described in this section to all
eligible students who attend an IHE in
the State, and may provide these
scholarship funds to eligible students
who attend IHEs outside the State.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13853
Proposed § 694.14(g) would permit a
State or a Partnership that chooses to
participate in the scholarship
component of the GEAR UP program in
accordance with section 404E of the
HEA to award continuation scholarships
in successive award years to each
student who received an initial
scholarship and who is enrolled or
accepted for enrollment in a program of
undergraduate instruction at an IHE.
Proposed § 694.14(h), like proposed
§ 694.13(b) and current § 694.10(e),
would specify that a GEAR UP
scholarship provided under section
404E of the HEA may not be considered
in the determination of a student’s
eligibility for other grant assistance
provided under title IV of the HEA,
except that in no case may the total
amount of student financial assistance
awarded to a student under title IV of
the HEA exceed the student’s total cost
of attendance.
Finally, we would redesignate current
§ 694.11 as § 694.15, and would revise it
to provide that a GEAR UP Partnership
that does not participate in the GEAR
UP scholarship component may provide
financial assistance for postsecondary
education with non-Federal funds in
satisfaction of the matching requirement
in section 404C(b) of the HEA.
Reasons: The Department is
proposing to revise newly redesignated
§ 694.13 and add new §§ 694.12 and
694.14 to implement section 404E of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of
the HEOA, and section 401(c) of Public
Law 111–39. Proposed § 694.12 would
specify under what conditions State and
Partnership GEAR UP grantees make
section 404E scholarship awards.
Specifically, proposed § 694.12(a)
would identify the different rules that
State GEAR UP grantees must follow
with regard to these awards, and that
Partnership GEAR UP grantees must
follow if they choose to make GEAR UP
scholarship awards under section 404E.
Proposed § 694.12(b) would (1)
distinguish between section 404E
scholarship awards made by grantees
who received their initial GEAR UP
grant awards prior to August 14, 2008,
and section 404E scholarship awards
made by grantees who received their
initial GEAR UP grant awards on or after
August 14, 2008, and (2) identify the
applicable regulatory provision (i.e.,
§ 694.13 or § 694.14) for each group of
grantees.
In doing so, § 694.12(b) and (c)
implement section 401(c) of Public Law
111–39, which makes section 404E
scholarship requirements inapplicable
to grantees who received their initial
award before that date unless a grantee
elected to apply the new requirements
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13854
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
without decreasing the amount of
scholarship provided to individual
students. In this regard, proposed
§ 694.12(b)(2) would specify when and
how GEAR UP grantees who received
initial grant awards prior to August 14,
2008, may elect to apply the rules for
GEAR UP grantees that received their
initial grant awards on or after August
14, 2008. Public Law 111–39 does not
address this matter. We are proposing to
add these provisions to ensure the
public understands the responsibilities
of, and options available to, all State
and Partnership grantees with regard to
the scholarship component of the GEAR
UP program.
Consistent with section 401(c) of
Public Law 111–39, we propose to
revise newly redesignated § 694.13 to
identify the scholarship requirements
governing State and Partnership GEAR
UP grantees who received their initial
awards prior to August 14, 2008. The
provisions in proposed § 694.13 make
the requirements in section 404E as it
existed prior to the effective date of the
HEOA applicable to such scholarship
awards unless a grantee chooses to make
the election that section 401(c)
authorizes. As discussed more fully
below in our reasons for proposing
§ 694.14(d), we propose adding a new
paragraph (e) to these provisions, which
would clarify that a State using a
priority approach to select participating
students may award scholarships to
eligible students at any time during the
grant award period (rather than holding
these funds in reserve until the seventh
year of the grant award period). We do
so because a State selecting students
using the priority approach may provide
initial GEAR UP services much later
than seventh grade, and so would need
to be able to award scholarships much
earlier in its multiyear project period
than would a State grantee that used a
cohort approach to select students.
Similarly, we are proposing to add a
new § 694.14 to implement and clarify
the scholarship requirements in section
404E of the HEA, as amended, that
apply to scholarship awards made by
grantees who received initial GEAR UP
awards on or after August 14, 2008. We
are proposing to include in
§ 694.14(a)(1) and (a)(2) regulatory
language regarding maximum and
minimum scholarship amounts to
reflect the language in 404E(d) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of
the HEOA. As with proposed
§ 694.13(a)(3), proposed § 694.14(a)(3)
would retain the requirement in current
§ 694.10(a)(2) regarding the extent a
scholarship awarded to a student
attending an IHE on less than a full-time
basis may be reduced.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
We are also proposing to incorporate
the statutory definition of an eligible
student from section 404E(g) of the HEA
in both proposed § 694.13(d) and
§ 694.14(b). Except for removing the
phrase ‘‘early intervention’’ before the
word ‘‘activities’’ in the fourth element
of the definition and requiring that
eligible students have participated in
the new required activities under
section 404D(a) (see proposed § 694.21)
rather than in what had been the early
intervention activities, section 404(e) of
the HEOA did not change the definition
of this term from what it had been in
section 404E(d) of the HEA, as
previously authorized. While we did not
include a definition of eligible student
in the existing regulations, we believe
that including a definition of the term
that reflects the statutory definition in
section 404E(g) of the HEA in both
proposed regulations would make them
clearer and more understandable for the
public.
The regulatory language the
Department is proposing to include in
§ 694.14(c)(1) and (c)(2) regarding funds
that a State grantee must hold in reserve
for GEAR UP scholarships reflects
statutory requirements in section
404E(b), (d), and (e) of the HEA, as
amended by section 404(e) of the HEOA.
In addition, in response to a request by
non-Federal negotiators, we are
proposing to clarify, in § 694.14(c)(3),
that grantees must provide scholarships
to all eligible students under section
404E of the HEA. In this regard, we
agree with the non-Federal negotiators
that the new minimum scholarship
provision in section 404E(d) of the HEA
is intended to ensure that all grantees
(that receive initial awards on or after
August 14, 2008) provide scholarships
to each eligible student in an amount
that is at least the Federal Pell Grant
minimum. For this reason, we also are
proposing in § 694.14(c)(3) to prohibit a
grantee from establishing additional
eligibility criteria that would have the
effect of limiting or denying a
scholarship to an eligible student.
We are proposing to include, in
§ 694.14(d), regulatory language
clarifying that a State using a priority
approach to select participating students
(see section 404D(d) of the HEA, as
amended by section 404(d) of the
HEOA) may award scholarships to
eligible students at any time during the
grant award period (rather than holding
these funds in reserve until the seventh
year of the grant award period). We do
so because under the priority approach,
which by law is available only to State
GEAR UP grantees, initial services may
be provided much later than seventh
grade. Hence, a State grantee that
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
selected students using the priority
approach would need to be able to
award scholarships much earlier in its
multiyear project period than would a
State grantee that selected students
using a cohort approach.
The Department’s proposal in
§ 694.14(e), to incorporate the
requirement that grantees provide
information on eligibility requirements
for scholarships to participating
students when they enter the GEAR UP
program, reflects section 404E(c) of the
HEA, as amended by 404(e) of the
HEOA. Similarly, its proposal in
§ 694.14(f), that State grantees must
provide scholarships to GEAR UP
students attending IHEs in the State and
may do so to students attending IHEs
out-of-State, reflects section 404E(e)(2)
and (g) of the HEA, as amended by
404(e) of the HEOA. We propose both
provisions to help the public better
understand the various requirements
affecting GEAR UP scholarships.
Proposed § 694.14(g) would remove
from the current regulations the
requirement that a State, or a
Partnership that chooses to participate
in the GEAR UP scholarship component
in accordance with section 404E of the
HEA, award continuation scholarships
in successive award years to each
student who received an initial
scholarship and who continues to be
eligible for a scholarship. Rather than
mandating this action, the proposed
regulations would allow a State or
Partnership to make these awards. We
are proposing this change because we
believe that there may not be sufficient
funds available to provide continuation
scholarships in successive award years
to every student who received an initial
scholarship and continues to be eligible
for a scholarship. Grants that have
sufficient funds to provide continuation
scholarships to their students would be
encouraged to do so.
Proposed § 694.14(g), regarding the
prohibition against considering the
amount of a GEAR UP scholarship in
determining a student’s eligibility for
other grant assistance under Title IV of
the HEA, and the proviso that the total
amount of Federal assistance not exceed
the student’s total cost of attendance,
reflects new section 404E(f) of the HEA
(formerly section 404E(e) of the HEA).
Here again, we propose the provision to
help the public better understand the
various requirements affecting GEAR UP
scholarships.
Finally, proposed § 694.15 would
permit a Partnership that does not
implement the section 404E scholarship
component to still provide scholarship
assistance to GEAR UP students with
non-Federal funds as a matching
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
contribution. Proposed § 694.15 is
similar to current § 694.11 with regard
to non-Federal funds. However,
proposed § 694.15 omits language in the
existing regulation that specifically
authorizes GEAR UP Partnership
grantees that do not participate in the
section 404E scholarship component to
use Federal or non-Federal funds for
scholarships awards as part of their
early intervention services. We would
omit this language because section 404D
of the HEA, as amended by section
404(d) of the HEOA, no longer
authorizes such a use of Federal grant
funds. We propose to clarify in § 694.15
that these non-Federal funds may still
be used to satisfy the matching
requirement.
Redistribution or Return of Unused
Scholarship Funds/Reporting on
Scholarship Monies After the Grant
Period
Statute: Section 404E(e)(4)(A)(i) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(e)(5) of
the HEOA, specifies that grantees may
redistribute any funds not used by
eligible students within six years of
their completion of secondary school to
other eligible students. Section
404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA, as
amended, now requires grantees to
return scholarship funds not used by
eligible students within the applicable
timeframe and not redistributed to other
eligible students to the Secretary for
distribution to other grantees.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to add new
§ 694.16, and to provide in § 694.16(a)
that scholarship funds held in reserve
by States under § 694.14(c) or by
Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of
the HEA, and which are not used by an
eligible student as defined in § 694.14(b)
within six years of the student’s
scheduled completion of secondary
school, may be redistributed by the
grantee to other eligible students.
Consistent with section 401(c) of Public
Law 111–39, proposed § 694.16 would
clarify that requirements in this section
apply only to funds reserved for section
404E scholarship awards by grantees
whose (1) initial GEAR UP grant awards
were made on or after August 14, 2008,
or (2) whose initial GEAR UP grant
awards were made prior to August 14,
2008, but who, pursuant to proposed
§ 694.12(b)(2), elect to meet the § 694.14
scholarship requirements (rather than
the § 694.13 requirements).
To implement requirements in section
404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA governing
return of unused funds to the
Department, proposed § 694.16(b)
would provide that any Federal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
scholarship funds that are not used by
an eligible student within six years of
the student’s scheduled completion of
secondary school, and are not
redistributed by the grantee to other
eligible students, must be returned to
the Secretary within 45 days after the
six-year period for expending the
scholarship funds expires. Furthermore,
proposed § 694.16(c) and (d) would
provide that (1) grantees that reserve
funds for scholarships must annually
furnish information, as the Secretary
may require, on the amount of Federal
and non-Federal funds reserved and
held for GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of these scholarship funds
to eligible students until these funds are
fully expended or returned to the
Secretary; and (2) a scholarship fund is
subject to audit or monitoring by
authorized representatives of the
Secretary throughout the life of the
fund.
Reasons: The Department proposes to
add new § 694.16 to implement the
mandates in 404E(e)(4)(A) of the HEA
and the technical amendments reflected
in section 401(c) of Public Law 111–39,
as well as to promote reasonable fiscal
oversight.
Except for two aspects of the returnof-funds provision in proposed
§ 694.16(b), proposed § 694.16(a) and (b)
reflects the statutory provisions in
section 404E(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the
HEA, as amended. One way in which
paragraph § 694.16(b) supplements the
statute is the application of the
requirement to Federal funds only.
While section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the
HEA refers only to the return of unused
scholarship funds held in reserve, we do
not believe it would be appropriate for
the Department to require the return of
any unused non-Federal funds that had
been contributed to the GEAR UP
scholarship fund. For this reason, the
language of proposed § 694.16(b) reflects
our understanding that the statutory
provision was intended to apply only to
unused Federal GEAR UP funds that a
grantee holds in reserve.
The other regulatory issue embedded
in proposed § 694.16(b)(2) concerns
when a grantee must return unused
Federal funds held in reserve to the
Department. The Department is
proposing to require the return of
Federal funds within 45 days after the
six-year period for expending the
scholarship funds expires. We believe
this time-frame, which would be
reflected in proposed § 694.16(b), is
appropriate because the 45-day period is
consistent with other Title IV, HEA
programs.
In addition, in proposed § 694.16(c),
the Department proposes to require
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13855
grantees to annually furnish
information, as the Secretary may
require, on the amount of Federal and
non-Federal funds reserved and held for
GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of those funds to eligible
students until these funds are fully
expended or returned to the Secretary.
We believe that this requirement would
increase the accountability of grantees
as well as the Department’s ability to
track and monitor the large amounts of
Federal funds and non-Federal
matching funds that grantees reserve for
GEAR UP scholarships. We understand
that depending on the amount of
scholarship funding to be disbursed the,
number of eligible recipients, and the
scholarship amount each recipient
would receive, a grantee’s reporting
period may well extend beyond its
project period. However, grantees were
to have obligated these funds during the
project period to irrevocable trusts or
other mechanisms for ultimate
disbursal, and the reasonable and
necessary costs associated with
providing the reports that proposed
§ 694.16(c) would require would be
legitimate administrative expenses that
grantees or those administering the
scholarship funds may charge to Federal
funds held in reserve. We therefore
believe it is reasonable to expect all
grantees to make arrangements for
implementing proposed § 694.16 before
the end of their project period.
For similar reasons, the Department
also proposes in § 694.16(d) to clarify
that a GEAR UP scholarship fund is
subject to audit or monitoring by
authorized representatives of the
Secretary throughout the life of the
fund. Reasonable and necessary costs
associated with making appropriate
records available for inspection after the
project period has ended would
likewise be legitimate charges against
Federal funds held in reserve.
21st Century Scholar Certificates
Statute: Section 404F of the HEA, as
amended by 404(f) of the HEOA,
provides that each GEAR UP grantee
must provide a 21st Century Scholar
Certificate to all participating students
served by the project. It also provides
that the 21st Century Scholar Certificate
must be personalized for each student
and indicate the amount of Federal
financial aid for college and the
estimated amount of any scholarship
provided under section 404E of the
HEA, if applicable, that a student may
be eligible to receive.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.13
addresses 21st Century Scholarship
Certificates, but does not reflect changes
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13856
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
made to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA
by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to redesignate
current § 694.13 as proposed § 694.18
and amend newly redesignated § 694.18
to (1) specify that the grantee, rather
than the Department, will prepare the
21st Century Certificate, and (2) provide
that 21st Century Scholarship
Certificates must indicate the estimated
amount of any scholarship provided
under section 404E of the HEA, if
applicable, that a student may be
eligible to receive.
Reasons: This amendment is
necessary to reflect the changes made to
section 404F(b) of the HEA by section
404(f) of the HEOA.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Requirements Applicable to State
GEAR UP Grantees That Serve Students
Under the National Early Intervention
Scholarship and Partnership Program
(NEISP)
Statute: Section 404A of the HEA, as
amended by the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998, provided that in
making awards to States under this
program, the Secretary must ensure that
students served under this chapter on
the day before the date of enactment of
the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 continue to receive assistance
through the completion of secondary
school. This statutory requirement no
longer exists in the HEA.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.14
provides that any State that receives a
GEAR UP grant and that served students
under the NEISP program on October 6,
1998, must continue to provide services
under this part to those students until
they complete secondary school.
Proposed Regulations: None.
Reasons: We propose to remove the
requirements reflected in current
§ 694.14 because this regulatory
provision is obsolete. The NEISP
program has not been authorized since
1998 and any students served under that
program are well beyond traditional
high school age.
Priority
Statute: Section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(a)(2) of
the HEOA, gives a priority in funding to
a State that (1) has carried out
successful GEAR UP programs prior to
enactment of the HEOA, and (2) has a
prior, demonstrated commitment to
early intervention leading to college
access through collaboration and
replication of successful strategies.
Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as
amended, provides that, in making
GEAR UP grant awards to States, the
Secretary must ensure that students
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
served under the GEAR UP program
prior to the enactment of the HEOA
continue to receive assistance through
the completion of secondary school.
Current Regulations: Current § 694.15
is the regulatory provision that specifies
the priorities the Secretary establishes
for the GEAR UP program. It does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA
to the statutorily required priorities.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would redesignate current
§ 694.15 (What priorities does the
Secretary establish for a GEAR UP
grant?) as proposed § 694.19 to
accommodate the proposed addition of
other regulatory provisions, as
discussed elsewhere in this preamble.
Under newly redesignated § 694.19, the
Secretary would award competitive
preference priority points to an eligible
applicant for a State GEAR UP grant that
has both carried out a successful State
GEAR UP grant prior to August 14,
2008, and prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of
successful strategies. Under proposed
§ 694.19(a), whether a State GEAR UP
grant is deemed successful would be
determined on the basis of data
(including outcome data) submitted by
the applicant as part of its annual and
final performance reports, and the
applicant’s history of compliance with
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements relating to the grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise
newly redesignated § 694.19, which
addresses the priorities the Secretary
establishes for a GEAR UP grant, to
reflect the changes made by the HEOA
to section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA. In
order to notify the public of how these
priorities will work, we propose to
clarify that the Department will
implement these statutorily required
priorities by using them as competitive
preference priorities in the awardmaking process. In addition, in response
to comments received from non-Federal
negotiators, we are proposing to specify
in this section how the Department will
determine whether a State GEAR UP
grant has been ‘‘successful’’ under
section 404A(b)(3)(A)(i) of the HEA.
Thus, proposed § 694.19(a) would
specify that the Secretary will determine
whether a GEAR UP grant has been
successful based upon data (including
outcome data) submitted as part of the
applicant’s annual and final
performance reports for the grant it
previously carried out, and its history of
compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements relating to that
grant. The Secretary would determine
the extent to which an applicant has a
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘prior, demonstrated commitment to
early intervention leading to college
access through collaboration and
replication of successful strategies’’ on
the basis of information included in its
GEAR UP application.
More information about the award
process, including the priorities given in
the competitions for State GEAR UP
grants, may be included in the notices
inviting applications for the State GEAR
UP grant competitions that the
Department publishes in the Federal
Register. However, we believe that
general information about how the
priorities will be implemented (i.e., as
competitive preference priorities), and
how the Department will assess whether
an applicant has carried out a successful
State GEAR UP Grant prior to August
14, 2008, are best addressed in the
program regulations. Proposed § 694.19
would incorporate language from
section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA, but
not the requirement in section
404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA that the
Secretary ensure that students served by
State GEAR UP grants before the
enactment of the HEOA continue to
receive services through completion of
secondary school. Though this
requirement appears in the same
statutory section as the priority that is
given to eligible entities for a State
GEAR UP grant, the statutory language
does not require the Secretary to give a
priority to eligible entities that would
continue to serve these students. The
requirement in section 404a(b)(3)(B) of
the HEA is addressed in more detail
under the Continuity of Student
Services section elsewhere in this
preamble.
Duration of Awards
Statute: Section 404A(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(a)(2) of
the HEOA, provides that the Secretary
may award a GEAR UP grant for six
years or, seven years in the case of a
State or Partnership that applies for a
seven-year GEAR UP grant to enable it
to provide services to a student through
the student’s first year of attendance at
an IHE.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to add § 694.20
and § 694.24. Specifically, proposed
§ 694.20(a) would provide that the
Secretary authorizes an eligible State or
Partnership to provide GEAR UP
services to students attending an IHE if
the State or Partnership (1) applies for
and is awarded a new award after
August 14, 2008, and (2) in its
application, requests a seventh year so
that it may continue to provide services
to students through their first year of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
attendance at an IHE. Proposed
§ 694.20(b) would specify that a State
grantee that uses a priority (rather than
or in addition to a cohort) approach to
identify participating students may,
consistent with its approved application
and at any time during the project
period, provide services to students
during their first year of attendance at
an IHE, as long as the grantee continues
to provide all required early
intervention services throughout the
Federal budget period. Proposed
§ 694.20(c) provides that if a grantee is
awarded a seven year grant, consistent
with the grantee’s approved application,
during the seventh year of the grant the
grantee (1) would need to provide
services to students in their first year of
attendance at an IHE; and (2) may
choose to provide services to high
school students who have yet to
graduate. Proposed § 694.20(d) provides
that grantees that continue to provide
services to students through their first
year of attendance at an IHE must, to the
extent practicable, coordinate with other
campus programs, including academic
support services to enhance, not
duplicate service.
Finally, § 694.24 would clarify that,
consistent with its approved
applications and § 694.20, a GEAR UP
grantee may provide any services to
students in their first year of attendance
at an IHE that will help those students
succeed in school, and that do not
duplicate services otherwise available to
them. The proposed regulation would
also provide a large number of specific
examples of such services.
Reasons: Throughout the negotiating
rulemaking process, the Department
sought feedback from the non-Federal
negotiators on: (1) Whether we should
regulate on the types of services that
should be provided by GEAR UP
grantees during the seventh year of the
grant and to whom those services
should be provided, (2) whether GEAR
UP grantees that are providing a seventh
year of services should be required to
serve a certain percentage of their
students during the seventh year, (3)
whether GEAR UP grantees should be
required to collaborate with other
providers (such as TRIO grantees) when
providing services during the seventh
year, and (4) whether GEAR UP grantees
using a multiple cohort approach
should be able to serve students in high
school during a seventh year.
In response to comments provided by
non-Federal negotiators and tentative
agreement reached by the Committee,
the Department has proposed to add
new § 694.20. The proposal reflects the
language of section 404A(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended, which authorizes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
GEAR UP funding for this seventh
project year only for new grantees. We
are proposing to include, in § 694.20(a),
language that clarifies that in order to be
eligible for a seventh year of funding,
State or Partnership applicants must
apply for and be awarded a new GEAR
UP grant after August 14, 2008, and
must request in their applications a
seventh year of funding to provide
services to students through their first
year of attendance at an IHE. We
propose to include this provision to be
consistent with section 404A(b)(2) of the
HEA, and to ensure that grantees from
the very beginning have planned to
implement strong student services in
the seventh year of the grant.
Just as proposed § 694.14(d) would
permit grantees using the priority
approach (rather than or in addition to
a cohort approach) to provide
scholarship awards before the seventh
year, under § 694.20(b) grantees using a
priority approach would be able to serve
students in their first year of attendance
at an IHE before the seventh year of the
grant. The provision would simply
require that provision of these services
(1) is consistent with the grantees’
approved application, and (2) does not
undermine grantees’ provision of all
required services throughout the Federal
budget period to GEAR UP students still
enrolled in a local educational agency.
We propose the latter condition in order
not to detract from the basic purpose of
GEAR UP—to help increase the
numbers of students in economically
deprived areas get ready for, and enroll
in, postsecondary education.
Proposed § 694.20(c) would specify
that if a grantee is awarded a seventh
year of GEAR UP funding, the grantee
must provide services to students in
their first year of attendance at an IHE,
and may choose to provide services to
high school students who have yet to
graduate. While the provision would
have limited applicability to projects
that use the cohort approach, we are
proposing it specifically to allow
grantees that are serving multiple
cohorts of students to continue
providing services to students who are
in high school during the seventh year
of the project period. The Department
believes that this approach will
encourage continuity of services to all
students served by the grant.
Non-Federal negotiators expressed the
belief that proper coordination between
GEAR UP grantees and available
campus programs is important so that
GEAR UP students are provided the
supports they need, and limited GEAR
UP funds enhance rather than duplicate
services available to GEAR UP students
after enrollment in an IHE. Some
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13857
negotiators also expressed the belief that
various factors, including the distance
between IHEs graduates would attend
and the grantee, the number of different
IHEs that graduates would attend, and a
grantee’s efforts to obtain information
about and coordinate with the providers
of other services at those IHEs, could
create significant challenges. We agree
with both of these considerations, and
in balancing them propose § 694.20(d).
This provision would require GEAR UP
grantees that continue to provide
services to students through their first
year of attendance at an IHE to
coordinate, to the extent practicable,
with other campus programs to
enhance, not duplicate services. We
propose to identify academic support
services as one kind of other campus
programs given the pivotal role of
academic support to many GEAR UP
students.
Finally, we propose to add new
§ 694.24 to provide examples of the
types of services that a grantee may
provide to students in their first year of
attendance at an IHE and to list
examples of these services. We believe
that this information would be helpful
to applicants and grantees as they plan
and implement the type of IHE-level
services that are most appropriate for
each GEAR UP student.
Required and Allowable Activities
Statute: Section 404D of the HEA, as
amended by section 404(d) of the
HEOA, modifies the GEAR UP program
statute by identifying certain activities
and services that GEAR UP grantees
must provide, and other activities and
services that are permissible and thus
ones that projects may offer using GEAR
UP funds.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to add
§§ 694.21, 694.22, 694.23, and 694.24 to
address required and allowable
activities. Proposed § 694.21 would
identify the services that, under section
404D(a) of the HEA, all GEAR UP
projects must offer. Consistent with
section 404D(b) of the HEA, proposed
§ 694.22 would list examples of other
services and activities that all GEAR UP
projects may provide. Proposed § 694.23
would incorporate the language from
404D(c) of the HEA, and describe
additional activities that are allowable
for State GEAR UP projects. Finally, as
noted elsewhere in this preamble,
proposed § 694.24 would describe the
additional services that, consistent with
proposed § 694.20 and its approved
application, a GEAR UP project may
provide to students in their first year of
attendance at an IHE.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13858
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Reasons: Currently, the GEAR UP
program regulations do not list
examples of permissible or required
GEAR UP services or activities. The
non-Federal negotiators suggested—and
we agreed—that it would be helpful for
applicants and grantees if the
Department included in its GEAR UP
regulations the examples of required
and allowable activities provided in
section 404D of the HEA. Also, based on
suggestions from the non-Federal
negotiators, we are proposing to
separate the required and permissible
activities into multiple regulatory
sections. We believe that this structure
will increase the clarity and
comprehensibility of the regulatory
language for applicants and grantees.
For the most part, proposed §§ 694.21,
694.22, and 694.23 would reflect the
statutory language in section 404D(a)
through (c) of the HEA. In addition to
a few minor, non-substantive
differences between these regulations
and that statutory provision, please note
the following.
First, section 404D(a)(4) of the HEA
would require a State grantee to provide
for the scholarships under section 404E.
We are concerned that some will
question whether this provision requires
States to use GEAR UP funds for GEAR
UP scholarships even though section
404E(b) permits the Secretary to waive
the requirement that GEAR UP funds be
used for scholarships if the State
demonstrates that it has another means
of providing the financial assistance
section 404 requires, and describes such
means in its program application. To
avoid any confusion, we have included
the exception for this State ‘‘waiver’’ in
proposed § 694.21(d).
Furthermore, in response to the
suggestion of a non-Federal negotiator,
we would clarify in proposed
§ 694.22(e)(4) that the work grantees
may perform in assisting GEAR UP
students to develop their graduation and
career plans may include activities
related to helping students with career
awareness and planning activities as
they relate to a rigorous academic
curriculum. We believe that providing
examples of what graduation and career
plans may include would both enhance
the understanding of the public, as well
as GEAR UP applicants and grantees, of
the types of services that may be
provided in this area, and foster
creativity with regard to grantees’
provision of career-related services.
In addition, non-Federal negotiators
expressed concerns that the statutory
language in section 404D of the HEA
was ambiguous as to whether the costs
of administering a scholarship fund are
allowable. The HEA specifies in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
404(C)(c)(1)(B) that the costs of
administering a scholarship program
may count towards the matching
requirement, but the HEA does not
speak directly to whether Federal funds
may be used to support scholarship
administration. We believe that such
costs of administering authorized
activities are allowable under applicable
cost principles contained in OMB
Circulars A–21 and A–87. However, to
clarify the matter, we have included in
proposed § 694.22(g) the express
authority for grantees to use GEAR UP
funds to support the costs of
administering a scholarship program.
As discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, we propose to add § 694.24 to
explain the types of services that a
grantee may provide to GEAR UP
students in their first year of attendance
at an IHE and to list examples of these
services. We believe that this
information will be helpful to
applicants and grantees as they evaluate
the type of services that are appropriate
to provide to these students.
Continuity of Student Services
Statute: Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the
HEA, as amended by section 404(a)(2) of
the HEOA, provides that in making
awards to eligible States, the Secretary
must ensure that students served under
the GEAR UP program prior to the
enactment of the HEOA continue to
receive assistance through the
completion of secondary school. Section
404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA, as amended
by section 404(b) of the HEOA, further
requires the Secretary to ensure that
eligible Partnerships provide services to
students who received services under a
previous GEAR UP grant award but have
not yet completed the 12th grade. Prior
to the enactment of the HEOA, there
was no requirement for either State or
Partnership grantees to serve students
served under a previous grant.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The
Department is proposing to add § 694.25
to implement sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and
404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA. In doing so
we are proposing that the provisions
have effect only where the initial and
subsequent grants are both awarded on
or after August 14, 2008, the effective
date of the HEOA. Specifically,
proposed § 694.25 would provide that if
(1) a Partnership or State is awarded a
GEAR UP grant on or after that date (i.e.,
initial grant), (2) the grant ends before
all students who received GEAR UP
services under the grant have completed
the twelfth grade, and (3) the grantee
receives a new award in a subsequent
GEAR UP competition (i.e., new grant),
the grantee must continue to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
services required by § 694.21 and
authorized under §§ 694.22 and 694.23
to all students who received GEAR UP
services under the initial grant and
remain enrolled in secondary schools
until they complete the twelfth grade.
The grantee would be able to provide
these services by using GEAR UP funds
awarded for the new grant or funds from
the non-Federal matching contribution
required under the new grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to add
§ 694.25 to implement and clarify
sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C)
of the HEA, as amended by sections
404(a)(2) and 404(b) of the HEOA,
respectively.
Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA
provides that in making awards to
eligible State grantees, the Secretary will
ensure that GEAR UP students served
on the day before the date of enactment
of the HEOA continue to receive
assistance through the completion of
secondary school. Absent legislative
language to the contrary, we interpret
the phrase ‘‘making awards’’ in this
section as referring to making new
GEAR UP awards. We do so because,
without evidence of congressional
intent that the new requirement apply to
continuation awards for grantees that
had received initial GEAR UP grants
prior to the date of enactment of the
HEOA, we do not believe Congress
intended that grantees should assume
the costs and burdens of activities
newly required in the HEOA that they
had no legal responsibility to bear when
they applied for their GEAR UP grants
before the enactment of the HEOA. For
this reason, with regard to State GEAR
UP grants, proposed § 694.25 would
apply only to recipients of new grants.
Proposed § 694.25 would contain a
similar requirement for Partnerships
that receive new GEAR UP awards. Prior
to the changes made by the HEOA, a
Partnership grantee was not required to
continue to assist students who had not
completed the 12th grade after the
project period ended. As we stated in
the preceding paragraph, in the absence
of clear legislative intent that Congress
intended to impose the costs and
burdens of activities newly required in
the HEOA on recipients of GEAR UP
continuation grants, we do not believe
we can impose such a requirement. For
this reason, with regard to Partnership
GEAR UP grants, proposed § 694.25
similarly would apply only to recipients
of new grants.
With regard to States and Partnerships
that receive an initial GEAR UP grant on
or after August 14, 2008, the date of
enactment of the HEOA, we interpret
sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C)
of the HEA to require those grantees to
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
continue to provide services required by
§ 694.21 and authorized under §§ 694.22
and 694.23 to those students who are
enrolled in secondary schools until they
complete the twelfth grade if (1) the
initial grant ends before all students
who received GEAR UP services under
the grant have completed the twelfth
grade, and (2) the grantee receives a new
award in a subsequent GEAR UP
competition.
We do not interpret sections
404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the
HEA to require grantees to provide
Federal GEAR UP services outside of the
six- or seven-year grant period for the
Federal GEAR UP award (see section
404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by
section 404(a)(2) of the HEOA) because
this would result in an untenable
situation. We believe that this situation
would be untenable because, were the
Secretary to interpret the law as
applying outside of the six- or sevenyear authorized grant period, the
Secretary would be mandating specific
grantee action without the ability to
adequately enforce the requirement. In
this regard, the only means the
Secretary would have available to seek
enforcement of these provisions,
including any needed grantee reporting
and follow-up, would be to use formal
administrative and judicial procedures
to seek the return of Federal GEAR UP
funds years after their expenditure.
Absent evidence to the contrary, we do
not believe that the Congress intended
the statute to have this effect.
Therefore, proposed § 694.25 provides
that only a grantee that receive both an
initial and new award on or after August
14, 2008, must, during the Federal
funding period, continue to provide
GEAR UP services to students who
received services under the previous
GEAR UP grant award but have not yet
completed the twelfth grade.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Executive Order 12866
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may (1) have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local or
Tribal governments or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2)
create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order. Pursuant to the Executive order,
it has been determined that this
regulatory action will have an annual
effect on the economy of more than
$100 million because the amount of
government transfers provided through
these discretionary grant programs will
exceed that amount. Therefore, this
action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and
subject to OMB review under section
3(f)(1) of the Executive order.
The potential costs associated with
this proposed regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits of this proposed regulatory
action, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection
criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
proposed regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
HEP and CAMP Programs
The Secretary has concluded that
there is no need to discuss the changes
to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis because
the changes to regulations for these
programs were minor. The most
significant changes to these regulations
address who can be considered an
immediate family member of a migrant
individual in order to be eligible for
program services. The Department
determined that providing clarity to the
term ‘‘immediate family member’’ would
help ensure there is a uniform standard
of eligibility for these programs.
Federal TRIO Programs
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed Federal TRIO
program regulations are needed to
implement provisions of the HEOA,
which changed certain features of the
TRIO program. In proposing these
regulations, the Secretary has
endeavored to regulate only where
necessary, and in ways that to the extent
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13859
possible reflect the recommendations of
the non-Federal negotiators:
• Number of Applications: The HEA
stipulates that entities may submit
multiple applications for grants under
each TRIO program ‘‘if the additional
applications describe programs serving
different populations or different
campuses.’’ The HEA, as amended by
the HEOA, defines ‘‘different
populations’’ and ‘‘different campuses.’’
• Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary
School Program of Study: The HEOA
modified the HEA’s outcome criteria for
Talent Search by adding the completion
of a ‘‘rigorous secondary school program
of study’’ as one of the criteria to be
considered in calculating prior
experience points.
• Section 643.32: Changes to
Minimum Number of Participants
Served in Talent Search: In order to
provide it with greater flexibility to
establish the minimum number of
participants in each TS grant
competition, the Department proposes
to eliminate the current regulatory
requirement that TS projects serve a
minimum number of individuals.
• Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40,
646.30, 647.30: Changes to Allowable
Costs (Computer Hardware and
Software) (TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair):
The requirement that grantees must seek
prior approval for purchases of
computer equipment was not addressed
in the statute. However, during
negotiated rulemaking, negotiators
reached a consensus that computer
equipment and software are necessary
costs for grantees to deliver services.
Accordingly, the Department proposes
to change its regulations with respect to
the purchase of computer equipment.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
Sections 643.7, 646.7, 643.10, 644.10,
645.20, 646.10, 647.10: Number of
Applications: Branch Campuses and
Different Populations
The HEA stipulates that entities may
submit multiple applications ‘‘if the
additional applications describe
programs serving different populations
or different campuses.’’ Section
402A(h)(1) and (2) of the HEA defines
‘‘different campus’’ and ‘‘different
population.’’ A ‘‘different campus’’ is
defined as a site of an institution of
higher education that: Is geographically
apart from the main campus of the
institution; is permanent in nature; and
offers courses in educational programs
leading to a degree, certificate, or other
recognized credential. A ‘‘different
population’’ is defined in section
402A(h)(2) of the HEA as a group of
individuals that an eligible entity
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13860
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
desires to serve through an application
for a TRIO grant that is: Separate and
distinct from any other population that
the entity has applied for a TRIO grant;
and while sharing some of the same
needs as another population that the
entity has applied to serve, has distinct
needs for specialized services.
The proposed regulations would
clarify that, for the purposes of the TS
and UB programs, applicants will be
allowed to submit multiple applications
if they plan to serve different target
schools. For the SSS and McNair
programs, applicants can submit
multiple applications if they propose to
serve different campuses.
The proposed regulations would use a
definition of ‘‘different campus’’ that is
different from the definition of
‘‘different campus’’ currently included
in the SSS regulations. Current SSS
regulations require a ‘‘different campus’’
to have separate budget and hiring
authority to be an eligible applicant.
However, HEA, as amended by HEOA,
defined ‘‘different campus’’ as a site of
an institution of higher education that
is: ‘‘geographically apart from the main
campus of the institution,’’ ‘‘permanent,’’
and one that offers courses leading to an
educational credential. The proposed
regulations would implement this
definition in accordance with the
amended statute. With respect to the
implementation of the HEA’s definition
of ‘‘different populations,’’ initially,
during the negotiated rulemaking
sessions, the Department proposed to
implement this change consistent with
its current practice. Currently, all of the
TRIO programs except for SSS prohibit
an applicant from submitting an
application proposing to serve a
different population within the same
target area, school, campus, etc. The
SSS program allows an entity to submit
a separate application to serve
individuals with disabilities. However,
the non-Federal negotiators disagreed
with this approach and argued that the
HEA permits applicants to submit
multiple applications that propose to
serve different populations, even in the
same target area, school, or campus.
Ultimately, the Secretary agreed with
the non-Federal negotiators. Under the
proposed regulations, therefore, an
applicant planning to serve a separate
population would be permitted under
certain circumstances to apply for a
separate grant to serve this population
even if it also applies to serve a different
population of students on the same
campus.
While grantees must be able to serve
more students and to tailor services to
meet the distinct needs of different
populations the Department needs to
establish some limitations on the
number of separate applications an
eligible entity may submit for each
competition. Without such limitations,
adding the definition of the term
different population to the regulations
could have the unintended consequence
of disproportionately increasing funding
at some institutions, agencies, and
organizations that submit several
applications while limiting the funds
available to expand program services to
other areas, schools, and institutions. To
mitigate this risk and to ensure fairness
and consistency in the application
process, the Department proposes to
amend the regulations for each of the
TRIO programs to provide that the
Department will define, for each
competition, the different populations
of participants for which an eligible
entity can submit separate applications
and publish this information in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications and other application
materials for the competition.
This approach would give the
Department the flexibility to designate
the different populations for each
competition based on changing national
needs. It also would permit the
Department to more effectively manage
the program competitions within the
available resources.
For these reasons, under the proposed
regulations, an entity applying for more
than one grant under the TS, EOC, and
UB programs would be able to submit
separate applications to serve different
target areas and different target schools,
and would also be able to submit
separate applications to serve one or
more of the different populations of
participants designated in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications.
Entities applying for grants under the
SSS and McNair programs would be
able to submit separate applications to
serve different campuses and would
also be able to submit separate
applications to serve one or more of the
different populations of participants
designated in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for the
competition.
These regulatory changes are expected
to increase the number of grant
applications for SSS (and other TRIO)
grants. For the SSS program, the
Department estimates an increase of
about 450 applicants (from 1,200 to
1,650) for each competition. With 450
new applicants devoting approximately
34 hours to the process, the Department
expects that the amount of money spent
on applications by applicants would
increase by $742,950. (Note, however,
that the cost to individual applicants is
not expected to increase).
INCREASE IN AGGREGATE APPLICANT COSTS
Estimated
increase
Calculations
Professional Staff ......................................
(450 additional applications * 27 hours * $30 per hour) + Overhead at 50% of salary.
(450 additional applications * 7 hours * $12 per hour) + Overhead at 50% of salary
450 additional applications * ($200 for computer time + $10 for printing) ..................
450 additional applications * $100 cost of finding and maintaining application materials.
$546,750
Clerical Staff .............................................
Use of Computer Equipment ....................
Operation Cost ..........................................
Total ...................................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Burden
.......................................................................................................................................
742,950
56,700
94,500
45,000
Note: Cost estimations are based on the ‘‘Supporting Statement for the Application for Grants Under the Student Support Services Program,
HEOA of 2008, Title IV–A.’’
In addition, the cost of administering
SSS grant competition would likely
increase. In particular, the Department
estimates that variable costs of
processing and reviewing applications
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
will increase 37.5 percent. The cost of
retaining outside reviewers should
increase to $555,000 from $404,000
while application processing costs
should increase from approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$25,000 to $34,560. Costs associated
with staff time for conducting the
supervised review process are expected
to increase from $377,000 to $518,000.
Finally, costs associated with financing
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13861
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
workshops, field reading and slate
preparation are expected to increase
from $917,000 to $1,260,625. In sum,
the Department estimates the expected
increase in grant applications to
increase administration costs by
approximately $646,000.
INCREASE IN COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Estimated
increase
Burden
Calculations
Field Reviewers ........................................
Proportional increase in field reviewers as a result of increase in applications *
$1,100 ($1,000 honorarium, $100 for expenses).
Proportional increase in staff or staff hours as a result of increase in applications ...
Proportional increase in contract costs as a result of increase in applications ..........
$151,364
Proportional increase in staff costs hours as a result of increase in applications ......
141,382
.......................................................................................................................................
645,978
Processing applications ............................
Contractor logistical support for workshops, achieving prior unfunded applications, application processing, field
reading and slate preparation.
Staff time for conducting supervised review.
Total ...................................................
9,426
343,807
Note: Cost estimations are based on the ‘‘Supporting Statement for the Application for Grants Under the Student Support Services Program,
HEOA of 2008, Title IV–A.’’
The primary beneficiaries of the
regulatory change related to different
populations will be students with
special needs. To the extent that college
completion strategies vary across
different populations of students,
allowing applicants to submit separate
applications for different populations
would increase the delivery of the right
kinds of services to students. SSS
projects geared specifically towards ESL
students, for instance, would be able to
provide highly specialized services to
these students in a more efficient and
effective manner than would a general
SSS project.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary
School Program of Study: Adding
Tuition as an Allowable Cost in the TS
Program
The HEOA modified the HEA’s
outcome criteria for the TS program.
These outcome criteria are used to
determine the award of prior experience
points for grantees that choose to apply
for future awards. One of the new
outcome criteria added to the statute
requires grantees to report on the
number of all TS participants who
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study that will make the
students eligible for Academic
Competitiveness Grants (ACG). This
new statutory criterion in and of itself
does not require that TS projects
provide more intensive services: It
could be interpreted simply as requiring
the Department to track whether TS
students, with proper counseling on
course selection and with referrals to
tutoring services, enroll in the
coursework that would qualify them for
an ACG grant. (In most States, students
can qualify for an ACG grant if they
complete four years of English; three
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
years of mathematics, including algebra
I and a higher-level class such as algebra
II, geometry, or data analysis and
statistics; three years of science,
including at least two of three specific
courses, biology, chemistry, and
physics; three years of social studies;
and one year of a language other than
English. Under the ACG program, there
are other options for meeting the
rigorous course of study requirement,
including taking International
Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement
courses.)
Non-Federal negotiators contended
that some schools served by TS grantees
do not provide the type of curriculum
necessary for students to meet the
requirements of a ‘‘rigorous secondary
school program of study.’’ Consequently,
they argued, grantees serving students
in these schools are at a disadvantage
with respect to meeting this criterion.
They specifically requested that
grantees be permitted to use grant funds
to enable participants in the TS program
to attend classes at other schools to help
grantees satisfactorily meet this new
outcome criterion. For example, a TS
grantee would be permitted to provide
funds to a student whose high school
offers only biology and not chemistry or
physics so that the student could attend
a local community college or take an
online course to take chemistry or
physics.
During the negotiated rulemaking
sessions, the negotiators did not reach
agreement on this issue. The
Department has decided to propose to
allow TS grantees to use grant funds to
pay a participant’s tuition for a course
that is part of a rigorous secondary
school program of study if a similar
course is not offered at a school within
his or her LEA provided that several
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conditions are met. The Department has
also decided to propose regulations that
would allow TS grantees to pay for a
student’s transportation to a school not
regularly attended by that student in
order for that student to take a course
that is part of a rigorous program of
study.
To determine the impact of these
proposed regulations, we need to
estimate the number of TS participants
who do not have access to a rigorous
secondary school program of study at
their high school and the cost of
providing these participants with the
requisite curriculum (whether through
tuition or transportation). We also need
to estimate the extent to which grantees
that are serving schools with these
participants would elect to incur these
costs because, under the proposed rules,
grantees would not required to provide
tuition or transportation assistance.
According to recent program data
from the ACG 2007–2008 End of the
Year Report, 54 percent of ACG
recipients qualified under a rigorous
coursework component, 41 percent
under a State designated curriculum,
and four percent under the Advanced
Placement or International
Baccalaureate Program courses. The
Department does not have data on the
availability of curricula that would
satisfy the rigorous secondary school
program of study requirement.
Therefore, we are asking the public for
data on the extent to which rigorous
coursework offerings that would meet
the ACG requirements are not available
at the schools or areas that are targeted
under the TS program and the number
of potential TS participants in these
schools or areas that would be unable to
meet the requirements because of the
unavailability of the curriculum.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13862
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Although we do not have data on the
number of affected students, we do have
some data on the cost of providing
tuition assistance. Based on data
collected by the American Association
of Community Colleges (AACC) in 2008,
we estimate that the cost of providing a
student with one course per semester,
including required textbooks, would be
approximately $560 to $1,280. AACC
data indicate that the per credit costs for
public community college ranges from
about $20 in California to $180 in
Vermont. This compares to an average
grantee cost per TS participant of
approximately $402 in 2008, which
means that the opportunity cost of
providing tuition for one TS participant
to take one class at a community college
is roughly equal to what it costs on
average to serve 1 to 3 additional
participants under the TS program prior
to the enactment of HEOA. Because we
do not know the extent to which
grantees would elect to use funds for
this purpose or the actual costs of
providing access to this coursework, we
are asking current TS grantees to
provide estimates regarding the amount
of the project budget that might be used
for tuition and the estimated number of
participants that might benefit each year
from this service if the grantee elected
to provide it. These data would enable
us to better estimate the effect of using
TS funds for this purpose on program
measures, including the cost per
successful outcome.
With respect to the benefits of this
proposed regulatory change, the
Secretary believes that students enrolled
in schools with curricula that do not
meet the State’s definition of a rigorous
program of study will be the primary
beneficiaries. TS participants in schools
that do not offer all of coursework
needed to satisfy this requirement (e.g.,
a physics or chemistry course) may be
afforded the opportunity to take such
coursework at a local institution of
higher education. Given the body of
research suggesting that students who
take rigorous classes in high school are
more likely to enroll in and complete
postsecondary education, providing this
benefit to TS participants could improve
their educational outcomes. A 2003
GAO report, for instance, reported that
students taking a highly rigorous
secondary school program of study were
1.7 times more likely to earn a
bachelor’s degree than students that
took a basic high school curriculum.1
However, grantees will need to balance
the opportunity costs of providing these
1 GAO, ‘‘Additional Efforts Could Help Education
With its Education Goals,’’ May 2003. (https://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
opportunities to individual students
with the expected educational benefits
to avoid an unnecessary increase in the
cost of successful outcomes under this
program.
Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum
Number of Participants Served in
Talent Search
The proposed regulations would
remove the regulatory requirement that
TS projects serve a minimum number of
individuals. Current regulations require
that any grantee receiving an award of
$180,000 or more must serve a
minimum of 600 individuals. The
Department proposes to remove this
requirement.
The Department proposes to take this
action to provide it flexibility in each
competition to establish the number of
participants, and to adjust these
numbers in subsequent competitions
based on experience, cost analyses, and
other factors.
The Department is committed to
encouraging TS grantees to identify and
adopt the most cost-effective strategies
for disadvantaged youth to complete
secondary school programs, enroll in or
reenter education programs at the
postsecondary level, and complete
postsecondary education programs. The
Department intends to design future TS
grant competitions to achieve this
objective. Future grant competition
notices will set parameters that are
consistent with the statute to encourage
adoption of cost effective practices
using the best available evidence. This
may include setting a minimum number
of program participants for each
competition to promote adoption of
cost-effective practices.
The Department intends to address
the number of participants a TS project
will be expected to serve each year of
the grant cycle through the Federal
Register notice inviting applications for
the competition. The Department also
intends to establish a per-participant
cost in the Federal Register notice that
would be used to determine the amount
of the grant for an applicant proposing
to serve fewer participants than required
for the minimum grant award for the
competition.
Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 646.30,
647.30: Changes to Allowable Costs
(Computer Hardware and Software)
(TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair)
Under the proposed regulations, TRIO
projects no longer would be required to
obtain the Secretary’s approval before
purchasing computer and software
equipment. This regulatory change
would remove administrative costs
associated with obtaining this approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
GEAR UP
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
The proposed GEAR UP regulations
are needed to implement provisions of
the HEOA, which changed certain
features of the GEAR UP program. We
identify those statutory changes that
have prompted us to propose significant
changes in regulations. In proposing
these regulations, the Secretary has
endeavored to regulate only where
necessary, and in ways that to the extent
possible reflect the recommendations of
the non-Federal negotiators:
• Section 694.19—Priority: Section
404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA now requires
that priority be given to those States that
have ‘‘carried out successful [GEAR UP]
programs’’ prior to enactment of HEOA,
and have a ‘‘prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of
successful strategies.’’
• Section 694.8—Waiver of Matching
Requirements: Section 404C(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA, permits
the Secretary to waive the matching
requirement for a Partnership in whole
or in part if, at the time of application,
the Partnership (a) demonstrates
significant economic hardship that
precludes it from meeting the matching
requirement, or requests that its
contributions to the scholarship fund
under section 404E of the HEA be
matched on a two-for-one basis. Section
404C(b)(2) of the HEA also permits the
Secretary to waive the matching
requirement for any Partnership grantee
that demonstrates that the matching
funds described in its application are
not available, and that it has exhausted
all revenues for replacing these
matching funds.
• Sections § 694.12 and § 694.13—
Scholarship Component: Section
404E(e)(1) of the HEA, as amended by
HEOA, requires each State grantee to
reserve an amount of money that is not
less than the minimum scholarship
amount described in section 404E(d) of
the HEA, multiplied by the number of
students the grantee estimates will
complete a secondary school diploma or
its equivalent as may be required for the
students’ admission at an IHE, and
enroll in an IHE. The Department
interprets this new statutory provision
along with the new requirement in
section 404E(d) of the HEA that all
eligible students (as defined in section
404E(g) of the HEA), whether served by
a State or Partnership grantee, who
enroll in an IHE receive at least the
minimum Federal Pell Grant award, to
require any GEAR UP grantee subject to
the section 404E requirements to
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
provide this minimum award to all
GEAR UP students enrolled in an IHE.
This statutory change led the
Department to revisit its current
regulations governing the provision of
continuation scholarships.
• Section § 694.16—Return of Unused
Scholarship Funds: Section
404(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA, as amended
by HEOA, now requires State grantees
either to redistribute to other eligible
students scholarship funds that are not
used by eligible students within six
years of the student’s completion of
secondary school or return those funds
to the Secretary for distribution to other
grantees in accordance with the funding
rules described in section 404B(a) of the
HEA.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
Section 694.17: Priority
Proposed § 694.17 clarifies how the
Department would implement the
statute’s requirement that priority in
making awards be given to those States
that (1) prior to enactment of HEOA
have ‘‘carried out successful GEAR UP
programs’’ and (2) have a ‘‘prior,
demonstrated commitment to early
intervention leading to college access
through collaboration and replication of
successful strategies.’’ While the
Department could seek to implement
this priority by having applicants
address in their applications how they
met both aspects, we believe that
imposing this kind of data burden is
unnecessary.
We are proposing instead to rely,
where possible, on reports that
applicants previously submitted in
implementing their prior GEAR UP
projects. Thus, to implement this
statutory requirement, the Department
would grant ‘‘priority preference points’’
to State applicants, based, in part, on
their prior submission of data, including
outcome data, about their projects and
other information available to the
Department. At present, the Department
is considering implementing the second
element of the priority, which concerns
a prior, demonstrated commitment to
early intervention leading to college
access, through review of the new GEAR
UP application itself given that we do
not know how else the Department
would obtain the information it needs to
determine the extent to which
applicants would meet the second
element of the priority. Moreover,
should the Department determine that it
needs applicants to provide more
information in their applications that
reflect this second element, the
Department believes that the additional
burden would be very small, and that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
the costs of this additional
administrative burden would be far
outweighed by the benefits from
ensuring that the Department is able to
give priority to the most deserving State
applicants.
Sections 694.8 and 694.9: Waiver of
Matching Requirements
Consistent with section 404C(b) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA, these
proposed sections would specify the
circumstances in which the Secretary
would consider requests from
applicants for a waiver of the GEAR
UP’s matching requirement based on
significant economic hardship, and from
grantees based on the unavailability of
matching funds as described in section
404C(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the HEA.
(Section 404C(b)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA
also authorizes a Partnership applicant
to request that contributions to
scholarship funds established under
section 404E of the HEA be matched on
a two-to-one basis, but our proposed
§ 694.8(c) simply repeats this statutory
provision.)
The proposed regulations that would
govern waiver requests by applicants
(proposed § 694.8) and by grantees
(proposed § 694.9) would provide
significant benefit to the public, and do
so in numerous ways. First, they
provide that the Secretary would
entertain waiver requests of significant
amounts from applicants and grantees—
up to 75 percent for up to two years in
the case of an applicant that
demonstrates a significant economic
hardship stemming from a specific,
exceptional, or uncontrollable event,
and up to 50 percent for up to two years
in the case of an applicant with a preexisting and on-going significant
economic hardship that precludes them
from meeting the matching requirement.
Second, by providing clarifying
examples of the kinds of economic
situations and events that would give
rise to approval of an applicant’s or
grantee’s waiver requests, the proposed
regulations would advise the public of
the considerations the Secretary will
examine upon receipt of a waiver
request.
Finally, for an applicant in an area
that faces chronic economic challenges
expected to affect the life of the GEAR
UP project, proposed § 694.8(b)(3)
would permit the Secretary to grant
tentative approval of the waiver for the
entire project period, subject to the
Partnership’s submission of
documentation every two years that
confirms (1) the continued economic
hardship, and (2) the Partnership’s
continuing and unsuccessful attempts to
secure matching contributions. This
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13863
latter proposal would both eliminate
this applicant’s need to prepare a nonFederal budget as part of its application,
and upon initial approval of the waiver
request, would provide a basis for
predicting whether or not the Secretary
would be expected to extend the waiver
in future years.
Thus, these regulatory provisions
would provide a substantial benefit to
grantees meeting the proposed criteria.
For example, in 2009, the average GEAR
UP grant award made to a Partnership
was approximately $1.1 million.
Because, absent a waiver, GEAR UP
grantees must match the amount of
Federal expenditures, the average
annual matching requirement for a
Partnership was also $1.1 million in
2009. However, under proposed
§§ 694.8(b) and 694.9(a)(1), a
Partnership applicant that can
demonstrate an ongoing significant
economic hardship that precludes it
from meeting the matching requirement,
or a Partnership grantee that can
demonstrate that its matching
contributions are no longer available
and that it has exhausted all fund and
sources of potential replacement
contributions, could receive a waiver up
to 50 percent, or on average up to
$600,000 per year. And, under proposed
§§ 694.8(a) and 694.9(a)(2), a
Partnership that can demonstrate the
unavailability of match due to an
uncontrollable event such as a natural
disaster that has had a devastating
impact on members of the Partnership
and the community in which they
operate may receive a waiver of up to
75 percent-–thus creating a benefit (i.e.,
a lessened private commitment) on
average of up to $900,000 per year.
Given the current national economic
climate, such waiver requests seem
likely. Moreover, for grantees that
would not be able to continue operating
their GEAR UP projects without these
waivers, these proposed regulations
would enable the participating students
to continue to receive GEAR UP
services, albeit at a reduced level given
the smaller matching contributions.
In considering the amount of match
subject to possible waiver, the nonFederal negotiators opposed waivers of
greater size. They stressed the
importance of a vibrant and committed
partnership in GEAR UP projects
required partners to maintain a
commitment of their own resources to
help provide needed GEAR UP services.
Moreover, the non-Federal negotiators
also noted that even under current
economic conditions, partners
committed to the GEAR UP projects
should be able to secure substantial inkind matching contributions.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13864
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Accordingly, they rejected options
under which the Secretary might
provide a waiver of the matching
contributions for one or more years of
the project because of economic
conditions or a one-time exceptional or
uncontrollable event waiver of up to 100
percent.
We agree with the non-Federal
negotiators on this issue. We believe
that our proposal to allow the Secretary
to grant waivers of the program’s
matching requirement of up to 50 and
75 percent strikes the right balance
between (a) providing relief where
circumstances beyond the control of a
Partnership affect its ability to maintain
its required match, and (b) the need for
members of the Partnership to be truly
committed to helping to provide the
services that participating GEAR UP
students need.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sections 694.12 and 694.13:
Scholarship Component
Proposed § 694.14(g) would make the
current regulatory requirement that
grantees participating in the scholarship
component must grant continuation
scholarships to each student who was
granted an initial scholarship (and who
remains eligible) inapplicable to
grantees that receive their initial GEAR
UP awards on or after August 14, 2008.
Our proposal to remove this financial
burden from these grantees recognizes
that by requiring each eligible student to
receive at least the Federal Pell Grant
minimum award, section 404E of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA, will
leave grantees with insufficient
scholarship funds to meet the current
regulatory requirement. While GEAR UP
students may bear a corresponding cost
by not having these continuation awards
available to them, these costs—like our
proposal to omit the requirement in
current § 694.10(d) from proposed
§ 694.14—results from the new statutory
requirement that all eligible students
receive at least the Pell Grant minimum
award. Because the minimum
scholarship amount is equal to the
minimum Federal Pell Grant award,
(which is defined in section 401(a)(1)(C)
of the HEA as 10 percent of the
maximum Pell Grant award), the benefit
to grantees as a result of this proposed
regulation would be equal to at least 10
percent of the appropriated maximum
Pell grant award in a given year,
multiplied by the number of individuals
the grantee rejects for continuation
awards. Importantly, because removing
the continuation award requirement
from these regulations would only apply
to new awards, no GEAR UP students in
newly funded projects would have the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
expectation of receiving a GEAR UP
continuation scholarship.
Section 694.16: Return of Unused
Scholarship Funds
Section 404(e)(4)(A)(ii) of HEA, as
amended by HEOA, requires grantees to
return to the Secretary any scholarship
funds that remain after they have first
redistributed unused funds to eligible
students. To enable the Department to
monitor these scholarship accounts and
ensure that Federal funds reserved for
scholarships are expended as intended,
the Department proposes to add
§ 694.16(c), which would require
grantees participating in the scholarship
component of the program to provide
annual information, as the Secretary
may require, on the amount of Federal
and non-Federal funds reserved for
GEAR UP scholarships, and the
disbursement of those scholarship funds
to eligible GEAR UP students. These
annual reports would need to be
submitted until all of the funds are
either disbursed or returned to the
Secretary.
This requirement imposes an
administrative burden on the grantees.
Grantees would be able to charge some
of these administrative costs to their
award of Federal GEAR UP grant funds
because some of these annual reports
would be prepared and submitted
during the project period. Other annual
reports would need to be prepared and
submitted after the six- or seven-year
GEAR UP project period has ended (by
which time it is possible that the
Partnerships have dissolved). In order to
pay the costs of post-project reports,
grantees would be able to (1) reserve
additional amounts during each project
period for the future costs of preparing
and submitting post-project reports, or
(2) authorize those administering the
GEAR UP scholarship accounts to
deduct such amount from the amount
held in reserve for GEAR UP
scholarships (assuming that all eligible
students will still be able to receive a
minimum Federal Pell Grant award).
Because the Department has not yet
established detailed reporting
requirements for this regulatory
provision, it is difficult to estimate the
costs that grantees could charge to
GEAR UP funds. The Department
solicits information from the public
regarding the potential costs associated
with this provision and the content and
format of the future collection of
information. The Secretary believes that
the costs introduced by this proposed
regulatory provision are justified by the
Department’s need to have the necessary
information to monitor the millions of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dollars of Federal funds obligated to
GEAR UP scholarship accounts.
Accounting Statement: As required by
OMB Circular A–4 (available at https://
www.Whithouse.gov/omb/Circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this proposed regulatory
action. This table provides our best
estimate of the Federal payments to be
made to Institutions of Higher
Education, public and private agencies
and organizations, and secondary
schools under these programs as a result
of this proposed regulatory action.
Expenditures are classified as transfers
to those entities.
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Transfers
(in millions)
Category
Annual Monetized
Transfers.
From Whom to
Whom.
$1,218.
Federal Government to
Institutions of Higher
Education, public and
private agencies and
organizations, and secondary schools.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these
proposed regulations would not
adversely impact a substantial number
of small entities. The proposed
regulations would affect institutions of
higher education, States, LEAs and
nonprofit organizations. The U.S. Small
Business Administration Size Standards
define entities as ‘‘small’’ if they are forprofit or nonprofit institutions with total
annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if
they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions, which are
comprised of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000.
HEP and CAMP
The Secretary believes that the minor
changes proposed to the HEP and CAMP
regulations will not affect small entities.
Federal TRIO Programs
The Secretary believes that the
proposed regulations will not adversely
impact any small entities receiving
TRIO grants. The Department has
determined that approximately 141 of
the 2,887 TRIO grantees are defined as
‘‘small entities’’ under the U.S. Small
Business Administration’s size
standards. Of these 141 entities, 133 are
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
nonprofit organizations that receive less
than $5,000,000 in total annual revenue,
7 are LEAs or Tribes with jurisdictions
containing fewer than 50,000 people,
and one is a secondary school. The
Secretary believes that the proposed
regulations will not negatively impact
these small entities and, in fact, believes
that small grantees will benefit from
these regulations. The removal of the
minimum students served requirement
under the Talent Search program will
benefit small entities, whose typically
smaller budgets make it difficult to
serve large numbers of students. In
addition, the elimination of the
requirement for grantees to obtain the
Secretary’s approval before purchasing
computer equipment would particularly
benefit small grantees, for which
administrative costs are most
burdensome. Most importantly, given
that TRIO programs are competitive
grant programs, all costs of participating
are reimbursed by the grant.
GEAR UP
The Secretary believes that the
proposed regulations will not adversely
impact any small entities receiving
GEAR UP grants. The 42 States
receiving grants are not small entities
because each State has a population
exceeding 50,000. Thirty of the fiscal
agents for the 154 Partnership grants are
local educational agencies; according to
the U.S. Census Bureau, 6 of these LEAs
have jurisdiction over an area with
fewer than 50,000 residents, and as
such, are defined as ‘‘small entities’’
under the U.S. Small Business
Administration size standards.
However, the Secretary believes that
these small entities will not be
adversely impacted by the proposed
regulations. In accordance with
statutory changes, the Secretary’s
proposed regulations regarding
matching requirement waivers should
particularly benefit small fiscal agents,
which are more vulnerable to economic
hardship than large fiscal agents, and,
therefore, more likely to qualify for
waivers. Most importantly, given that
GEAR UP is a competitive grant
program, all costs of participating are
reimbursed by the grant.
The Secretary invites comments from
small institutions as to whether they
believe the proposed regulations would
have a significant impact on them and,
if so, requests evidence to support that
belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Proposed §§ 642.21, 642.22, and
642.25 of the Training Program for
Federal TRIO Programs (Training)
regulations; §§ 643.21, 643.22, 643.24
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
and 643.32 of the Talent Search (TS)
regulations; §§ 644.21, 644.22, and
644.24 of the Educational Opportunity
Centers (EOC) regulations; §§ 645.31;
645.32, and 645.35 of the Upward
Bound (UB) regulations; §§ 646.21,
646.22, 646.24, and 646.33 of the
Student Support Services (SSS)
regulations; §§ 647.21, 647.22 and
647.24 of the Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program
(McNair); and §§ 694.7, 694.8, 694.9,
694.14, 694.19, and 694.20 of the GEAR
UP regulations contain information
collection requirements. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of
Education will submit a copy of these
sections to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Parts 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647—
Federal TRIO Programs
Recent grant application packages for
the Training, SSS, TS, EOC, UB, and
McNair programs have been or will be
discontinued; new application packages
for these programs will be developed
prior to their next competitions, and
will reflect any regulatory changes
included in the final regulations that
will be published in 2010. For each new
application, a separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit comment on the new application
several months prior to the next
scheduled competition for the program.
Likewise, any regulatory changes
applicable to the annual performance
reports (APRs) will affect grants
awarded under competitions conducted
after the enactment of the HEOA. The
APRs for the first year of a new grant
will be due approximately 15 months
after the beginning of the new grant
period. Until new grants are awarded,
the Department will continue to use the
existing APR for the program. A new
APR for each program that addresses the
new HEOA requirements will be
developed for the new grant period. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice
followed by a 30-day Federal Register
notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the new APR form for each
program prior to its usage.
Sections 642.21 and 642.25 (Training)—
Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses To
Evaluate an Application for a New
Grant and the Second Review Process
for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed regulations for the
Training Program would amend the
selection criteria the Secretary would
use to evaluate an application for a new
grant to conform to current practice.
Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13865
added requirements for a formal second
review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed
regulations would add a new section
that establishes processes and
procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
application would include the changes
to the selection criteria and describe the
processes and procedures for the second
review of unsuccessful applications.
Specifically, we propose to drop the
Need criterion from the selection
criteria for the Training Program
(current § 642.31(f)) to conform to
current practice. An applicant for a
Training grant would need to address
one of the absolute priorities established
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition. With
the absolute priorities, the Department
would establish the ‘‘need’’ for the
proposed training; thus, it would be
redundant to require an applicant to
provide data in the application to
support the need for the training project.
Therefore, the Need selection criterion
is no longer necessary. The proposed
change would reduce the amount of
information an applicant must include
in its application.
In addition, the application will
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the proposed regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding
band’’ would be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the
proposed regulations, the Department
would notify an unsuccessful applicant
in writing as to the status of its
application and the ‘‘funding band’’ for
the second review and provide copies of
the peer reviewers’ evaluations of the
application and the applicant’s prior
experience (PE) scores, if applicable.
The applicant would be given 15
calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not
funded in which to submit a written
request for a second review in
accordance with the instructions and
due date provided in the Secretary’s
written notification. To be considered
for a second review, an applicant would
need to provide evidence demonstrating
that the Department, an agent of the
Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring
error in the processing or review of the
application. The applicant, however,
would not be able to submit any
additional data or information that was
not included in its original application.
The proposed regulatory change to the
selection criteria would reduce the
amount of information an applicant
must include in its application,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13866
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
resulting in an estimated burden
reduction of 240 hours. In addition, we
estimate that approximately ten percent
of the applications received under each
competition for Training grants will
score within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For
each applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’
that requests a second review, we
estimate an additional burden of two
hours for a burden increase of 12 hours,
which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer
reviewers’ evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
review.
Taken together, the proposed increase
and decrease in burden would result in
a net total burden reduction of 228
hours, reflected in OMB Control
Number 1840–NEW1.
Sections 643.21 and 643.25 (TS)—
Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses To
Evaluate an Application for a New
Grant and the Second Review Process
for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed regulations would
amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a new TS grant to
address statutory changes resulting from
the HEOA. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended
by the HEOA, has added requirements
for a formal second review process for
unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the
proposed regulations would add a new
section that establishes processes and
procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
application would include the changes
to the selection criteria and the
processes and procedures for the second
review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA has made significant
changes to the purpose and goals of the
TS program as reflected in changes to
applicant eligibility, the list of required
and permissible services, and the
outcome criteria. To better align the
selection criteria with these statutory
changes, we propose to revise the
following selection criteria: §§ 643.21(a)
(Need for the project); 643.21(b)
(Objectives); 643.21(c) (Plan of
operation); and 643.21(d) (Applicant
and community support). The revised
selection criteria would replace the
existing criteria in §§ 643.21(a)
643.21(b), 643.21(c), and 643.21(d).
In addition, the application would
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the proposed regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding
band’’ would be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
proposed regulations, the Department
would notify an unsuccessful applicant
in writing as to the status of its
application and the ‘‘funding band’’ for
the second review and provide copies of
the peer reviewers’ evaluations of the
application and the applicant’s prior
experience (PE) scores, if applicable.
The applicant would be given 15
calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not
funded in which to submit a written
request for a second review in
accordance with the instructions and
due date provided in the Secretary’s
written notification. To be considered
for a second review, an applicant would
need to provide evidence demonstrating
that the Department, an agent of the
Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring
error in the processing or review of the
application. The applicant, however,
would not be able to submit any
additional data or information that was
not included in its original application.
The Department does not expect that
proposed changes to the selection
criteria to increase an applicant’s
paperwork burden. However, we
estimate that approximately two percent
of the applications received under each
competition for TS grants will score
within the ‘‘funding band’’. For each
applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that
requests a second review, we estimate
an additional burden of two hours,
which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer
reviewers’ evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
review. This would result in a total
burden increase of 60 hours for the
revised application, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW2. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new
application form to be used for the next
competition for new TS grants currently
scheduled for fall 2010.
Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC)—
Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses To
Evaluate an Application for a New
Grant and the Second Review Process
for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed regulations for the EOC
Program amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a new grant to address
statutory changes resulting from the
HEOA. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of
the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has
added requirements for a formal second
review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed
regulations would establish processes
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
application would include the changes
to the selection criteria and describe the
processes and procedures for the second
review of unsuccessful applications.
Revisions in the selection criteria are
needed to address the statutory changes
resulting from the HEOA. The HEOA
has made changes to applicant
eligibility and the outcome criteria. To
better align the selection criteria with
these statutory changes, we propose to
revise the following selection criteria:
§§ 644.21(b) (Objectives) and
644.21(d)(2) (Applicant and community
support). The revised selection criteria
would replace existing criteria.
In addition, the application would
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant would need to follow to
request a second review of its
application. Under the proposed
regulations, only those applicants in the
proposed ‘‘funding band’’ would be
eligible to request a second review. As
described in the proposed regulations,
the Department would notify an
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
‘‘funding band’’ for the second review
and provide copies of the peer
reviewers’ evaluations of the application
and the applicant’s prior experience
(PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant
would be given 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification. To
be considered for a second review, an
applicant would need to provide
evidence demonstrating that the
Department, an agent of the Department,
or a peer reviewer made a technical,
administrative or scoring error in the
processing or review of the application.
The applicant, however, would not be
able to submit any additional data or
information that was not included in its
original application.
The Department does not expect that
these proposed changes to the selection
criteria would increase an applicant’s
paperwork burden. However, we
estimate that approximately two percent
of the applications received under each
competition for EOC grants will score
within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For each
applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that
requests a second review, we estimate
an additional burden of two hours,
which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer
reviewers’ evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
review. This will result in a total burden
increase of 20 hours for the revised
application, which will be reflected in
a new OMB Control Number 1840–
NEW3. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new
application form to be used for the next
competition for new EOC grants
currently scheduled for fall 2010.
Sections 645.31 and 642.35 (UB)—
Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses To
Evaluate an Application for a New
Grant and the Second Review Process
for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed UB regulations would
amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a new grant to address
statutory changes resulting from the
HEOA. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of
the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has
added requirements for a formal second
review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed
regulations would establish processes
and procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
application would include the changes
to the selection criteria and describe the
processes and procedures for the second
review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA has made changes to
applicant eligibility and the outcome
criteria. To better align the selection
criteria with these statutory changes, we
propose to revise the following selection
criteria: §§ 645.31(b) (Objectives) and
645.31(d)(2) (Applicant and community
support). The revised selection criteria
would replace existing criteria in
§§ 645.31(b) and 645.31(d)(2).
In addition, the application would
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the proposed regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding
band’’ would be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the
proposed regulations, the Department
would notify an unsuccessful applicant
in writing as to the status of its
application and the ‘‘funding band’’ for
the second review and provide copies of
the peer reviewers’ evaluations of the
application and the applicant’s prior
experience (PE) scores, if applicable.
The applicant would be given 15
calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not
funded in which to submit a written
request for a second review in
accordance with the instructions and
due date provided in the Secretary’s
written notification. To be considered
for a second review, an applicant would
need to provide evidence demonstrating
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
that the Department, an agent of the
Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring
error in the processing or review of the
application. The applicant, however,
would not be permitted to submit any
additional data or information that was
not included in its original application.
The Department does not expect these
proposed changes to the selection
criteria will increase an applicant’s
paperwork burden. However, we
estimate that approximately two percent
of the applications received under each
competition for UB grants will score
within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For each
applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that
requests a second review, we estimate
an additional burden of two hours,
which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer
reviewers’ evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
review. This would result in a total
burden increase of 80 hours for the
revised application, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW4. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new
application form to be used for the next
competition for new UB grants currently
scheduled for either fall 2010 or fall
2011.
Sections 646.11; 646.21 and 646.25
(SSS)—The Assurances and Other
Information an Applicant Must Include
in an Application, the Selection Criteria
the Secretary Uses To Evaluate an
Application for a New Grant and the
Second Review Process for
Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed SSS regulations amend
the selection criteria the Secretary uses
to evaluate an application for a new
grant to address statutory changes
resulting from the HEOA and add the
statutory requirement that an applicant
include in its application a description
of its efforts in providing participants
with sufficient financial assistance.
Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has
added requirements for a formal second
review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed
regulations add a new section that
establishes processes and procedures for
a second review of unsuccessful
applications. The new application will
include the changes to the selection
criteria and describe the processes and
procedures for the second review of
unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA made changes to the
outcome criteria. To better align the
selection criteria with these statutory
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13867
changes and current practice, we
propose to revise § 646.21(b)
(Objectives). The revised selection
criteria will replace existing criteria.
Further, the revised § 646.11 will
include the requirement that the
applicant discuss in its application its
efforts to provide participants sufficient
financial assistance.
In addition, the application will
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the proposed regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding
band’’ are eligible to request a second
review. As described in the proposed
regulations, the Department will notify
an unsuccessful applicant in writing as
to the status of its application and the
‘‘funding band’’ for the second review
and provide copies of the peer
reviewers’ evaluations of the application
and the applicant’s prior experience
(PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant
will be given 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification. To
be considered for a second review, an
applicant must provide evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made a technical,
administrative, or scoring error in the
processing or review of the application.
The applicant, however, cannot submit
any additional data or information that
was not included in its original
application.
The Department does not expect the
proposed changes to the selection
criteria to increase an applicant’s
paperwork burden. However, we
estimate that approximately two percent
of the applications received under each
competition for SSS grants will score
within the ‘‘funding band’’ and be
eligible for a second review. For each
applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that
requests a second review, we estimate
an additional burden of two hours,
which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer
reviewers’ evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
review. This would result in a total
burden increase of 66 hours for the
revised application, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW5. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new
application form to be used for the next
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13868
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
competition for new SSS grants
currently scheduled for fall 2013.
Sections 647.21 and 647.25 (McNair)—
Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses To
Evaluate an Application for a New
Grant and the Second Review Process
for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed McNair regulations
would amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a new grant to address
statutory changes resulting from the
HEOA. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of
the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has
added requirements for a formal second
review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed
regulations would establish processes
and procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
application would describe the changes
to the selection criteria and the
processes and procedures for the second
review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA has made changes to the
outcome criteria. To better align the
selection criteria with these statutory
changes and current practice, we
propose to revise § 647.21(b)
(Objectives). The revised selection
criteria would replace the current
criteria in § 647.21(b).
In addition, the application will
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the proposed regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding
band’’ would be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the
proposed regulations, the Department
would notify an unsuccessful applicant
in writing as to the status of its
application and the ‘‘funding band’’ for
the second review and provide copies of
the peer reviewers’ evaluations of the
application and the applicant’s prior
experience (PE) scores, if applicable.
The applicant would be given 15
calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not
funded in which to submit a written
request for a second review in
accordance with the instructions and
due date provided in the Secretary’s
written notification. To be considered
for a second review, an applicant would
need to provide evidence demonstrating
that the Department, an agent of the
Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring
error in the processing or review of the
application. The applicant, however,
would not be permitted to submit any
additional data or information that was
not included in its original application.
The Department does not expect
proposed changes to the selection
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
criteria to increase an applicant’s
paperwork burden. However, we
estimate that approximately two percent
of the applications received under each
competition for McNair grants will score
within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For each
applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that
requests a second review, we estimate
an additional burden of two hours,
which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer
reviewers’ evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
review. This would result in a total
burden increase of 16 hours for the
revised application, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW6. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new
application form for the next
competition for new McNair grants
currently scheduled for either fall 2010
or fall 2011.
Section 642.22 (Training)—How Does
the Secretary Evaluate Prior
Experience?
The HEA, as amended, does not
establish specific outcome criteria for
the Training program; the program
outcome criteria for evaluating a
grantee’s prior experience (PE) are
established in current regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
would be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The
proposed regulations amend the prior
experience criteria the Secretary uses to
award PE points as follows.
For Training (Newly redesignated
§ 642.20 and 642.22), we propose to
clarify the PE criteria and to update the
regulations to reflect the maximum
number of PE points a Training program
grantee may earn. The maximum
number of points would change from 8
points to 15 points.
The burden hour estimate associated
with this APR is reported under OMB
Control Number 1894–0003, the
Department’s generic performance
report Standard 524B form. The
Department does not expect these
proposed editorial changes to increase
burden.
Section 643.22 (TS)—How Does the
Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
and Section 643.32 Includes a New
Recordkeeping Requirement
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as
amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
criteria to be used to determine an
entity’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery and for the
purpose of reporting annually to the
Congress on the performance of the TS
program. Prior to the enactment of the
HEOA, the PE criteria were established
in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
would be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The
proposed regulations would amend the
criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points.
The proposed regulations would
amend the PE criteria to address
statutory changes resulting from the
HEOA. The new statutory outcome and
PE criteria for TS require grantees to
report on: (1) Secondary school
persistence of participants; (2)
secondary school graduation of
participants with regular secondary
school diploma; (3) secondary school
graduation of participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study; (4)
the postsecondary enrollment of
participants; and (5) the postsecondary
completion of participants.
We also propose to amend the
recordkeeping requirements in § 643.32
to require grantees to maintain a list of
courses taken by participants receiving
support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Currently one APR form is used for
both the TS and EOC programs. Because
of the proposed changes to TS, the
Department plans to develop a new APR
for TS. The Department expects the
proposed reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to increase the reporting
burden for this new data collection to 15
hours for each grantee. This would
result in a total burden increase of 7,050
hours for the new APR, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW7. A separate 60-day Federal
Register notice followed by a 30-day
Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit public comment on
the new APR form several months prior
to its first use in fall 2012.
Section 644.22 (EOC)—How Does the
Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as
amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an
entity’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery and for the
purpose of reporting annually to the
Congress on the performance of the EOC
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE
criteria were established in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
would be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The
proposed regulations would amend the
criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points.
The new statutory PE criteria are
similar to the current regulatory PE
criteria (see current § 644.22); therefore,
the Department does not expect the
proposed changes to increase burden on
a EOC grantee. However, when a new
TS APR is developed, the current TS/
EOC form would not be used by TS
grantees; therefore, we expect a total
burden decrease for this data collection
of 2,820 hours, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW8.
A separate 60-day Federal Register
notice followed by a 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new APR
form several months prior to its first use
in fall 2012.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 645.32 (UB)—How Does the
Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as
amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an
entity’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery and for the
purpose of reporting annually to the
Congress on the performance of the UB
program. Prior to the enactment of the
HEOA, the PE criteria were established
in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
would be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The
proposed regulations would amend the
criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points.
Revisions in the PE criteria are
needed to address statutory changes
resulting from the HEOA. The new
statutory outcome PE criteria for UB
requires grantees to report on: (1) The
academic performance of participants;
(2) secondary school retention and
graduation of participants; (3)
completion by participants of a rigorous
secondary school program of study; (4)
the postsecondary enrollment of
participants; and (5) the postsecondary
completion of participants.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
The Department expects the new
requirements that a grantee report on
the completion of a rigorous secondary
school program of study and
postsecondary completion of
participants would increase the
reporting burden for this data collection
by six hours for each grantee. This
would result in a total burden increase
of 6,858 hours for the revised APR,
which would be reflected in a new OMB
Control Number 1840–NEW9.
A separate 60-day Federal Register
notice followed by a 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the new APR
form several months prior to its first use
in either fall 2012 or fall 2013.
Section 646.22 (SSS)—How Does the
Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
and New Section 646.33 Adds the
Statutory Matching Requirements for
Grantees That Use Federal SSS Funds
for Grant Aid
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as
amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an
entity’s prior experience of high quality
service delivery and for the purpose of
reporting annually to Congress on the
performance of the SSS program. Prior
to the HEOA, the PE criteria were
established in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
would be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The
proposed regulations would amend the
criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points.
Revisions in the PE criteria are
needed to address statutory changes
resulting from the HEOA. The statutory
outcome PE criteria for the SSS program
requires grantees to report on
baccalaureate degree competition for
participants at four-year institutions and
certificate and associate degree
completion and transfers to four-year
institutions for participants at two-year
institutions. The Department expects
that these requirements for tracking the
academic progress of SSS participants
through degree completion to increase
the reporting burden by six hours for
each grantee.
We also propose to add new § 646.33
to incorporate the statutory provisions
that permit a grantee to use Federal
grant funds to provide grant aid to
students. Many grantees that use
program funds for grant aid must
provide a non-Federal match, in cash, of
not less than 33 percent of the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13869
funds used for grant aid. A grant
recipient that is an institution of higher
education eligible to receive funds
under part A or B of title III or title V
of the HEA, as amended, is not required
to match the Federal funds used for
grant aid. For those grantees that are
required to provide matching funds for
grant aid (estimated at 50 percent of SSS
grantees), we estimate that the proposed
regulations will increase the burden by
two hours per grantee. The combined
increase would result in a total burden
increase of 6,720 hours for the revised
APR, which would be reflected in a new
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW10. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice
followed by a 30-day Federal Register
notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the new APR form several
months prior to its first use in fall 2011.
Section 647.22 (McNair)—How Does the
Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as
amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome
criteria for the McNair Program to be
used to determine an entity’s prior
experience of high quality service
delivery and for the purpose of
reporting annually to Congress on the
performance of the McNair program.
Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were
established in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we
would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
would be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The
proposed regulations would amend the
criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points.
The Department expects the new
statutory requirements that include
long-term tracking of the academic
progress of McNair participants through
completion of the doctoral degree will
increase the reporting burden for this
data collection by 4 hours per grantee.
This will result in a total burden
increase of 760 hours for the revised
APR, which will be reflected in a new
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW11. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice
followed by a 30-day Federal Register
notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the new APR form several
months prior to its first use in either fall
2012 or 2013.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13870
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Part 694—GEAR UP
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sections 694.7, 694.8 and 694.9—
Matching Requirements for GEAR UP
Grants
The proposed regulations provide that
an applicant for GEAR UP funding must
state in its application the percentage of
the cost of the GEAR UP project that the
applicant will provide from non-Federal
funds. The proposed regulations also
provide that the Secretary may waive a
portion of the matching requirement in
response to a grantee’s written request
for a waiver of the match. The proposed
regulations further provide the
conditions that must be met for the
Secretary to approve a request to waive
a portion of the matching requirement
and that if the Secretary grants a
tentative waiver to a new grantee for the
full project period because of a preexisting or ongoing economic hardship,
the recipient will need to submit
documentation every two years to
demonstrate that conditions have not
changed.
We estimate that the proposed
changes would increase burden by 12.5
hours for each GEAR UP applicant in
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW12, for
a total burden increase of 6,250 hours,
based on 500 applicants. A separate 30day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit public comment on
the revised application form prior to its
usage, currently estimated to be fall
2010.
We estimate that the proposed
changes would decrease burden by 500
hours for each GEAR UP grantee in
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW13,
resulting in a total burden decrease of
7,860 hours, and likewise in OMB
Control Number 1840–NEW14, resulting
in a total burden decrease of 5,625. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice
followed by a 30-day Federal Register
notice will be published to solicit public
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
comment on the revised APR and FPR
forms prior to their usage, currently
estimated to be spring 2011 or spring
2012. If granted a waiver of the
matching requirement, GEAR UP
grantees will spend significantly less
time collecting and documenting
matching funds.
Section 694.16(c)—Scholarship
Reporting Requirements
The proposed regulations require
grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant
awards were made on or after August
14, 2008 and grantees whose initial
GEAR UP grant awards were made prior
to August 14, 2008, but who, pursuant
to 694.12(b)(2), elect make scholarships
pursuant to the HEOA requirements in
to furnish information as the Secretary
may require on the amount of any
Federal and non-Federal funds reserved
and held for GEAR UP scholarships and
the disbursement of these scholarship
funds. Reporting would be required
until these funds are fully expended or,
if Federal funds, returned to the
Secretary.
We estimate that these proposed
changes would increase burden by 400
hours for each GEAR UP grantee in
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW13,
resulting in a total burden increase of
8,760, and by 800 hours for each grantee
in OMB Control Number 1840–NEW14,
resulting in a total burden increase of
6,925. A separate 60-day Federal
Register notice followed by a 30-day
Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit public comment on
the revised APR and FPR forms prior to
their usage, currently estimated to be
spring 2011 or spring 2012.
Section 694.19—Priorities for GEAR UP
Grants
The proposed regulations would
provide that the Secretary awards
competitive preference priority points to
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
an eligible applicant for a State grant
that has carried out a successful State
GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008
and has a prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of
successful strategies.
Applicants would respond to these
priorities as part of their applications in
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW12,
which would increase total burden by
6,250 hours. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the revised
application form prior to its usage,
currently estimated to be fall 2010.
Section 694.20—When May a GEAR UP
Grantee Provide Services to Students
Attending an Institution of Higher
Education?
Under the proposed regulations,
GEAR UP applicants would be
permitted to request in their
applications a seventh year of funding
so that the State or Partnership may
continue to provide services to students
through their first year of attendance at
an institution of higher education.
We estimate that the proposed
changes would increase burden by 300
hours in OMB Control Number 1840–
NEW12 for each GEAR UP applicant for
a total burden increase of 150,000 hours.
A separate 30-day Federal Register
notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the revised application
form prior to its usage, currently
estimated to be fall 2010.
Consistent with this discussion, the
following chart describes the sections of
the proposed regulations involving
information collections, the information
being collected, and the collections that
the Department will submit to OMB for
approval and public comment under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
13871
Information section
Collection OMB Control No.
Sections 642.21 and 642.25
(Training).
The proposed regulations would amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for a Training grant. The proposed regulations also
would add a new section that establishes processes
and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
Sections 643.21 and 643.24
(TS).
The proposed regulations would amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for a TS grant. The proposed regulations also would
add a new section that establishes processes and
procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
Sections 644.21 and 644.24
(EOC).
The proposed regulations would amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for an EOC grant. The proposed regulations also
would add a new section that establishes processes
and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
Sections 645.31 and 645.35
(UB).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulation section
The proposed regulations would amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for a UB grant.
The proposed regulations also would add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a
review of unsuccessful applications.
1840–NEW1 (Training) This is a new collection. The
Department has submitted the new application form
for public comment to be used for the next competition for new Training grants scheduled for spring/
summer 2010.
The proposed regulations would affect applicant burden
in two ways. First, the proposed elimination of the
Need selection criterion would reduce the amount of
information an applicant must include in its application, resulting in an estimated burden reduction of
240 hours.
Additionally, the proposed regulatory processes and
procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications would lead to an estimated burden increase of 12 hours (or, an estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the estimated six applicants that
will fall within an estimated 10 percent funding band
under the second review process).
In total, there would be an estimated decrease in burden of 228 hours.
1840–NEW2 (TS) This would be a new collection. A
separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010.
The Department does not expect that proposed amendments to the selection criteria would change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The proposed regulatory
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications would lead to an estimated
burden increase of 60 hours (or, an estimated two
burden hour increase for each of the estimated 30
applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review process).
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 60 hours.
1840–NEW3 (EOC) This would be a new collection. A
separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010.
The Department does not expect that proposed amendments to the selection criteria would change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The proposed regulatory
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications would lead to an estimated
burden increase of 20 hours (or, an estimated two
burden hour increase for each of the estimated 10
applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review process).
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 20 hours.
1840–NEW4 (UB) This would be a new collection. A
separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010 or 2011.
The Department does not expect that proposed amendments to the selection criteria would change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The proposed regulatory
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications would lead to an estimated
burden increase of 80 hours (or, an estimated two
burden hour increase for each of the estimated 40
applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review process).
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 80 hours.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13872
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Regulation section
Information section
Collection OMB Control No.
Sections 646.11; 646.21 and
646.24 (SSS).
The proposed regulations would amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for a SSS grant and amend the assurance and other
information an applicant must include in its application.
The proposed regulations also would add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a
review of unsuccessful applications.
Sections 647.21 and 647.24
(McNair).
The proposed regulations would amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for a McNair grant.
The proposed regulations also would add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a
review of unsuccessful applications.
Section 642.22 (Training) ....
The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points. Under the proposed regulations, we would
award PE points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be
based on the information the grantee submits in its
annual performance report.
The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points. Under the proposed regulations we would
award PE points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be
based on the information the grantee submits in its
annual performance report.
The proposed regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for TS.
1840–NEW5 (SSS) This would be a new collection. A
separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2013.
The Department does not expect that proposed amendments to the selection criteria or the assurance and
other information an applicant must include in its application would change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The proposed regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications would lead to an estimated burden increase of
66 hours (or, an estimated two burden hour increase
for each of the estimated 33 applicants that will fall
within an estimated two percent funding band under
the second review process).
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 66 hours.
1840–NEW6 (McNair) This would be a new collection.
A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit comments on this form prior to
the next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010 or 2011.
The Department does not expect that proposed amendments to the selection criteria would change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The proposed regulatory
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications would lead to an estimated
burden increase of 16 hours (or, an estimated two
burden hour increase for each of the estimated eight
applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review process).
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 16 hours.
1894–0003 (Training) The Department would continue
to use the Department’s generic performance report
for the Training program. Proposed changes would
be editorial in nature.
There would be no increase in estimated burden hours.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sections 643.22 (TS) and
643.32.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1840–NEW7 (TS) This would be a new collection. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new TS grants.
The revised APR is needed for fall 2012 data collection.
The proposed regulations would increase grantee data
collection and reporting requirements in two ways.
First, the proposed regulatory amendments to the PE
criteria, which address statutory changes that expand
outcome and PE criteria for TS grantees to include
such measures as the postsecondary completion of
participants, are expected to increase grantees’ reporting burden. Additionally, the proposed regulatory
amendments to recordkeeping requirements would
require grantees to maintain a list of courses taken
by participants receiving support to complete a rigorous secondary school program of study, a new
data collection that would also increase grantees’
burden hours. The Department expects these two
proposed changes to result in an increase of 15 burden hours per grantee.
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 7,050 hours.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
13873
Information section
Collection OMB Control No.
Section 644.22 (EOC) ..........
The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points. Under the proposed regulations we would
award PE points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be
based on the information the grantee submits in its
annual performance report.
Section 645.32 (UB) ............
The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points. Under the proposed regulations we would
award PE points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be
based on the information the grantee submits in its
annual performance report.
Sections 646.22 and 646.33
(SSS).
The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points. Under the proposed regulations we would
award PE points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be
based on the information the grantee submits in its
annual performance report.
The proposed regulations also add a new section on
matching requirements for SSS.
Section 647.22 (McNair) ......
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulation section
The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points. Under the proposed regulations we would
award PE points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be
based on the information the grantee submits in its
annual performance report.
1840–NEW8 (EOC) This would be a new collection. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new EOC grants. The revised
APR is needed for fall 2012 data collection.
Because the new statutory PE criteria are similar to the
current regulatory PE criteria, the Department does
not expect the proposed changes to affect the burden on EOC grantees.
However, the Department expects that burden hours
would be reduced as a result of the development of a
new TS APR form, since such a form would allow the
current TS/EOC APR form to be used exclusively by
EOC grantees.
In total, there would be an estimated burden decrease
of 2,820 hours.
1840–NEW9 (UB) This would be a new collection. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new UB grants. The revised
APR is needed for fall 2012 or 2013 data collection.
The proposed regulatory amendments to the PE criteria, which address statutory changes that expand
outcome and PE criteria for UB grantees to include
such measures as the postsecondary completion of
participants, are expected to increase grantees’ reporting burden. The Department expects proposed
changes to result in an increase of six burden hours
per grantee.
In total, there would be an estimated burden increase
of 6,858 hours.
1840–NEW10 (SSS) This would be a new collection. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new SSS grants. The revised
APR is needed for fall 2011 data collection.
The proposed regulations would increase grantee data
collection and reporting requirements in two ways.
First, the proposed regulatory amendments to the PE
criteria, which address statutory requirements for
tracking the academic progress of SSS participants
through degree completion, would increase the reporting burden by six hours for each grantee. Additionally, for those grantees that are required to provide matching funds for grant aid (estimated at 50
percent of SSS grantees), the proposed regulations
would increase burden by an estimated two hours
per grantee. In total, there would be an estimated
burden increase of 6,720 hours.
1840–NEW11 (McNair) This would be a new collection.
A separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit comments on this form following
the next competition for new McNair grants. The revised APR is needed for fall 2012 or 2013 data collection.
The proposed regulatory amendments to the PE criteria, which address statutory requirements for longterm tracking of the academic progress of McNair
participants through completion of the doctoral degree, would increase the reporting burden by four
hours for each grantee. In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of 760 hours.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13874
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Information section
Collection OMB Control No.
694.7, 694.8, and 694.9
GEAR UP.
The proposed regulations would provide that an applicant for GEAR UP funding must state in its application the percentage of the cost of the GEAR UP
project that the application will provide from non-Federal funds.
The proposed regulations also would provide that the
Secretary may waive a portion of the matching requirement in response to a written request for a waiver of the match. This written request can be included
in the application or submitted separately.
The proposed regulations also would provide the conditions that must be met for the Secretary to approve a
request to waive a portion of the matching requirement.
694.14(c) ..............................
The proposed regulations would require grantees
whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made on
or after August 14, 2008 and grantees whose initial
GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August
14, 2008 to furnish information on the amount of any
Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for
GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of
these scholarship funds until these funds are fully expended or returned to the Secretary.
694.19 ..................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulation section
The proposed regulations provide that the Secretary
awards competitive preference priority points to an
eligible applicant for a State grant that has carried
out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008 and has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention, leading to college access
through collaboration and replication of successful
strategies.
1840–NEW12 This would be a new collection. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010.
There would be an estimated burden increase of 6,250
hours.
1840–NEW13 This would be a new collection. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new GEAR UP grants. There
would be an estimated burden decrease of 7,860
hours.
1840–NEW14 This would be a new collection. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new GEAR UP grants. There
would be an estimated burden decrease of 5,625
hours.
The proposed regulations provide that an applicant for
GEAR UP funding must state in its application the
percentage of the cost of the GEAR UP project that
the applicant will provide from non-Federal funds.
The proposed regulations also provide that the Secretary may waive a portion of the matching requirement in response to a grantee’s written request for a
waiver of the match. The proposed regulations further provide the conditions that must be met for the
Secretary to approve a request to waive a portion of
the matching requirement and that if the Secretary
grants a tentative waiver to a new grantee for the full
project period because of a pre-existing or ongoing
economic hardship, the recipient will need to submit
documentation every two years to demonstrate that
conditions have not changed.
1840–NEW13 This would be a new collection. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new GEAR UP grants. There
would be an estimated burden increase of 8,760
hours.
1840–NEW14 This would be a new collection. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form following the
next competition for new GEAR grants. There will be
an estimated burden increase of 6,925 hours.
The proposed regulations require grantees whose initial
GEAR UP grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008 and grantees whose initial GEAR UP
grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008, to
provide information as the Secretary may require on
the amount of any Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of these scholarship funds. Reporting
would be required until these funds are fully expended or, if Federal funds, returned to the Secretary.
1840–NEW12 This would be a new collection. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010.
There would be an estimated burden increase of 6,250
hours.
The proposed regulations would provide that the Secretary awards competitive preference priority points
to an eligible applicant for a State grant that has carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to
August 14, 2008 and has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading to college access through collaboration and replication of successful strategies.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
13875
Information section
Collection OMB Control No.
694.20 ..................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulation section
Under the proposed regulations, GEAR UP applicants
would be permitted to request in their applications a
seventh year of funding so that the State or Partnership may continue to provide services to students
through their first year of attendance at an institution
of higher education.
1840–NEW12 This would be a new collection. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the
next competition for new grants scheduled for fall
2010.
Burden would increase by 300 hours.
Under the proposed regulations, GEAR UP applicants
would be permitted to request in their applications a
seventh year of funding so that the State or Partnership may continue to provide services to students
through their first year of attendance at an institution
of higher education.
If you want to comment on the
proposed information collection
requirements, please send your
comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for U.S. Department of
Education. Send these comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or
by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may also
send a copy of these comments to the
Department contact named in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
We consider your comments on these
proposed collections of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed
collections are necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collections, including the validity of our
methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information we
collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those
who must respond. This includes
exploring the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collections of
information contained in these
proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document
in the Federal Register. Therefore, to
ensure that OMB gives your comments
full consideration, it is important that
OMB receives the comments within 30
days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for your comments to us on
the proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 12372
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
The objective of the Executive order is
to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
federalism by relying on processes
developed by State and local
governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
In accordance with the order, we
intend this document to provide early
notification of the Department’s specific
plans and actions for these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the
General Education Provisions Act, 20
U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary
particularly requests comments on
whether these proposed regulations
would require transmission of
information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers HEP/CAMP: 84.141A, 84.149A;
TRIO: 84.042A, 84.044A, 84.047A, 84.047M,
84.047V, 84.066A, 84.103A, 84.217A; GEAR
UP: 84.334A, 84.334S.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 206,
642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647,and 694
Colleges and universities,
Disadvantaged students, Educational
programs, Discretionary grants,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Training.
Dated: March 3, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary proposes to
amend parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645,
646, 647, and 694 of title 34 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 206—SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE
FAMILIES ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT
AND OTHER SEASONAL
FARMWORK—HIGH SCHOOL
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND
COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 206
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d–2, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 206.3 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
word ‘‘parent’’ and adding, in its place,
the words ‘‘immediate family member’’.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 206.3 Who is eligible to participate in a
project?
(a) * * *
(2) The person must have participated
(with respect to HEP within the last 24
months), or be eligible to participate, in
programs under 34 CFR part 200,
subpart C (Title I—Migrant Education
Program) or 20 CFR part 633
(Employment and Training
Administration, Department of Labor—
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
Programs).
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 206.4 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(6)
and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8),
respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(6).
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(9)
through (a)(11).
The additions read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13876
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 206.4 What regulations apply to these
programs?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(6) 34 CFR part 84 (Governmentwide
Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace
(Financial Assistance)).
*
*
*
*
*
(9) 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of
Human Subjects).
(10) 34 CFR part 98 (Student Rights in
Research, Experimental Programs, and
Testing).
(11) 34 CFR part 99 (Family
Educational Rights and Privacy).
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 206.5 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(5),
(c)(6), and (c)(7) as paragraphs (c)(6),
(c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c)(7), removing the citation ‘‘(c)(7)’’ and
adding, in its place, the citation ‘‘(c)(8)’’.
D. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (c)(8).
E. In paragraph (d)—
1. Removing the citation ‘‘34 CFR
201.3’’ and adding, in its place, the
citation ‘‘34 CFR 200.81’’; and
2. Removing the words ‘‘Chapter 1’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘Title I’’.
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
§ 206.5 What definitions apply to these
programs?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) Immediate family member means
one or more of the following:
(i) A spouse.
(ii) A parent, step-parent, adoptive
parent, foster parent, or anyone with
guardianship.
(iii) Any person who—
(A) Claims the individual as a
dependent on a Federal income tax
return for either of the previous two
years, or
(B) Resides in the same household as
the individual, supports that individual
financially, and is a relative of that
individual.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Seasonal farmworker means a
person whose primary employment was
in farmwork on a temporary or seasonal
basis (that is, not a constant year-round
activity) for a period of at least 75 days
within the past 24 months.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 206.10 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), adding
the words ‘‘(including preparation for
college entrance examinations)’’ after the
word ‘‘program’’.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
B. In paragraph (b)(1)(v), removing the
words ‘‘Weekly stipends’’ and adding, in
their place, the word ‘‘Stipends’’.
C. In paragraph (b)(1)(viii), adding the
words ‘‘(such as transportation and child
care)’’ after the word ‘‘services’’.
D. In paragraph (b)(1), adding a new
paragraph (ix).
E. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) introductory
text, adding the words ‘‘to improve
placement, persistence, and retention in
postsecondary education’’ after the word
‘‘services’’.
F. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), by—
1. Removing the word ‘‘and’’; and
2. Adding the words ‘‘economic
education, or personal finance’’ before
the word ‘‘counseling’’.
G. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi)
as paragraph (b)(2)(vii).
H. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi).
I. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(2)(vii), removing the words ‘‘support
services’’, and adding, in their place, the
words ‘‘essential supportive services
(such as transportation and child care),’’.
The additions read as follows:
§ 206.10 What types of services may be
provided?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Other activities to improve
persistence and retention in
postsecondary education.
(2) * * *
(vi) Internships.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 206.11 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the
word ‘‘and’’ after the punctuation‘‘;’’.
B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ after the word ‘‘aid’’ and
adding, in its place, the words ‘‘, and
coordinating those services, assistance,
and aid with other non-program
services, assistance, and aid, including
services, assistance, and aid provided by
community-based organizations, which
may include mentoring and guidance;
and’’.
C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 206.11 What types of CAMP services
must be provided?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) For students attending two-year
institutions of higher education,
encouraging the students to transfer to
four-year institutions of higher
education, where appropriate, and
monitoring the rate of transfer of those
students.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 206.20
[Amended]
7. Section 206.20(b)(2) is amended by
removing the amount ‘‘$150,000’’ and
adding, in its place, the amount
‘‘$180,000’’.
8. Section 206.31 is added to subpart
D of part 206 to read as follows:
§ 206.31 How does the Secretary evaluate
points for prior experience for HEP and
CAMP service delivery?
(a) In the case of an applicant for a
HEP award, the Secretary considers the
applicant’s experience in implementing
an expiring HEP project with respect
to—
(1) Whether the applicant served the
number of participants described in its
approved application;
(2) The extent to which the applicant
met or exceeded its funded objectives
with regard to project participants,
including the targeted number and
percentage of—
(i) Participants who received a general
educational development (GED)
credential; and
(ii) GED credential recipients who
were reported as entering postsecondary
education programs, career positions, or
the military; and
(3) The extent to which the applicant
met the administrative requirements,
including recordkeeping, reporting, and
financial accountability under the terms
of the previously funded award.
(b) In the case of an applicant for a
CAMP award, the Secretary considers
the applicant’s experience in
implementing an expiring CAMP project
with respect to—
(1) Whether the applicant served the
number of participants described in its
approved application;
(2) The extent to which the applicant
met or exceeded its funded objectives
with regard to project participants,
including the targeted number and
percentage of participants who—
(i) Successfully completed the first
year of college; and
(ii) Continued to be enrolled in
postsecondary education after
completing their first year of college;
and
(3) The extent to which the applicant
met the administrative requirements,
including recordkeeping, reporting, and
financial accountability under the terms
of the previously funded award.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d–2(e))
PART 642—TRAINING PROGRAM FOR
FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS
9. The authority citation for part 642
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
17, unless otherwise noted.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Subpart A of Part 642—[Amended]
10. Section 642.1 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 642.1 What is the Training Program for
Federal TRIO Programs?
The Training Program for Federal
TRIO programs, referred to in these
regulations as the Training program,
provides Federal financial assistance to
train the leadership personnel and staff
employed in, or preparing for
employment in, Federal TRIO program
projects.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–17)
11. Section 642.2 is amended by
revising the section heading to read as
follows:
§ 642.2
Who are eligible applicants?
*
*
*
*
*
12. Section 642.3 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In paragraph (a), adding the word
‘‘funded’’ after the word ‘‘projects’’.
C. In paragraph (b) by removing the
words ‘‘staff or’’; adding the words ‘‘or
staff’’ after the word ‘‘personnel’’; and
adding the word ‘‘funded’’ after the word
‘‘projects’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 642.3
*
*
Who are eligible participants?
*
*
*
§§ 642.4 and 642.5 [Redesignated as
§§ 642.5 and 642.6]
13. Sections 642.4 and 642.5 are
redesignated as §§ 642.5 and 642.6.
14. A new § 642.4 is added to read as
follows:
§ 642.4
How long is a project period?
A project period under the Training
program is two years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–17(b))
15. Newly redesignated § 642.5 is
amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraph (a).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 642.5
What regulations apply?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
§§ 75.215–75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85,
86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
16. Newly redesignated § 642.6 is
amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In paragraph (b) by revising the
introductory text; revising definitions of
‘‘Federal TRIO programs’’, ‘‘Institution of
higher education’’, ‘‘Leadership
personnel’’; adding, in alphabetical
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
order, new definitions for ‘‘Foster care
youth’’, ‘‘Homeless children and youth’’,
‘‘Individual with disabilities’’, and
‘‘Veteran’’; and removing the authority
citation following the definition of
‘‘Federal TRIO programs’’; and
C. Adding an authority citation at the
end of the section.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 642.6
What definitions apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Definitions that apply to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Federal TRIO programs means those
programs authorized under section
402A of the Act: the Upward Bound,
Talent Search, Student Support
Services, Educational Opportunity
Centers, and Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement
programs.
Foster care youth means youth who
are in foster care or who are aging out
of the foster care system.
Homeless children and youth means
persons defined in section 725 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
Individual with disabilities means a
person who has a diagnosed physical or
mental impairment that substantially
limits that person’s ability to participate
in educational experiences and
opportunities.
*
*
*
*
*
Institution of higher education means
an educational institution as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the Act.
Leadership personnel means project
directors, coordinators, and other
individuals involved with the
supervision and direction of projects
funded under the Federal TRIO
programs.
Veteran means a person who—
(1) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
for a period of more than 180 days and
was discharged or released under
conditions other than dishonorable;
(2) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
and was discharged or released because
of a service connected disability;
(3) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active
duty for a period of more than 30 days;
or
(4) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty
in support of a contingency operation
(as that term is defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States
Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13877
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 1070a–11,
1070–17(b), 1088, 1141, and 1144a)
17. Section 642.7 is added to subpart
A of part 642 to read as follows:
§ 642.7 How many applications may an
eligible applicant submit?
An applicant may submit more than
one application for Training grants as
long as each application describes a
project that addresses a different
absolute priority that is designated in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d, 1070d–1d; 20
U.S.C. 1221e–3)
18. Subpart B of part 642 is revised to
read as follows:
Subpart B—What Types of Projects and
Activities Does the Secretary Assist under
this Program?
Sec.
642.10 What types of projects does the
Secretary assist?
642.11 What activities does the Secretary
assist?
642.12 What activities may a project
conduct?
Subpart B—What Types of Projects
and Activities Does the Secretary
Assist under this Program?
§ 642.10 What types of projects does the
Secretary assist?
The Secretary assists projects that
train the leadership personnel and staff
of projects funded under the Federal
TRIO Programs to enable them to
operate those projects more effectively.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–17)
§ 642.11
assist?
What activities does the Secretary
(a) Each year, one or more Training
Program projects must provide training
for new project directors.
(b) Each year, one or more Training
Program projects must offer training
covering the following topics:
(1) The legislative and regulatory
requirements for operating projects
funded under the Federal TRIO
programs.
(2) Assisting students to receive
adequate financial aid from programs
assisted under title IV of the Act and
from other programs.
(3) The design and operation of model
programs for projects funded under the
Federal TRIO programs.
(4) The use of appropriate educational
technology in the operation of projects
funded under the Federal TRIO
programs.
(5) Strategies for recruiting and
serving hard-to-reach populations,
including students who are limited
English proficient, students from groups
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13878
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
that are traditionally underrepresented
in postsecondary education, students
who are individuals with disabilities,
students who are homeless children and
youths, students who are foster care
youth, or other disconnected students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–17)
§ 642.12 What activities may a project
conduct?
A Training program project may
include on-site training, on-line
training, conferences, internships,
seminars, workshops, and the
publication of manuals designed to
improve the operations of Federal TRIO
program projects.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–17(b))
PART 642—[AMENDED]
19. Part 642 is amended by
redesignating subparts D and E as
subparts C and D, respectively.
Subpart C of Part 642—[Amended]
§§ 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and
642.34 [Redesignated as §§ 642.20,
642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24]
20. Newly redesignated subpart C of
part 642 is amended by redesignating
§§ 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and
642.34 as §§ 642.20, 642.21, 642.22,
642.23, and 642.24, respectively.
21. Newly redesignated § 642.20 is
amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In the introductory text of
paragraph (a), removing the citation
‘‘§ 642.31’’ and adding, in its place, the
citation ‘‘§ 642.21’’.
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
number ‘‘100’’ and adding, in its place,
the number ‘‘75’’.
D. Revising paragraph (b).
E. Adding new paragraphs (c), (d),
and (e).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 642.20 How does the Secretary evaluate
an application for a new award?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In addition, for an applicant who
is conducting a Training program in the
fiscal year immediately prior to the
fiscal year for which the applicant is
applying, the Secretary evaluates the
applicant’s prior experience (PE) of high
quality service delivery, as provided in
§ 642.22, based on the applicant’s
performance during the first project year
of that expiring Training program grant.
(c) The Secretary selects applications
for funding within each specific
absolute priority established for the
competition in rank order on the basis
of the score received by the application
in the peer review process.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
*
*
*
*
23. Newly redesignated § 642.22 is
revised to read as follows:
on the basis of the selection criteria in
§ 642.21, based on the applicant’s
success in meeting the administrative
requirements and programmatic
objectives of paragraph (e) of this
section.
(2) The maximum possible score for
each criterion is indicated in the
parentheses preceding the criterion.
(c) The Secretary awards no PE points
for a given year to an applicant that does
not serve at least 90 percent of the
approved number of participants. For
purposes of this section, the approved
number of participants is the total
number of participants the project
would serve as agreed upon by the
grantee and the Secretary.
(d) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number
of participants), the Secretary awards no
PE points if the applicant did not serve
the approved number of participants.
(e) The Secretary evaluates the
applicant’s PE on the basis of the
following criteria:
(1) (4 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided training
to the approved number of participants.
(2) Training objectives. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objectives
for:
(i) (4 points) Assisting the participants
in developing increased qualifications
and skills to meet the needs of
disadvantaged students.
(ii) (4 points) Providing the
participants with an increased
knowledge and understanding of the
Federal TRIO Programs.
(3) (3 points) Administrative
requirements. Whether the applicant
met all the administrative requirements
under the terms of the expiring grant,
including recordkeeping, reporting, and
financial accountability.
§ 642.22 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1894–0003.)
(a) In the case of an application
described in § 642.20(b), the Secretary—
(1) Evaluates the applicant’s
performance under its expiring Training
program grant;
(2) To determine the number of PE
points to be awarded, uses the approved
project objectives for the applicant’s
expiring Training program grant and the
information the applicant submitted in
its annual performance report (APR);
and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score
or decide not to award PE points if other
information such as audit reports, site
visit reports, and project evaluation
reports indicate the APR data used to
calculate PE are incorrect.
(b)(1) The Secretary may add from 1
to 15 points to the point score obtained
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
(d) Within each specific absolute
priority, if there are insufficient funds to
fund all applications at the next peer
review score, the Secretary adds the PE
points awarded under § 642.22 to the
peer review score to determine an
adjusted total score for those
applications. The Secretary makes
awards at the next peer review score to
the applications that have the highest
total adjusted score.
(e) In the event a tie score still exists,
the Secretary will select for funding the
applicant that has the greatest capacity
to provide training to eligible
participants in all regions of the Nation,
consistent with § 642.23.
*
*
*
*
*
22. Newly redesignated § 642.21 is
amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C).
C. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C).
D. Removing paragraph (f).
E. Adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following the section.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 642.21 What selection criteria does the
Secretary use?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) Individuals with disabilities; and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) Individuals with disabilities; and
*
*
*
*
*
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW1)
*
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24. Newly redesignated § 642.23 is
amended by revising the section
heading to read as follows:
§ 642.23 How does the Secretary ensure
geographic distribution of awards?
*
*
*
*
*
25. Newly redesignated § 642.24 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 642.24 What are the Secretary’s priorities
for funding?
(a) The Secretary, after consultation
with regional and State professional
associations of persons having special
knowledge with respect to the training
of Special Programs personnel, may
select one or more of the following
subjects as training priorities:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) Basic skills instruction in reading,
mathematics, written and oral
communication, and study skills.
(2) Counseling.
(3) Assessment of student needs.
(4) Academic tests and testing.
(5) College and university admissions
policies and procedures.
(6) Cultural enrichment programs.
(7) Career planning.
(8) Tutorial programs.
(9) Retention and graduation
strategies.
(10) Strategies for preparing students
for doctoral studies.
(11) Project evaluation.
(12) Budget management.
(13) Personnel management.
(14) Reporting student and project
performance.
(15) Coordinating project activities
with other available resources and
activities.
(16) General project management for
new directors.
(17) Statutory and regulatory
requirements for the operation of
projects funded under the Federal TRIO
programs.
(18) Assisting students in receiving
adequate financial aid from programs
assisted under title IV of the Act and
from other programs.
(19) The design and operation of
model programs for projects funded
under the Federal TRIO programs.
(20) The use of appropriate
educational technology in the operation
of projects funded under the Federal
TRIO programs.
(21) Strategies for recruiting and
serving hard to reach populations,
including students who are limited
English proficient, students from groups
that are traditionally underrepresented
in postsecondary education, students
who are individuals with disabilities,
students who are homeless children and
youths, students who are foster care
youth, or other disconnected students.
(b) The Secretary annually funds
training on the subjects listed in
paragraphs (a)(17), (18), (19), (20), and
(21) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
17)
26. Section 642.25 is added to subpart
C of part 642 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 642.25 What is the review process for
unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error
for applications not reviewed. (1) An
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during the competition
may request that the Secretary review
the application if—
(i) The applicant has met all of the
application submission requirements
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
included in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department or an
agent of the Department made a
technical or administrative error in the
processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error
in the processing of an application
includes—
(i) A problem with the system for the
electronic submission of applications
that was not addressed in accordance
with the procedures included in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition;
(ii) An error in determining an
applicant’s eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but
is not limited to—
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was submitted by an
ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the
application exceeded the published
page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the
applicant requested funding greater than
the published maximum award; or
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was missing critical sections
of the application; and
(iii) Any other mishandling of the
application that resulted in an otherwise
eligible application not being reviewed
during the competition.
(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that
the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary has the application
evaluated and scored.
(ii) If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Administrative or scoring error for
applications that were reviewed. (1) An
applicant that was not selected for
funding during a competition may
request that the Secretary conduct a
second review of the application if—
(i) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error in the review of its
application; and
(ii) The final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band
described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13879
(2) An administrative error relates to
either the PE points or the scores
assigned to the application by the peer
reviewers.
(i) For PE points, an administrative
error includes mathematical errors made
by the Department or the Department’s
agent in the calculation of the PE points
or a failure to correctly add the earned
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
(ii) For the peer review score, an
administrative error is applying the
wrong peer reviewer scores to an
application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to
the peer review process and includes
errors caused by a reviewer who, in
assigning points—
(A) Uses criteria not required by the
applicable law or program regulations,
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the other published
application materials for the
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
(B) Does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not
include—
(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use
of his or her professional judgment in
evaluating and scoring an application;
(B) Any situation in which the
applicant did not include information
needed to evaluate its response to a
specific selection criterion in the
appropriate section of the application as
stipulated in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or the other
published application materials for the
competition; or
(C) Any error by the applicant.
(c) Procedures for the second review.
(1) To ensure the timely awarding of
grants under the competition, the
Secretary sets aside a percentage of the
funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is
completed.
(2) After the competition, the
Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in § 642.20 based on
the available funds for the competition
minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants, the Secretary notifies each
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and
provides copies of the peer reviewers’
evaluations of the applicant’s
application and the applicant’s PE
score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding following the competition as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13880
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, may request a second review if
the applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error as discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded after the first review as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to a designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made an administrative error that relates
to the PE points awarded, as described
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE
score to reflect the correct number of PE
points. If the adjusted score assigned to
the application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or
the peer reviewer made an
administrative error that relates to the
peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer
reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error.
If the adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the Secretary convenes a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with the requirements in section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking
of applications. The average score
obtained from the second peer review
panel is the final peer reviewer score for
the application and will be used even if
the second review results in a lower
score for the application than that
obtained in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding
band, the Secretary funds these
applications in rank order based on
adjusted scores and the available funds
that have been set aside for the second
review of applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding
band. (1) For each competition, the
Secretary establishes a funding band for
the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the
funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the
Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of
those applications—
(i) With a rank-order score before the
second review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the
first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the funds
that were set aside for the second review
of applications for the competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s
determination of whether the applicant
has met the requirements for a second
review and the Secretary’s decision on
re-scoring of an application are final and
not subject to further appeal or
challenge.
(2) An application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition is not eligible for a second
review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW1.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
27. A new § 642.26 is added to read
as follows:
§ 642.26 How does the Secretary set the
amount of a grant?
(a) The Secretary sets the amount of
a grant on the basis of—
(1) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for a
new grant, and
(2) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second year
of a project period.
(b) The Secretary uses the available
funds to set the amount of the grant at
the lesser of—
(1) 170,000; or
(2) The amount requested by the
applicant.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subpart D of Part 642—[Amended]
§ 642.40 and 642.41 [Redesignated as
§ 642.30 and 642.31]
28. Newly redesignated subpart D of
part 642 is amended by redesignating
§§ 642.40 and 642.41 as §§ 642.30 and
642.31, respectively.
29. Newly redesignated § 642.30 is
amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In paragraph (d), removing the
words ‘‘if approved in writing by the
Secretary’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 642.30
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
30. Newly redesignated § 642.31 is
amended by revising the section
heading to read as follows:
§ 642.31
*
*
What are unallowable costs?
*
*
*
PART 643—TALENT SEARCH
31. The authority citation for part 643
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
12, unless otherwise noted.
32. Section 643.1 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b), adding the words
‘‘, and facilitate the application for,’’
after the word ‘‘of’’.
B. Revising paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 643.1 What is the Talent Search
program?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Encourage persons who have not
completed education programs at the
secondary or postsecondary level to
enter or reenter and complete these
programs.
*
*
*
*
*
33. Section 643.2 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, adding the
word ‘‘entities’’ after the word
‘‘following’’.
B. In paragraph (b), adding the words
‘‘, including a community-based
organization with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth’’ after the word
‘‘organization’’.
C. Removing paragraph (d).
D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d).
E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
F. In newly redesignated paragraph
(d), removing the words ‘‘paragraphs (a)
and (b)’’ and adding, in their place, the
words ‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)’’.
The addition reads as follows:
§ 643.2
Who is eligible for a grant?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) A secondary school.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
34. Section 643.3 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), removing the
words ‘‘, has potential for a program of
postsecondary education, and needs one
or more of the services provided by the
project in order to undertake such a
program’’.
B. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), removing the
words ‘‘, has the ability to complete such
a program, and needs one or more of the
services provided by the project to
reenter such a program’’.
C. Redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c).
D. Adding a new paragraph (b).
E. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c), removing the citation ‘‘643.6(b)’’ and
adding, in its place, the citation
‘‘643.7(b)’’.
The addition reads as follows:
§ 643.3 Who is eligible to participate in a
project?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) An individual is eligible to receive
support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study if
the individual meets the requirements
of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is
accepted into the Talent Search project
by the end of the first term of the tenth
grade, is enrolled or is preparing to
enroll in a rigorous secondary school
program of study, as defined by his or
her State of residence, and is designated
as enrolled in a rigorous secondary
school program of study on reports
submitted by the grantee to the
Secretary.
*
*
*
*
*
35. Section 643.4 is revised to read as
follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 643.4 What services does a project
provide?
(a) A Talent Search project must
provide the following services:
(1) Connections for participants to
high quality academic tutoring services
to enable the participants to complete
secondary or postsecondary courses.
(2) Advice and assistance in
secondary school course selection and,
if applicable, initial postsecondary
course selection.
(3) Assistance in preparing for college
entrance examinations and completing
college admission applications.
(4)(i) Information on the full range of
Federal student financial aid programs
and benefits (including Federal Pell
Grant awards and loan forgiveness) and
on resources for locating public and
private scholarships; and
(ii) Assistance in completing financial
aid applications, including the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
(5) Guidance on and assistance in—
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(i) Secondary school reentry;
(ii) Alternative education programs
for secondary school dropouts that lead
to the receipt of a regular secondary
school diploma;
(iii) Entry into general educational
development (GED) programs; or
(iv) Entry into postsecondary
education.
(6) Connections for participants to
education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of the
participants or the participants’ parents,
including financial planning for
postsecondary education.
(b) A Talent Search project may
provide services such as the following:
(1) Academic tutoring, which may
include instruction in reading, writing,
study skills, mathematics, science, and
other subjects.
(2) Personal and career counseling or
activities.
(3) Information and activities
designed to acquaint youth with the
range of career options available to the
youth.
(4) Exposure to the campuses of
institutions of higher education, as well
as to cultural events, academic
programs, and other sites or activities
not usually available to disadvantaged
youth.
(5) Workshops and counseling for
families of participants served.
(6) Mentoring programs involving
elementary or secondary school teachers
or counselors, faculty members at
institutions of higher education,
students, or any combination of these
persons.
(7) Programs and activities as
described in this section that are
specially designed for participants who
are limited English proficient, from
groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary
education, individuals with disabilities,
homeless children and youths, foster
care youth, or other disconnected
participants.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–12)
36. Section 643.5 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 643.5
How long is a project period?
A project period under the Talent
Search program is five years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
37. Section 643.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 643.6
What regulations apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13881
§§ 75.215–75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85,
86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
38. Section 643.7(b) is amended by:
A. Revising the definition of
‘‘Institution of higher education’’.
B. Revising the definition of
‘‘Veteran’’.
C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new
definitions for ‘‘Different population’’,
‘‘Financial and economic literacy’’,
‘‘Foster care youth’’, ‘‘Homeless children
and youth’’, ‘‘Individuals with
disabilities’’, ‘‘Regular secondary school
diploma’’, and ‘‘Rigorous secondary
school diploma’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 643.7
What definitions apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Different population means a group of
individuals that an eligible entity
desires to serve through an application
for a grant under the Talent Search
program and that—
(1) Is separate and distinct from any
other population that the entity has
applied for a grant to serve; or
(2) While sharing some of the same
needs as another population that the
eligible entity has applied for a grant to
serve, has distinct needs for specialized
services.
Financial and economic literacy
means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including
but not limited to knowledge about—
(1) Personal and family budget
planning;
(2) Understanding credit building
principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit
scoring, negative impacts on credit
scores);
(3) Cost planning for postsecondary
education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant, and loan
education (e.g., searches, application
processes, and differences between
private and government loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
Foster care youth means youth who
are in foster care or are aging out of the
foster care system. * * *
Homeless children and youth means
persons defined in section 725 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
Individual with disabilities means a
person who has a diagnosed physical or
mental impairment that substantially
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13882
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
limits that person’s ability to participate
in educational experiences and
opportunities.
Institution of higher education means
an educational institution as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. * * *
Regular secondary school diploma
means a level attained by individuals
who meet or exceed the coursework and
performance standards for high school
completion established by the
individual’s State.
Rigorous secondary school program of
study means a program of study that
is—
(1) Established by a State educational
agency (SEA) or local educational
agency (LEA) and recognized as a
rigorous secondary school program of
study by the Secretary through the
process described in 34 CFR § 691.16(a)
through § 691.16(c) for the ACG
Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary
school program established by States
and in existence for the 2004–2005
school year or later school years;
(3) Any secondary school program in
which a student successfully completes
at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics,
including algebra I and a higher-level
class such as algebra II, geometry, or
data analysis and statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including
one year each of at least two of the
following courses: biology, chemistry,
and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than
English;
(4) A secondary school program
identified by a State-level partnership
that is recognized by the State Scholars
Initiative of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education
(WICHE), Boulder, Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
courses from an International
Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International
Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a
‘‘4’’ or higher on the examinations for at
least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
Advanced Placement courses and
receives a score of ‘‘3’’ or higher on the
College Board’s Advanced Placement
Program Exams for at least two of those
courses. * * *
Veteran means a person who—
(1) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
for a period of more than 180 days and
was discharged or released under
conditions other than dishonorable;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
and was discharged or released because
of a service connected disability;
(3) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active
duty for a period of more than 30 days;
or
(4) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty
in support of a contingency operation
(as that term is defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States
Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—How Does One Apply for
an Award?
39. Subpart B of part 643 is amended
by revising the subpart heading to read
as set forth above.
§ 643.10
[Redesignated as § 643.11]
39a. Redesignate § 643.10 as § 643.11.
40. A new § 643.10 is added to read
as follows:
§ 643.10 How many applications may an
eligible applicant submit?
(a) An applicant may submit more
than one application for Talent Search
grants as long as each application
describes a project that serves a different
target area or target schools, or another
designated different population.
(b) For each grant competition, the
Secretary designates, in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications
and the other published application
materials for the competition, the
different populations for which an
eligible entity may submit a separate
application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–12; 1221e–3)
41. Newly redesignated § 643.11 is
amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing
the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding, in its
place, the word ‘‘must’’.
B. In paragraph (a), adding the words
‘‘, and at least two-thirds of the
participants selected to receive support
for a rigorous secondary school program
of study,’’ after the words ‘‘Talent Search
project’’.
C. Revising paragraph (b). The
revision reads as follows:
§ 643.11 What assurances must an
applicant submit?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Individuals who are receiving
services from another Talent Search
project; a Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR UP) project under 34 CFR part
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
694; a Regular Upward Bound, Upward
Bound Math and Science Centers, or
Veterans Upward Bound project under
34 CFR part 645; an Educational
Opportunity Centers project under 34
CFR part 644; or other programs serving
similar populations will not receive the
same services under the proposed
project.
*
*
*
*
*
42. Section 643.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
words ‘‘in delivering services’’ and
adding, in their place, the words ‘‘of
high quality service delivery (PE)’’.
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the
word ‘‘total’’ after the word ‘‘maximum’’
the first time it appears.
C. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
through (a)(2)(v).
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
E. In paragraph (b), removing the
words ‘‘through (3)’’ and adding, in their
place, the words ‘‘and (a)(2)’’.
F. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
§ 643.20 How does the Secretary decide
which new grants to make?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of
an applicant for each of the three project
years that the Secretary designates in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published
application materials for the
competition.
(iv) An applicant may earn up to 15
PE points for each of the designated
project years for which annual
performance report data are available.
(v) The final PE score is the average
of the scores for the three project years
assessed. * * *
(d) The Secretary does not make a
new grant to an applicant if the
applicant’s prior project involved the
fraudulent use of program funds.
*
*
*
*
*
43. Section 643.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c).
B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
C. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (g),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0549’’ and
adding, in their place, the numbers
‘‘1840–0065’’.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 643.21 What selection criteria does the
Secretary use?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Need for the project (24 points).
The Secretary evaluates the need for a
Talent Search project in the proposed
target area on the basis of the extent to
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
which the application contains clear
evidence of the following:
(1) (6 points) A high number or high
percentage of the following—
(i) Low-income families residing in
the target area; or
(ii) Students attending the target
schools who are eligible for free or
reduced priced lunch as described in
sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the
Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act.
(2) (2 points) Low rates of high school
persistence among individuals in the
target schools as evidenced by the
annual student persistence rates in the
proposed target schools for the most
recent year for which data are available.
(3) (4 points) Low rates of students in
the target school’s graduating high
school with a regular secondary school
diploma in the standard number of
years for the most recent year for which
data are available.
(4) (6 points) Low postsecondary
enrollment and completion rates among
individuals in the target area and
schools as evidenced by—
(i) Low rates of enrollment in
programs of postsecondary education by
graduates of the target schools in the
most recent year for which data are
available; and
(ii) A high number or high percentage
of individuals residing in the target area
with education completion levels below
the baccalaureate degree level.
(5) (2 points) The extent to which the
target secondary schools do not offer
their students the courses or academic
support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study or
have low participation by low-income
or first generation students in such
courses.
(6) (4 points) Other indicators of need
for a Talent Search project, including a
high ratio of students to school
counselors in the target schools and the
presence of unaddressed academic or
socio-economic problems of eligible
individuals, including foster care youth
and homeless children and youth, in the
target schools or the target area.
(b) Objectives (8 points). The
Secretary evaluates the quality of the
applicant’s objectives and proposed
targets (percentages) in the following
areas on the basis of the extent to which
they are both ambitious, as related to the
Need data provided under paragraph (a)
of this section, and attainable, given the
project’s plan of operation, budget, and
other resources:
(1) (2 points) Secondary school
persistence.
(2) (2 points) Secondary school
graduation (regular secondary school
diploma).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(3) (1 point) Secondary school
graduation (rigorous secondary school
program of study).
(4) (2 points) Postsecondary education
enrollment.
(5) (1 point) Postsecondary degree
attainment.
(c) Plan of operation (30 points). The
Secretary evaluates the quality of the
applicant’s plan of operation on the
basis of the following:
(1) (3 points) The plan to inform the
residents, schools, and community
organizations in the target area of the
purpose, objectives, and services of the
project and the eligibility requirements
for participation in the project.
(2) (3 points) The plan to identify and
select eligible project participants,
including the project’s plan and criteria
for selecting individuals who would
receive support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
(3) (10 points) The plan for providing
the services delineated in § 643.4 as
appropriate based on the project’s
assessment of each participant’s need
for services.
(4) (6 points) For those students in
need of services to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study, the
project’s plan to provide services
sufficient to enable the participants to
succeed.
(5) (6 points) The plan, including
timelines, personnel, and other
resources, to ensure the proper and
efficient administration of the project,
including the project’s organizational
structure; the time commitment of key
project staff; financial, personnel, and
records management; and, where
appropriate, coordination with other
programs for disadvantaged youth.
(6) (2 points) The plan to follow
former participants as they enter,
continue in, and complete
postsecondary education.
(d) * * *
(2) (8 points) Resources secured
through written commitments from
institutions of higher education,
secondary schools, community
organizations, and others.
*
*
*
*
*
44. Section 643.22 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 643.22 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application
described in § 643.20(a)(2)(i), the
Secretary—
(1) Evaluates the applicant’s
performance under its expiring Talent
Search project;
(2) Uses the approved project
objectives for the applicant’s expiring
Talent Search grant and the information
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13883
the applicant submitted in its annual
performance reports (APRs) to
determine the number of PE points; and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score
or decide not to award PE points if other
information such as audit reports, site
visit reports, and project evaluation
reports indicates the APR data used to
calculate PE are incorrect.
(b) The Secretary does not award PE
points for a given year to an applicant
that does not serve at least 90 percent
of the approved number of participants.
For purposes of this section, the
approved number of participants is the
total number of participants the project
would serve as agreed upon by the
grantee and the Secretary.
(c) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number
of participants), the Secretary does not
award any PE points if the applicant did
not serve the approved number of
participants.
(d) For purposes of the evaluation of
grants awarded after January 1, 2009,
the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s
PE on the basis of the following
outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided services
to the approved number of participants.
(2) (3 points) Secondary school
persistence. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding the
continued secondary school enrollment
of participants.
(3) (3 points) Secondary school
graduation (regular secondary school
diploma). Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective regarding the
graduation of current and prior
participants from secondary school with
a regular secondary school diploma in
the standard number of years.
(4) (1.5 points) Secondary school
graduation (rigorous secondary school
program of study). Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objective
regarding the percentage of current and
prior participants with an expected high
school graduation date in the school
year who were enrolled in and
completed a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
(5) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding the
percentage of current and prior
participants with an expected high
school graduation date in the school
year who enrolled in an institution of
higher education by the fall term
immediately following the school year.
(6) (1.5 points) Postsecondary
completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding the
completion of a program of
postsecondary education within the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13884
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
number of years specified in the
approved objective. The applicant may
determine success in meeting the
objective by using a randomly selected
sample of participants in accordance
with the parameters established by the
Secretary in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or other published
application materials for the
competition.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW7.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–12)
§ 643.23
[Amended]
45. Section 643.23 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text of
paragraph (b), removing the words
‘‘beginning in fiscal year 1994’’.
B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the
amount ‘‘$180,000’’ and adding, in its
place, the amount ‘‘$200,000’’.
46. A new § 643.24 is added to
subpart C of part 643 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 643.24 What is the review process for
unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error
for applications not reviewed. (1) An
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during the competition
may request that the Secretary review
the application if—
(i) The applicant has met all
application submission requirements
included in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department or an
agent of the Department made a
technical or administrative error in the
processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error
in the processing of an application
includes—
(i) A problem with the system for the
electronic submission of applications
that was not addressed in accordance
with the procedures included in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition;
(ii) An error in determining an
applicant’s eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but
is not limited to—
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was submitted by an
ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the
application exceeded the published
page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the
applicant requested funding greater than
the published maximum award; or
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was missing critical sections
of the application; and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(iii) Any other mishandling of the
application that resulted in an otherwise
eligible application not being reviewed
during the competition.
(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that
the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary has the application
evaluated and scored.
(ii) If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Administrative or scoring error for
applications that were reviewed. (1) An
applicant that was not selected for
funding during a competition may
request that the Secretary conduct a
second review of the application if—
(i) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error in the review of its
application; and
(ii) The final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band
described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) An administrative error relates to
either the PE points or the scores
assigned to the application by the peer
reviewers.
(i) For PE points, an administrative
error includes mathematical errors made
by the Department or the Department’s
agent in the calculation of the PE points
or a failure to correctly add the earned
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
(ii) For the peer review score, an
administrative error is applying the
wrong peer reviewer scores to an
application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to
the peer review process and includes
errors caused by a reviewer who, in
assigning points—
(A) Uses criteria not required by the
applicable law or program regulations,
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the other published
application materials for the
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
(B) Does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not
include—
(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use
of his or her professional judgment in
evaluating and scoring an application;
(B) Any situation in which the
applicant did not include information
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
needed to evaluate its response to a
specific selection criterion in the
appropriate section of the application as
stipulated in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or the other
published application materials for the
competition; or
(C) Any error by the applicant.
(c) Procedures for the second review.
(1) To ensure the timely awarding of
grants under the competition, the
Secretary sets aside a percentage of the
funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is
completed.
(2) After the competition, the
Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in § 643.20 based on
the available funds for the competition
minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants, the Secretary notifies each
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and
provides copies of the peer reviewers’
evaluations of the applicant’s
application and the applicant’s PE
score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding following the competition as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, may request a second review if
the applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error as discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded after the first review as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to the designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made an administrative error that relates
to the PE points awarded, as described
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE
score to reflect the correct number of PE
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
points. If the adjusted score assigned to
the application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or
the peer reviewer made an
administrative error that relates to the
peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer
reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error.
If the adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the Secretary convenes a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with the requirements in section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking
of applications. The average score
obtained from the second peer review
panel is the final peer reviewer score for
the application and will be used even if
the second review results in a lower
score for the application than that
obtained in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding
band, the Secretary funds these
applications in rank order based on
adjusted scores and the available funds
that have been set aside for the second
review of applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding
band. (1) For each competition, the
Secretary establishes a funding band for
the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the
funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the
Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of
those applications—
(i) With a rank-order score before the
second review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the
first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the funds
that were set aside for the second review
of applications for the competition.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s
determination of whether the applicant
has met the requirements for a second
review and the Secretary’s decision on
re-scoring of an application are final and
not subject to further appeal or
challenge.
(2) An application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition is not eligible for a second
review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW2.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
47. Section 643.30 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing
the words ‘‘34 CFR part 74, subpart Q’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘34 CFR 74.27, 75.530, and 80.22, as
applicable’’.
B. In the introductory text of
paragraph (a), adding the word ‘‘project’’
before the word ‘‘staff’’.
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
words ‘‘to obtain information relating to
the admission of participants to those
institutions’’.
D. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the
word ‘‘and’’.
E. In paragraph (a)(3)by adding the
words ‘‘for participants’’ after the word
‘‘trips’’; removing the words ‘‘in the
target area’’; and removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ at the end of the
paragraph and adding, in its place, the
words ‘‘; and’’.
F. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
G. In paragraph (b), adding the words
‘‘and test preparation programs for
participants’’ after the word ‘‘materials’’.
H. Revising paragraph (f).
I. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 643.30
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(4) Transportation to institutions of
higher education, secondary schools not
attended by the participants, or other
locations at which the participant
receives instruction that is part of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment and supplies that support
the delivery of services to participants,
including technology used by
participants in a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
(g) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer equipment and software
needed for project administration and
recordkeeping.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13885
(h) Tuition costs for a course that is
part of a rigorous secondary school
program of study if—
(1) The course or a similar course is
not offered at the secondary school that
the participant attends or at another
school within the school district;
(2) The grantee demonstrates to the
Secretary’s satisfaction that using grant
funds is the most cost-effective way to
deliver the course or courses necessary
for the completion of a rigorous
secondary school program of study for
program participants;
(3) The course is taken at an
institution of higher education;
(4) The course is comparable in
content and rigor to courses that are part
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study as defined in § 643.7(b);
(5) The secondary school accepts the
course as meeting one or more of the
course requirements for obtaining a high
school diploma;
(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is
unavailable;
(7) The tuition is paid with Talent
Search grant funds to an institution of
higher education on behalf of a
participant; and
(8) The Talent Search project pays for
no more than the equivalent of two
courses for a participant each school
year.
*
*
*
*
*
48. Section 643.31 is amended in
paragraph (a) by removing the phrase
‘‘Tuition, stipends,’’ and by adding
‘‘Stipends’’ in its place.
49. Section 643.32 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraph (b).
B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (b).
C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b) introductory text, removing the word
‘‘shall’’ and adding, in its place, the
word ‘‘must’’.
D. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(3), removing the word ‘‘and’’.
E. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(4), removing the punctuation ‘‘.’’ and
adding, in its place, the words ‘‘; and’’.
F. Adding a new paragraph (b)(5).
G. Adding a new paragraph (c).
H. Removing paragraph (d).
I. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following newly added
paragraph (c), removing the numbers
‘‘1840–0549’’ and adding, in their place,
the numbers ‘‘1840–NEW2’’.
The additions read as follows:
§ 643.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) A list of courses taken by
participants receiving support to
complete a rigorous secondary school
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13886
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
program of study as defined in
§ 643.7(b).
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee must
employ a full-time project director
unless—
(i) The director is also administering
one or two additional programs for
disadvantaged students operated by the
sponsoring institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of
this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project
director sufficient authority to
administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the
requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the requirement to administer no
more than three programs will hinder
effective coordination between the
Talent Search program and—
(i) One or more Federal TRIO
programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs
funded through other sources.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 644—EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY CENTERS
50. The authority citation for part 644
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
16, unless otherwise noted.
51. Section 644.1 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing
the words ‘‘to provide’’.
B. In paragraph (a), removing the
word ‘‘Information’’ and adding, in its
place, the words ‘‘To provide
information’’; removing the word ‘‘for’’
and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘to’’;
and removing the word ‘‘and’’ that
appears after the punctuation ‘‘;’’.
C. In paragraph (b), removing the
word ‘‘Assistance’’ and adding, in its
place, the words ‘‘To provide
assistance’’; and removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ at the end of the
sentence and adding, in its place, the
word ‘‘; and’’.
D. Adding a new paragraph (c).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 644.1 What is the Educational
Opportunity Centers program?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) To improve the financial literacy
and economic literacy of participants on
topics such as—
(1) Basic personal income, household
money management, and financial
planning skills; and
(2) Basic economic decision-making
skills.
*
*
*
*
*
52. Section 644.2 is amended by:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
A. In the introductory text of the
section, adding the word ‘‘entities’’ after
the word ‘‘following’’.
B. In paragraph (b), adding the words
‘‘, including a community-based
organization with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth’’ after the word
‘‘organization’’.
C. Removing paragraph (d).
D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d).
E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
F. In newly redesignated paragraph
(d), removing the word ‘‘and’’ before the
citation ‘‘(b)’’ and adding, in its place,
the punctuation ‘‘,’’; and adding the
words ‘‘, and (c)’’ after the citation ‘‘(b)’’.
The addition reads as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 644.2
Who is eligible for a grant?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) A secondary school.
*
*
*
*
*
53. Section 644.4 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (e), (f),
(g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) as paragraphs (f),
(g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l), respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (e).
C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(g), removing the word ‘‘Personal’’ and
adding, in its place, the words
‘‘Individualized personal, career, and
academic’’.
D. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (k).
The addition and revision read as
follows:
§ 644.4 What services may a project
provide?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of
participants.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Programs and activities described
in this section that are specially
designed for participants who are
limited English proficient, participants
from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary
education, participants who are
individuals with disabilities,
participants who are homeless children
and youth, participants who are foster
care youth, or other disconnected
participants.
*
*
*
*
*
54. Section 644.5 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 644.5
How long is a project period?
A project period under the
Educational Opportunity Centers
program is five years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55. Section 644.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 644.6
What regulations apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
§§ 75.215 through 75.221), 77, 79, 80,
82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
56. Section 644.7(b) is amended by:
A. Adding, in alphabetical order, new
definitions for Different population,
Financial and economic literacy, Foster
care youth, Homeless children and
youth, and Individual with disabilities.
B. Revising the definition of
Institution of higher education.
C. Revising the definition of Veteran.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 644.7
What definitions apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Different population means a group of
individuals that an eligible entity
desires to serve through an application
for a grant under the Educational
Opportunity Centers program and that—
(i) Is separate and distinct from any
other population that the entity has
applied for a grant under this chapter to
serve; or
(ii) While sharing some of the same
needs as another population that the
eligible entity has applied for a grant to
serve, has distinct needs for specialized
services.
Financial and economic literacy
means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including
but not limited to knowledge about—
(i) Personal and family budget
planning;
(ii) Understanding credit building
principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit
scoring, negative impacts on credit
scores);
(iii) Cost planning for postsecondary
education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(iv) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(v) Scholarship, grant, and loan
education (e.g., searches, application
processes, and differences between
private and government loans); and
(vi) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
Foster care youth means youth who
are in foster care or are aging out of the
foster care system.
*
*
*
*
*
Homeless children and youth means
those persons defined in section 725 of
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
Individual with disabilities means a
person who has a diagnosed physical or
mental impairment that substantially
limits that person’s ability to participate
in educational experiences and
opportunities.
Institution of higher education means
an educational institution as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
*
*
*
*
*
Veteran means a person who—
(i) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
for a period of more than 180 days and
was discharged or released under
conditions other than dishonorable;
(ii) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
and was discharged or released because
of a service connected disability;
(iii) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active
duty for a period of more than 30 days;
or
(iv) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty
in support of a contingency operation
(as that term is defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States
Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Individuals who are receiving
services from another Educational
Opportunity Center project under this
part, a Veterans Upward Bound project
under 34 CFR part 645, a Talent Search
project under 34 CFR part 643, or other
programs serving similar populations
will not receive the same services under
the proposed project.
*
*
*
*
*
61. Section 644.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
words ‘‘in delivering services’’ and
adding, in their place, the words ‘‘of
high quality service delivery (PE)’’.
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the
word ‘‘total’’ after the word ‘‘maximum’’
the first time it appears.
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
through (a)(2)(v).
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
E. In paragraph (b), removing the
words ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘paragraph (a)’’.
F. Revising paragraph (d).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
Subpart B—How Does One Apply for
an Award?
§ 644.20 How does the Secretary decide
which new grants to make?
57. The heading for subpart B of part
644 is revised to read as set forth above.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of
an applicant for each of the three project
years that the Secretary designates in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published
application materials for the
competition.
(iv) An applicant may earn up to 15
PE points for each of the designated
project years for which annual
performance report data are available.
(v) The final PE score is the average
of the scores for the three project years
assessed.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The Secretary does not make a
new grant to an applicant if the
applicant’s prior project involved the
fraudulent use of program funds.
*
*
*
*
*
62. Section 644.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. In paragraph (d)(2), adding the
words ‘‘of support’’ after the word
‘‘commitments’’; and adding the words
‘‘institutions of higher education,
secondary’’ before the word ‘‘schools’’.
§ 644.10
[Redesignated as § 644.11]
58. In subpart B of part 644, § 644.10
is redesignated as § 644.11.
59. A new § 644.10 is added to
subpart B of part 644 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 644.10 How many applications may an
eligible applicant submit?
(a) An applicant may submit more
than one application for Educational
Opportunity Centers grants as long as
each application describes a project that
serves a different target area or another
designated different population.
(b) For each grant competition, the
Secretary designates, in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications
and other published application
materials for the competition, the
different populations for which an
eligible entity may submit a separate
application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11, 1221e–3)
60. Newly redesignated § 644.11 is
amended by:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
A. In the introductory text, removing
the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding, in its
place, the word ‘‘must’’.
B. Revising paragraph (b).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 644.11 What assurances must an
applicant submit?
*
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13887
C. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (g),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0065’’ and
adding, in their place, the numbers
‘‘1840–NEW3’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 644.21 What selection criteria does the
Secretary use?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Objectives (8 points). The
Secretary evaluates the quality of the
applicant’s objectives and proposed
targets (percentages) in the following
areas on the basis of the extent to which
they are both ambitious, as related to the
need data provided under paragraph (a)
of this section, and attainable, given the
project’s plan of operation, budget, and
other resources:
(1) (2 points) Enrollment of
participants who do not have a
secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent in programs
leading to a secondary school diploma
or its equivalent.
(2) (4 points) Postsecondary
enrollment.
(3) (1 point) Student financial aid
assistance.
(4) (1 point) Student college
admission assistance.
*
*
*
*
*
63. Section 644.22 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 644.22 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application
described in § 644.20(a)(2)(i), the
Secretary—
(1) Evaluates the applicant’s
performance under its expiring
Educational Opportunity Centers
project;
(2) Uses the approved project
objectives for the applicant’s expiring
Educational Opportunity Centers grant
and the information the applicant
submitted in its annual performance
reports (APRs) to determine the number
of PE points; and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score
or decide not to award PE points if other
information such as audit reports, site
visit reports, and project evaluation
reports indicates the APR data used to
calculate PE points are incorrect.
(b) The Secretary does not award PE
points for a given year to an applicant
that does not serve at least 90 percent
of the approved number of participants.
For purposes of this section, the
approved number of participants is the
total number of participants the project
would serve as agreed upon by the
grantee and the Secretary.
(c) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13888
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of participants), the Secretary does not
award PE points if the applicant did not
serve the approved number of
participants.
(d) For purposes of the PE evaluation
of grants awarded after January 1, 2009,
the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s
PE on the basis of the following
outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided services
to the approved number of participants.
(2) (3 points) Secondary school
diploma. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants who do not have
a secondary school diploma or its
equivalent who enroll in programs
leading to a secondary school diploma
or its equivalent.
(3) (6 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the secondary school graduates
who enroll in programs of
postsecondary education during the
project year by the fall term
immediately following the school year.
(4) (1.5 points) Financial aid
assistance. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding
assistance to individuals in completing
financial aid applications.
(5) (1.5 points) College admission
assistance. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding
assistance to individuals in completing
applications for college admission.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW8.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–16)
64. Section 644.23 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text of
paragraph (b), removing the words
‘‘beginning in fiscal year 1994’’.
B. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 644.23 How does the Secretary set the
amount of a grant?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) $200,000; or
*
*
*
*
*
65. Section 644.24 is added to subpart
C of part 644 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 644.24 What is the review process for
unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error
for applications not reviewed. (1) An
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during the competition
may request that the Secretary review
the application if—
(i) The applicant has met all of the
application submission requirements
included in the Federal Register notice
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department or an
agent of the Department made a
technical or administrative error in the
processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error
in the processing of an application
includes—
(i) A problem with the system for the
electronic submission of applications
that was not addressed in accordance
with the procedures included in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition;
(ii) An error in determining an
applicant’s eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but
is not limited to—
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was submitted by an
ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the
application exceeded the published
page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the
applicant requested funding greater than
the published maximum award; or
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was missing critical sections
of the application; and
(iii) Any other mishandling of the
application that resulted in an otherwise
eligible application not being reviewed
during the competition.
(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that
the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary has the application
evaluated and scored.
(ii) If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Administrative or scoring error for
applications that were reviewed. (1) An
applicant that was not selected for
funding during a competition may
request that the Secretary conduct a
second review of the application if—
(i) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error in the review of its
application; and
(ii) The final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band
described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) An administrative error relates to
either the PE points or the scores
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
assigned to the application by the peer
reviewers.
(i) For PE points, an administrative
error includes mathematical errors made
by the Department or the Department’s
agent in the calculation of the PE points
or a failure to correctly add the earned
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
(ii) For the peer review score, an
administrative error is applying the
wrong peer reviewer scores to an
application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to
the peer review process and includes
errors caused by a reviewer who, in
assigning points—
(A) Uses criteria not required by the
applicable law or program regulations,
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the other published
application materials for the
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
(B) Does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not
include—
(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use
of his or her professional judgment in
evaluating and scoring an application;
(B) Any situation in which the
applicant did not include information
needed to evaluate its response to a
specific selection criterion in the
appropriate section of the application as
stipulated in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or the other
published application materials for the
competition; or
(C) Any error by the applicant.
(c) Procedures for the second review.
(1) To ensure the timely awarding of
grants under the competition, the
Secretary sets aside a percentage of the
funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is
completed.
(2) After the competition, the
Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in § 644.20 based on
the available funds for the competition
minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants, the Secretary notifies each
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and
provides copies of the peer reviewers’
evaluations of the applicant’s
application and the applicant’s PE
score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding following the competition as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, may request a second review if
the applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error as discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded after the first review as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to the designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made an administrative error that relates
to the PE points awarded, as described
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE
score to reflect the correct number of PE
points. If the adjusted score assigned to
the application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or
the peer reviewer made an
administrative error that relates to the
peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer
reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error.
If the adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the Secretary convenes a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with the requirements in section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
of applications. The average score
obtained from the second peer review
panel is the final peer reviewer score for
the application and will be used even if
the second review results in a lower
score for the application than that
obtained in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding
band, the Secretary funds these
applications in rank order based on
adjusted scores and the available funds
that have been set aside for the second
review of applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding
band. (1) For each competition, the
Secretary establishes a funding band for
the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the
funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the
Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of
those applications—
(i) With a rank-order score before the
second review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the
first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the funds
that were set aside for the second review
of applications for the competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s
determination of whether the applicant
has met the requirements for a second
review and the Secretary’s decision on
re-scoring of an application are final and
not subject to further appeal or
challenge.
(2) An application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition is not eligible for a second
review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW3)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
66. Section 644.30 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing
the words ‘‘34 CFR part 74, subpart Q’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘34 CFR 74.27, 75.530, and 80.22, as
applicable’’.
B. In the introductory text of
paragraph (a), adding the word ‘‘project’’
before the word ‘‘staff’’.
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
words ‘‘to obtain information relating to
the admission of participants to those
institutions’’.
D. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
E. In paragraph (b), adding the words
‘‘and test preparation programs for
participants’’ after the word ‘‘materials’’.
F. Revising paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 644.30
*
PO 00000
*
What are allowable costs?
*
Frm 00077
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
13889
(a) * * *
(3) Field trips for participants to
observe and meet with persons who are
employed in various career fields and
can act as role models for participants.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, computer software,
or other equipment for participant
development, project administration, or
project recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
67. Section 644.32 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraphs (b) and (d).
B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (b).
C. Adding a new paragraph (c).
D. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (b),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0065’’ and
adding, in their place, the numbers
‘‘1840–NEW8’’.
The addition reads as follows:
§ 644.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee must
employ a full-time project director
unless—
(i) The director is also administering
one or two additional programs for
disadvantaged students operated by the
sponsoring institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of
this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project
director sufficient authority to
administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the
requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the requirement to administer no
more than three programs will hinder
effective coordination between the
Educational Opportunity Centers
program and—
(i) One or more Federal TRIO
programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs
funded through other sources.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 645—UPWARD BOUND
PROGRAM
68. The authority citation for part 645
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
13, unless otherwise noted.
69. Section 645.2 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a), removing the
word ‘‘Institutions’’ and adding, in its
place, the words ‘‘An institution’’.
B. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d).
The revisions read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13890
§ 645.2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Who is eligible for a grant?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) A public or private agency or
organization, including a communitybased organization with experience in
serving disadvantaged youth.
(c) A secondary school.
(d) A combination of the types of
institutions, agencies, and organizations
described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
70. Section 645.4 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Removing paragraph (a).
C. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) as paragraphs (a), (b), and (c),
respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 645.4 What are the grantee requirements
for documenting the low-income and firstgeneration status of participants?
*
*
*
*
*
71. Section 645.5 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 645.5
What regulations apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
§§ 75.215 through 75.221), 77, 79, 80,
82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
72. Section 645.6(b) is amended by:
A. Revising the definition of
Institution of higher education.
B. Revising the definition of Veteran.
C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new
definitions for Different population,
Financial and economic literacy, Foster
care youth, Homeless children and
youth, Individual who has a high risk
for academic failure, Individual with
disabilities, Regular secondary school
diploma, Rigorous secondary school
program of study, and Veteran who has
a high risk for academic failure.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 645.6 What definitions apply to the
Upward Bound Program?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Different population means a group of
individuals that an eligible entity
desires to serve through an application
for a grant under the Upward Bound
program and that—
(1) Is separate and distinct from any
other population that the entity has
applied for a grant to serve; or
(2) While sharing some of the same
needs as another population that the
eligible entity has applied for a grant to
serve, has distinct needs for specialized
services.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Financial and economic literacy
means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including
but not limited to knowledge about—
(1) Personal and family budget
planning;
(2) Understanding credit building
principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit
scoring, negative impacts on credit
scores);
(3) Cost planning for postsecondary
education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant, and loan
education (e.g., searches, application
processes, and differences between
private and government loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
Foster care youth means youth who
are in foster care or are aging out of the
foster care system.
*
*
*
*
*
Homeless children and youth means
persons defined in section 725 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
Individual who has a high risk for
academic failure (regular Upward
Bound participant) means an individual
who—
(1) Has not achieved at the proficient
level on State assessments in reading or
language arts;
(2) Has not achieved at the proficient
level on State assessments in math;
(3) Has not completed pre-algebra,
algebra, or geometry; or
(4) Has a grade point average of 2.5 or
less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent
school year for which grade point
averages are available.
Individual with disabilities means a
person who has a diagnosed physical or
mental impairment that substantially
limits that person’s ability to participate
in educational experiences and
opportunities.
Institution of higher education means
an educational institution as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
*
*
*
*
*
Regular secondary school diploma
means a diploma attained by
individuals who meet or exceed the
coursework and performance standards
for high school completion established
by the individual’s State.
Rigorous secondary school program of
study means a program of study that
is—
(1) Established by a State educational
agency (SEA) or local educational
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
agency (LEA) and recognized as a
rigorous secondary school program of
study by the Secretary through the
process described in 34 CFR 691.16(a)
through (c) for the ACG Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary
school program established by States
and in existence for the 2004–2005
school year or later school years;
(3) Any secondary school program in
which a student successfully completes
at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics,
including algebra I and a higher-level
class such as algebra II, geometry, or
data analysis and statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including
one year each of at least two of the
following courses: biology, chemistry,
and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than
English;
(4) A secondary school program
identified by a State-level partnership
that is recognized by the State Scholars
Initiative of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education
(WICHE), Boulder, Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
courses from an International
Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International
Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a
‘‘4’’ or higher on the examinations for at
least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for
a student who completes at least two
Advanced Placement courses and
receives a score of ‘‘3’’ or higher on the
College Board’s Advanced Placement
Program Exams for at least two of those
courses.
*
*
*
*
*
Veteran means a person who—
(1) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
for a period of more than 180 days and
was discharged or released under
conditions other than dishonorable;
(2) Served on active duty as a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States
and was discharged or released because
of a service connected disability;
(3) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active
duty for a period of more than 30 days;
or
(4) Was a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty
in support of a contingency operation
(as that term is defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States
Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Veteran who has a high risk for
academic failure means a veteran who—
(1) Has been out of high school or
dropped out of a program of
postsecondary education for five or
more years;
(2) Has scored on standardized tests
below the level that demonstrates a
likelihood of success in a program of
postsecondary education; or
(3) Meets the definition of an
individual with disabilities as defined
in § 645.6(b).
*
*
*
*
*
73. Section 645.11 is revised to read
as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 645.11 What services do all Upward
Bound projects provide?
(a) Any project assisted under this
part must provide—
(1) Academic tutoring to enable
students to complete secondary or
postsecondary courses, which may
include instruction in reading, writing,
study skills, mathematics, science, and
other subjects;
(2) Advice and assistance in
secondary and postsecondary course
selection;
(3) Assistance in preparing for college
entrance examinations and completing
college admission applications;
(4)(i) Information on the full range of
Federal student financial aid programs
and benefits (including Federal Pell
Grant awards and loan forgiveness) and
resources for locating public and private
scholarships; and
(ii) Assistance in completing financial
aid applications, including the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid;
(5) Guidance on and assistance in—
(i) Secondary school reentry;
(ii) Alternative education programs
for secondary school dropouts that lead
to the receipt of a regular secondary
school diploma;
(iii) Entry into general educational
development (GED) programs; or
(iv) Entry into postsecondary
education; and
(6) Education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of
students or the students’ parents,
including financial planning for
postsecondary education.
(b) Any project that has received
funds under this part for at least two
years must include as part of its core
curriculum in the next and succeeding
years, instruction in—
(1) Mathematics through pre-calculus;
(2) Laboratory science;
(3) Foreign language;
(4) Composition; and
(5) Literature.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 [Redesignated
as § 645.13, 645.14, and 645.15]
74. Sections 645.12, 645.13, and
645.14 of subpart B of part 645 are
redesignated as §§ 645.13, 645.14, and
645.15 of subpart B of part 645,
respectively.
75. A new § 645.12 is added to
subpart B of part 645 to read as follows:
§ 645.12 What services may regular
Upward Bound and Upward Bound MathScience projects provide?
Any project assisted under this part
may provide such services as—
(a) Exposure to cultural events,
academic programs, and other activities
not usually available to disadvantaged
youth;
(b) Information, activities, and
instruction designed to acquaint youth
participating in the project with the
range of career options available to the
youth;
(c) On-campus residential programs;
(d) Mentoring programs involving
elementary school or secondary school
teachers or counselors, faculty members
at institutions of higher education,
students, or any combination of these
persons;
(e) Work-study positions where youth
participating in the project are exposed
to careers requiring a postsecondary
degree; and
(f) Programs and activities as
described in § 645.11 or paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section that
are specially designed for participants
who are limited English proficient,
participants from groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, participants
who are individuals with disabilities,
participants who are homeless children
and youths, participants in or who are
aging out of foster care, or other
disconnected participants.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13)
76. Newly redesignated § 645.15 is
amended by—
A. In the introductory text, removing
the words ‘‘§ 645.11(a) and may be
provided under § 645.11(b)’’ and adding,
in their place, the citation ‘‘§ 645.11’’;
B. In paragraph (b), removing the
word ‘‘and’’;
C. In paragraph (c), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘; and’’; and
D. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 645.15 What additional services do
Veterans Upward Bound projects provide?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Provide special services, including
mathematics and science preparation, to
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13891
enable veterans to make the transition to
postsecondary education.
*
*
*
*
*
77. Section 645.20 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 645.20 How many applications for an
Upward Bound award may an eligible
applicant submit?
(a) An applicant may submit more
than one application as long as each
application describes a project that
serves a different target area or target
school, or another designated different
population.
(b) For each grant competition, the
Secretary designates, in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications
and other published application
materials for the competition, the
different populations for which an
eligible entity may submit a separate
application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13, 1221e–3)
78. Section 645.21 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 645.21 What assurances must an
applicant include in an application?
(a) An applicant for a Regular Upward
Bound award must assure the Secretary
that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project’s participants will be lowincome individuals who are potential
first-generation college students;
(2) The remaining participants will be
low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration college students, or
individuals who have a high risk for
academic failure;
(3) No student will be denied
participation in a project because the
student would enter the project after the
9th grade; and
(4) Individuals who are receiving
services from Gaining Early Awareness
and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR UP) project under 34
CFR part 694, another regular Upward
Bound or Upward Bound Math and
Science Centers project under this part,
a Talent Search project under 34 CFR
part 643, an Educational Opportunity
Centers project under 34 CFR part 644,
or other programs serving similar
populations will not receive the same
services under the proposed project.
(b) An applicant for an Upward
Bound Math and Science Centers award
must assure the Secretary that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project’s participants will be lowincome individuals who are potential
first-generation college students;
(2) The remaining participants will be
either low-income individuals or
potential first-generation college
students;
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13892
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(3) No student will be denied
participation in a project because the
student would enter the project after the
9th grade; and
(4) Individuals who are receiving
services from GEAR UP under 34 CFR
part 694, a regular Upward Bound or
another Upward Bound Math-Science
Centers project under this part, a Talent
Search project under 34 CFR part 643,
an Educational Opportunity Centers
project under 34 CFR part 644, or other
programs serving similar populations
will not receive the same services under
the proposed project.
(c) An applicant for a Veterans
Upward Bound award must assure the
Secretary that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project’s participants will be lowincome individuals who are potential
first-generation college students;
(2) The remaining participants will be
low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration college students, or veterans
who have a high risk for academic
failure; and
(3) Individuals who are receiving
services from another Veterans Upward
Bound project under this part, a Talent
Search project under 34 CFR part 643,
an Educational Opportunity Centers
project under 34 CFR part 644, or other
programs serving similar populations
will not receive the same services under
the proposed project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13)
79. Section 645.30 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
words ‘‘in delivering services’’ and
adding, in their place, the words ‘‘of
high quality service delivery (PE)’’.
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the
word ‘‘total’’ after the word ‘‘maximum’’
the first time it appears.
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
through (a)(2)(v).
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 645.30 How does the Secretary decide
which grants to make?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of
an applicant for each of the three project
years that the Secretary designates in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published
application materials for the
competition.
(iv) An applicant may earn up to 15
PE points for each of the designated
project years for which annual
performance report data are available.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(v) The final PE score is the average
of the scores for the three project years
assessed.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The Secretary does not make a
new grant to an applicant if the
applicant’s prior project involved the
fraudulent use of program funds.
*
*
*
*
*
80. Section 645.31 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. In paragraph (d)(2), adding the
word ‘‘secondary’’ after the word ‘‘from’’;
and adding the words ‘‘institutions of
higher education,’’ after the word
‘‘schools,’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 645.31 What selection criteria does the
Secretary use?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Objectives (9 points). The
Secretary evaluates the quality of the
applicant’s objectives and proposed
targets (percentages) in the following
areas on the basis of the extent to which
they are both ambitious, as related to the
need data provided under paragraph (a)
of this section, and attainable, given the
project’s plan of operation, budget, and
other resources:
(1) For Regular Upward Bound and
Upward Bound Math and Science
Centers—
(i) (1 point) Academic performance
(GPA);
(ii) (1 point) Academic performance
(standardized test scores);
(iii) (2 points) Secondary school
graduation (with regular secondary
school diploma);
(iv) (1 point) Completion of rigorous
secondary school program of study;
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment; and
(vi) (1 point) Postsecondary
completion.
(2) For Veterans Upward Bound—
(i) (2 points) Academic performance
(standardized test scores);
(ii) (3 points) Education program
retention and completion;
(iii) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment; and
(iv) (1 point) Postsecondary
completion.
*
*
*
*
*
81. Section 645.32 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 645.32 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application
described in § 645.30(a)(2)(i), the
Secretary—
(1) Evaluates the applicant’s
performance under its expiring Upward
Bound project;
(2) Uses the approved project
objectives for the applicant’s expiring
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Upward Bound grant and the
information the applicant submitted in
its annual performance reports (APRs)
to determine the number of PE points;
and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score
or decide not to award any PE points if
other information such as audit reports,
site visit reports, and project evaluation
reports indicates the APR data used to
calculate PE points are incorrect.
(b) The Secretary does not award PE
points for a given year to an applicant
that does not serve at least 90 percent
of the approved number of participants.
For purposes of this section, the
approved number of participants is the
total number of participants the project
would serve as agreed upon by the
grantee and the Secretary.
(c) For the criteria specified in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i) of this
section (Number of participants), the
Secretary does not award PE points if
the applicant did not serve the approved
number of participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved
number of participants, or the actual
number of participants served in a given
year if greater than the approved
number of participants, as the
denominator for calculating whether the
applicant has met its approved
objectives related to the following PE
criteria:
(1) Regular Upward Bound and
Upward Bound Math and Science
Centers PE criteria in paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
of this section (Academic performance)
and paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section
(Secondary school retention and
graduation).
(2) Veterans Upward Bound PE
criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this
section (Academic improvement on
standardized test) and paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) of this section (Education
program retention and completion).
(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation
of grants awarded after January 1, 2009,
the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s
PE on the basis of the following
outcome criteria:
(1) Regular Upward Bound and
Upward Bound Math and Science
Centers.
(i) (3 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided services
to the approved number of participants.
(ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5
points) Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of project
participants that received a 2.5 grade
point average or better on a 4.0 scale or
its equivalent at the end of each school
year.
(B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its approved objective
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
with regard to the percentage of project
participants that performed at the
proficient level on State assessments in
reading/language arts and math.
(iii) (3 points) Secondary school
retention and graduation. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its approved
objective with regard to the percentage
of participants who returned the next
school year or graduated from secondary
school with a regular secondary school
diploma.
(iv) (1.5 points) Rigorous secondary
school program of study. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its approved
objective with regard to the percentage
of current and prior participants with an
expected high school graduation date in
the school year who were enrolled in
and completed a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of current and
prior participants with an expected high
school graduation date in the school
year who enrolled in a program of
postsecondary education by the fall
term immediately following the school
year.
(vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary
completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of
postsecondary enrollees who attained a
postsecondary degree within the
number of years specified in the
approved objective.
(2) Veterans Upward Bound.
(i) (3 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided services
to the approved number of participants.
(ii) (3 points) Academic improvement
on standardized test. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its approved
objective with regard to the percentage
of participants who improved their
academic performance during the
project year as measured by a
standardized test taken by participants
before and after receiving services from
the project.
(iii) (3 points) Education program
retention and completion. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its approved
objective with regard to the percentage
of participants who remain enrolled in
or completed their Veterans Upward
Bound educational program during the
project year.
(iv) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of participants
who enrolled in an institution of higher
education during the project year or by
the fall term immediately following the
project year.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary
completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of
postsecondary enrollees who attained a
postsecondary degree within the
number of years specified in the
approved objective.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW9)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
13)
§ 645.33
[Amended]
82. Section 645.33 is amended by, in
paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount
‘‘$190,000’’ and adding, in its place, the
amount ‘‘$200,000’’.
83. Section 645.34 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 645.34
How long is a project period?
A project period under the Upward
Bound program is five years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
84. A new § 645.35 is added to
subpart D of part 645 to read as follows:
§ 645.35 What is the review process for
unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error
for applications not reviewed. (1) An
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during the competition
may request that the Secretary review
the application if—
(i) The applicant has met all of the
application submission requirements
included in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department or an
agent of the Department made a
technical or administrative error in the
processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error
in the processing of an application
includes—
(i) A problem with the system for the
electronic submission of applications
that was not addressed in accordance
with the procedures included in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition;
(ii) An error in determining an
applicant’s eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but
is not limited to—
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was submitted by an
ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the
application exceeded the published
page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the
applicant requested funding greater than
the published maximum award; or
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13893
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was missing critical sections
of the application; and
(iii) Any other mishandling of the
application that resulted in an otherwise
eligible application not being reviewed
during the competition.
(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that
the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary has the application
evaluated and scored.
(ii) If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Administrative or scoring error for
applications that were reviewed. (1) An
applicant that was not selected for
funding during a competition may
request that the Secretary conduct a
second review of the application if—
(i) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error in the review of its
application; and
(ii) The final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band
described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) An administrative error relates to
either the PE points or the scores
assigned to the application by the peer
reviewers.
(i) For PE points, an administrative
error includes mathematical errors made
by the Department or the Department’s
agent in the calculation of the PE points
or a failure to correctly add the earned
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
(ii) For the peer review score, an
administrative error is applying the
wrong peer reviewer scores to an
application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to
the peer review process and includes
errors caused by a reviewer who, in
assigning points—
(A) Uses criteria not required by the
applicable law or program regulations,
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the other published
application materials for the
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
(B) Does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not
include—
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13894
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use
of his or her professional judgment in
evaluating and scoring an application;
(B) Any situation in which the
applicant did not include information
needed to evaluate its response to a
specific selection criterion in the
appropriate section of the application as
stipulated in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or the other
published application materials for the
competition; or
(C) Any error by the applicant.
(c) Procedures for the second review.
(1) To ensure the timely awarding of
grants under the competition, the
Secretary sets aside a percentage of the
funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is
completed.
(2) After the competition, the
Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in § 645.30 based on
the available funds for the competition
minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants, the Secretary notifies each
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and
provides copies of the peer reviewers’
evaluations of the applicant’s
application and the applicant’s PE
score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding following the competition as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, may request a second review if
the applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error as discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded after the first review as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to the designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
made an administrative error that relates
to the PE points awarded, as described
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE
score to reflect the correct number of PE
points. If the adjusted score assigned to
the application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or
the peer reviewer made an
administrative error that relates to the
peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer
reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error.
If the adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the Secretary convenes a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with the requirements in section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking
of applications. The average score
obtained from the second peer review
panel is the final peer reviewer score for
the application and will be used even if
the second review results in a lower
score for the application than that
obtained in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding
band, the Secretary funds these
applications in rank order based on
adjusted scores and the available funds
that have been set aside for the second
review of applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding
band. (1) For each competition, the
Secretary establishes a funding band for
the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the
funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the
Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of
those applications—
(i) With a rank-order score before the
second review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the
first review; and
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) That would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the funds
that were set aside for the second review
of applications for the competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s
determination of whether the applicant
has met the requirements for a second
review and the Secretary’s decision on
re-scoring of an application are final and
not subject to further appeal or
challenge.
(2) An application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition is not eligible for a second
review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW4.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
85. Section 645.40 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing
the words ‘‘34 CFR part 74, subpart Q’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘34 CFR 74.27, 75.530, and 80.22, as
applicable’’.
B. Revising paragraph (n).
C. Redesignating paragraph (o) as
paragraph (p).
D. Adding new paragraph (o).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 645.40
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment and supplies that support
the delivery of services to participants,
including technology used by
participants in a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
(o) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer equipment and software
needed for project administration and
recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
86. Section 645.42 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 645.42 What are Upward Bound
stipends?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The stipend may not exceed $60
per month for the summer school recess
for a period not to exceed three months,
except that youth participating in a
work-study position may be paid $300
per month during the summer school
recess.
*
*
*
*
*
87. Section 645.43 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraphs (a) and (b).
B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
C. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (b).
D. Adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (b).
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The additions read as follows:
§ 645.43 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
(a) Project director. (1) A grantee must
employ a full-time project director
unless—
(i) The director is also administering
one or two additional programs for
disadvantaged students operated by the
sponsoring institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of
this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project
director sufficient authority to
administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the requirement to administer no
more than three programs will hinder
effective coordination between the
Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound
Math and Science or Veterans Upward
Bound program and—
(i) One or more Federal TRIO
programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs
funded through other sources.
*
*
*
*
*
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW9.)
*
*
*
*
*
PART 646—STUDENT SUPPORT
SERVICES
88. The authority citation for part 646
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
14, unless otherwise noted.
89. Section 646.1 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a), adding the word
‘‘college’’ before the word ‘‘retention’’.
B. Revising paragraph (c).
C. Adding new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 646.1 What is the Student Support
Services program?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Foster an institutional climate
supportive of the success of students
who are limited English proficient,
students from groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, individuals
with disabilities, homeless children and
youth, foster care youth, or other
disconnected students; and
(d) Improve the financial literacy and
economic literacy of students in areas
such as—
(1) Basic personal income, household
money management, and financial
planning skills; and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Basic economic decision-making
skills.
*
*
*
*
*
90. Section 646.4 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 646.4 What activities and services does
a project provide?
(a) A Student Support Services project
must provide the following services:
(1) Academic tutoring, directly or
through other services provided by the
institution, to enable students to
complete postsecondary courses, which
may include instruction in reading,
writing, study skills, mathematics,
science, and other subjects.
(2) Advice and assistance in
postsecondary course selection.
(3)(i) Information on both the full
range of Federal student financial aid
programs and benefits (including
Federal Pell Grant awards and loan
forgiveness) and resources for locating
public and private scholarships; and
(ii) Assistance in completing financial
aid applications, including the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid.
(4) Education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of
students, including financial planning
for postsecondary education.
(5) Activities designed to assist
students participating in the project in
applying for admission to, and obtaining
financial assistance for enrollment in,
graduate and professional programs.
(6) Activities designed to assist
students enrolled in two-year
institutions of higher education in
applying for admission to, and obtaining
financial assistance for enrollment in, a
four-year program of postsecondary
education.
(b) A Student Support Services
project may provide the following
services:
(1) Individualized counseling for
personal, career, and academic matters
provided by assigned counselors.
(2) Information, activities, and
instruction designed to acquaint
students participating in the project
with the range of career options
available to the students.
(3) Exposure to cultural events and
academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
(4) Mentoring programs involving
faculty or upper class students, or a
combination thereof.
(5) Securing temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year for—
(i) Students who are homeless
children and youths or were formerly
homeless children and youths; and
(ii) Foster care youths.
(6) Programs and activities as
described in paragraph (a) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13895
section or paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(4) of this section that are specially
designed for students who are limited
English proficient, students from groups
that are traditionally underrepresented
in postsecondary education, students
who are individuals with disabilities,
students who are homeless children and
youths, students who are foster care
youth, or other disconnected students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–14)
91. Section 646.5 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 646.5
How long is a project period?
A project period under the Student
Support Services program is five years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
92. Section 646.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 646.6
What regulations apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
§§ 75.215–75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85,
86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
93. Section 646.7 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraph (a).
B. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and
(c) as paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively.
C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b), revising the definition of Different
campus; removing the definition of
Different population of participants;
revising the definition of Individual
with disabilities; and adding, in
alphabetical order, new definitions for
Different population, Financial and
economic literacy, First generation
college student, Foster care youth,
Homeless children and youth,
Institution of higher education, and
Low-income individual.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 646.7
What definitions apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Different campus means a site of an
institution of higher education that—
(1) Is geographically apart from the
main campus of the institution;
(2) Is permanent in nature; and
(3) Offers courses in educational
programs leading to a degree, certificate,
or other recognized educational
credential.
Different population means a group of
individuals that an eligible entity
desires to serve through an application
for a grant under the Student Support
Services program and that—
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13896
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) Is separate and distinct from any
other population that the entity has
applied for a grant to serve; or
(2) While sharing some of the same
needs as another population that the
eligible entity has applied for a grant to
serve, has distinct needs for specialized
services.
Financial and economic literacy
means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including
but not limited to knowledge about—
(1) Personal and family budget
planning;
(2) Understanding credit building
principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit
scoring, negative impacts on credit
scores);
(3) Cost planning for secondary
education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant and loan
education (e.g., searches, application
processes, differences between private
and government loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
First generation college student
means—
(1) A student neither of whose natural
or adoptive parents received a
baccalaureate degree; or
(2) A student who, prior to the age of
18, regularly resided with and received
support from only one parent and
whose supporting parent did not receive
a baccalaureate degree.
(3) An individual who, prior to the
age of 18, did not regularly reside with
or receive support from a natural or an
adoptive parent.
Foster care youth means youth who
are in foster care or are aging out of the
foster care system.
Homeless children and youth means
persons defined in section 725 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 1143a).
Individual with disabilities means a
person who has a diagnosed physical or
mental impairment that substantially
limits that person’s ability to participate
in educational experiences and
opportunities.
Institution of higher education means
an educational institution as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
Low-income individual means an
individual whose family’s taxable
income did not exceed 150 percent of
the poverty level amount in the calendar
year preceding the year in which the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
individual initially participated in the
project. The poverty level amount is
determined by using criteria of poverty
established by the Bureau of the Census
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
*
*
*
*
*
94. Subpart B of part 646 is revised to
read as follows:
Subpart B—How Does One Apply for
an Award?
§ 646.10 How many applications may an
eligible applicant submit and for what
different populations may an eligible
application be submitted?
(a) An eligible applicant may submit
more than one application as long as
each application describes a project that
serves a different campus or a
designated different population.
(b) For each grant competition, the
Secretary designates, in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications
and other published application
materials for the competition, the
different populations for which an
eligible entity may submit a separate
application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
14; 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3)
§ 646.11 What assurances and other
information must an applicant include in an
application?
(a) An applicant must assure the
Secretary in the application that—
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the
project participants will be—
(i) Low-income individuals who are
first generation college students; or
(ii) Individuals with disabilities;
(2) The remaining project participants
will be low-income individuals, first
generation college students, or
individuals with disabilities; and
(3) Not less than one-third of the
individuals with disabilities served also
will be low-income individuals.
(b) The applicant must describe in the
application its efforts, and where
applicable, past history, in—
(1) Providing sufficient financial
assistance to meet the full financial
need of each student in the project; and
(2) Maintaining the loan burden of
each student in the project at a
manageable level.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–1840–
NEW5)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–14)
95. Section 646.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
words ‘‘in delivering services’’ and
adding, in their place, the words ‘‘of
high quality service delivery (PE)’’.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
through (a)(2)(v).
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 646.20 How does the Secretary decide
which new grants to make?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The maximum total score for all
the criteria in § 646.22 is 15 points. The
maximum score for each criterion is
indicated in parentheses with the
criterion.
(iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of
an applicant for each of the three project
years that the Secretary designates in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published
application materials for the
competition.
(iv) An applicant may earn up to 15
PE points for each of the designated
project years for which annual
performance report data are available.
(v) The final PE score is the average
of the scores for the three project years
assessed.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The Secretary does not make a
new grant to an applicant if the
applicant’s prior project involved the
fraudulent use of program funds.
*
*
*
*
*
96. Section 646.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Revising the OMB control number
at the end of the section.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 646.21 What selection criteria does the
Secretary use to evaluate an application?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Objectives (8 points). The
Secretary evaluates the quality of the
applicant’s proposed objectives in the
following areas on the basis of the
extent to which they are both ambitious,
as related to the need data provided
under paragraph (a) of this section, and
attainable, given the project’s plan of
operation, budget, and other resources.
(1) (3 points) Retention in
postsecondary education.
(2) (2 points) In good academic
standing at grantee institution.
(3) Two-year institutions only. (i) (1
point) Certificate or degree completion;
and
(ii) (2 points) Certificate or degree
completion and transfer to a four-year
institution.
(4) Four-year institutions only. (3
points) Completion of a baccalaureate
degree.
*
*
*
*
*
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW5.)
*
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
*
*
23MRP2
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
97. Section 646.22 is revised to read
as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application
described in § 646.20(a)(2)(i), the
Secretary—
(1) Evaluates the applicant’s
performance under its expiring Student
Support Services project;
(2) Uses the approved project
objectives for the applicant’s expiring
Student Support Services grant and the
information the applicant submitted in
its annual performance reports (APRs)
to determine the number of prior PE
points; and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score
or decide not to award PE points if other
information such as audit reports, site
visit reports, and project evaluation
reports indicates the APR data used to
calculate PE points are incorrect.
(b) The Secretary does not award PE
points for a given year to an applicant
that does not serve at least 90 percent
of the approved number of participants.
For purposes of this section, the
approved number of participants is the
total number of participants the project
would serve as agreed upon by the
grantee and the Secretary.
(c) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number
of participants), the Secretary does not
award PE points if the applicant did not
serve the approved number of
participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved
number of participants, or the actual
number of participants served in a given
year if greater than the approved
number of participants, as the
denominator for calculating whether the
applicant has met its approved
objectives related to paragraph (e)(2) of
this section (Postsecondary retention)
and paragraph (e)(3) of this section
(Good academic standing).
(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation
of grants awarded after January 1, 2009,
the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s
PE on the basis of the following
outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided services
to the approved number of participants.
(2) (4 points) Postsecondary retention.
Whether the applicant met or exceeded
its objective regarding the percentage of
all participants served who continue to
be enrolled in a program of
postsecondary education from one
academic year to the beginning of the
next academic year or who complete a
program of postsecondary education at
the grantee institution during the
academic year or transfer from a two-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
year institution to a four-year institution
during the academic year.
(3) (4 points) Good academic
standing. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective regarding the
percentage of all participants served
who are in good academic standing at
the grantee institution.
(4) (4 points) Degree completion (for
an applicant institution of higher
education offering primarily a
baccalaureate or higher degree).
Whether the applicant met or exceeded
its objective regarding the percentage of
participants receiving a baccalaureate
degree at the grantee institution within
the specified number of years.
(5) Degree completion and transfer
(for an applicant institution of higher
education offering primarily an
associate degree). Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objectives regarding
the percentage of participants who—
(i) (2 points) Complete a degree or
certificate within the number of years
specified in the approved objective; and
(ii) (2 points) Transfer within the
number of years specified in the
approved objective to institutions of
higher education that offer
baccalaureate degrees.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW10)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11; 1070a–14)
§ 646.23
[Amended]
98. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended
by removing the amount ‘‘$170,000’’ and
adding, in its place, the amount
‘‘$200,000’’.
99. A new § 646.24 is added to
subpart C of part 646 to read as follows:
§ 646.24 What is the review process for
unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error
for applications not reviewed. (1) An
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during the competition
may request that the Secretary review
the application if—
(i) The applicant has met all of the
application submission requirements
included in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department or an
agent of the Department made a
technical or administrative error in the
processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error
in the processing of an application
includes—
(i) A problem with the system for the
electronic submission of applications
that was not addressed in accordance
with the procedures included in the
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13897
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition;
(ii) An error in determining an
applicant’s eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but
is not limited to—
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was submitted by an
ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the
application exceeded the published
page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the
applicant requested funding greater than
the published maximum award; or
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was missing critical sections
of the application; and
(iii) Any other mishandling of the
application that resulted in an otherwise
eligible application not being reviewed
during the competition.
(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that
the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary has the application
evaluated and scored.
(ii) If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Administrative or scoring error for
applications that were reviewed. (1) An
applicant that was not selected for
funding during a competition may
request that the Secretary conduct a
second review of the application if—
(i) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error in the review of its
application; and
(ii) The final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band
described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) An administrative error relates to
either the PE points or the scores
assigned to the application by the peer
reviewers.
(i) For PE points, an administrative
error includes mathematical errors made
by the Department or the Department’s
agent in the calculation of the PE points
or a failure to correctly add the earned
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
(ii) For the peer review score, an
administrative error is applying the
wrong peer reviewer scores to an
application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to
the peer review process and includes
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13898
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
errors caused by a reviewer who, in
assigning points—
(A) Uses criteria not required by the
applicable law or program regulations,
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the other published
application materials for the
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
(B) Does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not
include—
(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use
of his or her professional judgment in
evaluating and scoring an application;
(B) Any situation in which the
applicant did not include information
needed to evaluate its response to a
specific selection criterion in the
appropriate section of the application as
stipulated in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or the other
published application materials for the
competition; or
(C) Any error by the applicant.
(c) Procedures for the second review.
(1) To ensure the timely awarding of
grants under the competition, the
Secretary sets aside a percentage of the
funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is
completed.
(2) After the competition, the
Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in § 646.20 based on
the available funds for the competition
minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants, the Secretary notifies each
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and
provides copies of the peer reviewers’
evaluations of the applicant’s
application and the applicant’s PE
score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding following the competition as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, may request a second review if
the applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error as discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded after the first review as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has 15 calendar days after
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to the designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made an administrative error that relates
to the PE points awarded, as described
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE
score to reflect the correct number of PE
points. If the adjusted score assigned to
the application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or
the peer reviewer made an
administrative error that relates to the
peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer
reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error.
If the adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the Secretary convenes a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with the requirements in section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking
of applications. The average score
obtained from the second peer review
panel is the final peer reviewer score for
the application and will be used even if
the second review results in a lower
score for the application than that
obtained in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding
band, the Secretary funds these
applications in rank order based on
adjusted scores and the available funds
that have been set aside for the second
review of applications.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(d) Process for establishing a funding
band. (1) For each competition, the
Secretary establishes a funding band for
the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the
funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the
Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of
those applications—
(i) With a rank-order score before the
second review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the
first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the funds
that were set aside for the second review
of applications for the competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s
determination of whether the applicant
has met the requirements for a second
review and the Secretary’s decision on
re-scoring of an application are final and
not subject to further appeal or
challenge.
(2) An application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition is not eligible for a second
review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW5.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
100. Section 646.30 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing
the words ‘‘34 CFR part 74, subpart Q’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘34 CFR 74.27, 75.530, and 80.22, as
applicable’’.
B. Revising paragraph (f).
C. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 646.30
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, computer software,
or other equipment for participant
development, project administration, or
project recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Grant Aid to eligible students
who—
(1) Are in their first two years of
postsecondary education and who are
receiving Federal Pell Grants under
subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Act;
or
(2) Have completed their first two
years of postsecondary education and
who are receiving Federal Pell Grants
under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of
the Act if the institution demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Secretary that—
(i) These students are at high risk of
dropping out; and
(ii) It will first meet the needs of all
its eligible first- and second-year
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
students for services under this
paragraph.
(j) Temporary housing during breaks
in the academic year for—
(1) Students who are homeless
children and youths or were formerly
homeless children and youths; and
(2) Students who are foster care
youth.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 646.31
[Amended]
101. Section 646.31(b) is amended by
adding the words ‘‘, except for Grant aid
under § 646.30(i)’’ after the word
‘‘support’’.
§ 646.32
[Amended]
102. Section 646.32 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the
words ‘‘Higher Education’’.
B. Revising paragraph (c).
C. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (d),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0017’’ and
adding, in its place, the numbers ‘‘1840–
NEW5’’.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 646.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
*
*
*
*
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee must
employ a full-time project director
unless—
(i) The director is also administering
one or two additional programs for
disadvantaged students operated by the
sponsoring institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of
this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project
director sufficient authority to
administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the
requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the requirement to administer no
more than three programs will hinder
effective coordination between the
Student Support Services program
and—
(i) One or more Federal TRIO
programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs
funded through other sources.
*
*
*
*
*
103. Section 646.33 is added to
subpart D of part 646 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
§ 646.33 What are the matching
requirements for a grantee that uses
Student Support Services program funds
for student Grant aid?
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW10.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
PART 647—RONALD E. MCNAIR
POSTBACCALAUREATE
ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM
104. The authority citation for part
647 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
15, unless otherwise noted.
105. Section 647.4 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 647.4 What activities and services does
a project provide?
(a) A McNair project must provide the
following services and activities:
(1) Opportunities for research or other
scholarly activities at the grantee
institution or at graduate centers that are
designed to provide students with
effective preparation for doctoral study.
(2) Summer internships.
(3) Seminars and other educational
activities designed to prepare students
for doctoral study.
(4) Tutoring.
(5) Academic counseling.
(6) Assistance to students in securing
admission to, and financial assistance
for, enrollment in graduate programs.
(b) A McNair project may provide the
following services and activities:
(1) Education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of
students, including financial planning
for postsecondary education.
(2) Mentoring programs involving
faculty members at institutions of higher
education, students, or a combination of
faculty members and students.
(3) Exposure to cultural events and
academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–15)
(a) Except for grantees described in
paragraph (b) of this section, a grantee
that uses Student Support Services
program funds for Grant aid to eligible
students described in § 646.30(i) must—
VerDate Nov<24>2008
(1) Match the Federal funds used for
Grant aid, in cash, from non-Federal
funds, in an amount that is not less than
33 percent of the total amount of
Federal grant funds used for Grant aid;
and
(2) Use no more than 20 percent of the
Federal program funds awarded the
grantee each year for Grant aid.
(b) A grant recipient that is an
institution of higher education eligible
to receive funds under part A or B of
title III or title V of the HEA, as
amended, is not required to match the
Federal funds used for Grant aid.
106. Section 647.5 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 647.5
How long is a project period?
A project period under the McNair
program is five years.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13899
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
107. Section 647.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 647.6
What regulations apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
§§ 75.215–75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85,
86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
108. Section 647.7(b) is amended by:
A. Removing the definition of
Summer internship.
B. In the definition of Graduate
center, revising the introductory text.
C. Revising the definition of Groups
underrepresented in graduate
education.
D. Revising the definition of
Institution of higher education.
E. Adding, in alphabetical order, new
definitions for Different campus,
Different population, Financial and
economic literacy, and Research or
scholarly activity.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 647.7
What definitions apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Different campus means a site of an
institution of higher education that—
(1) Is geographically apart from the
main campus of the institution;
(2) Is permanent in nature; and
(3) Offers courses in educational
programs leading to a degree, certificate,
or other recognized educational
credential.
Different population means a group of
individuals that an eligible entity
desires to serve through an application
for a grant under the McNair TRIO
program and that—
(1) Is separate and distinct from any
other population that the entity has
applied for a grant to serve; or
(2) While sharing some of the same
needs as another population that the
eligible entity has applied for a grant to
serve, has distinct needs for specialized
services.
Financial and economic literacy
means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including
but not limited to knowledge about—
(1) Personal and family budget
planning;
(2) Understanding credit building
principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit
scoring, negative impacts on credit
scores);
(3) Cost planning for postsecondary
education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13900
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant and loan
education (e.g., searches, application
processes, and differences between
private and government loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
*
*
*
*
*
Graduate center means an institution
of higher education as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA; and
that—
*
*
*
*
*
Groups underrepresented in graduate
education. The following ethnic and
racial groups are considered
underrepresented in graduate education:
Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic,
American Indian, Alaskan Native (as
defined in section 7306 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)),
Native Hawaiians (as defined in section
7207 of the ESEA), and Native American
Pacific Islanders (as defined in section
320 of the HEA).
Institution of higher education means
an educational institution as defined in
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
*
*
*
*
*
Research or scholarly activity means
an educational activity that is more
rigorous than is typically available to
undergraduates in a classroom setting,
that is definitive in its start and end
dates, contains appropriate benchmarks
for completion of various components,
and is conducted under the guidance of
an appropriate faculty member with
experience in the relevant discipline.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—How Does One Apply for
an Award?
109. Subpart B of part 647 is amended
by revising the subpart heading to read
as set forth above.
§ 647.10
[Redesignated as § 647.11]
109a. Redesignate § 647.10 as
§ 647.11.
110. Section 647.10 is added to
subpart B of part 647 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 647.10 How many applications may an
eligible applicant submit?
(a) An applicant may submit more
than one application for McNair grants
as long as each application describes a
project that serves a different campus or
a designated different population.
(b) For each grant competition, the
Secretary designates, in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications
and the other published application
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
materials for the competition, the
different populations for which an
eligible entity may submit a separate
application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–15; 20 U.S.C.
1221e–3)
111. Section 647.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the
words ‘‘of high quality service delivery
(PE)’’ after the words ‘‘prior experience’’.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iv),
(a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi).
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 647.20 How does the Secretary decide
which new grants to make?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The maximum total score for all
the criteria in § 647.22 is 15 points. The
maximum score for each criterion is
indicated in parentheses with the
criterion.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) The Secretary evaluates the PE of
an applicant for each of the three project
years that the Secretary designates in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published
application materials for the
competition.
(v) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE
points for each of the designated project
years for which annual performance
report data are available.
(vi) The final PE score is the average
of the scores for the three project years
assessed.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The Secretary does not make a
new grant to an applicant if the
applicant’s prior project involved the
fraudulent use of program funds.
*
*
*
*
*
112. Section 647.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 647.21 What selection criteria does the
Secretary use?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Objectives (9 points). The
Secretary evaluates the quality of the
applicant’s objectives and proposed
targets (percentages) in the following
areas on the basis of the extent to which
they are both ambitious, as related to the
need data provided under paragraph (a)
of this section, and attainable, given the
project’s plan of operation, budget, and
other resources:
(1) (2 points) Research.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) (3 points) Enrollment in a graduate
program.
(3) (2 points) Continued enrollment in
graduate study.
(4) (2 points) Doctoral degree
attainment.
*
*
*
*
*
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW6)
*
*
*
*
*
113. Section 647.22 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 647.22 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(a) In the case of an applicant
described in § 647.20(a)(2)(i), the
Secretary—
(1) Evaluates an applicant’s
performance under its expiring McNair
project;
(2) Uses the approved project
objectives for the applicant’s expiring
McNair grant and the information the
applicant submitted in its annual
performance reports (APRs) to
determine the number of PE points; and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score
or decide not to award PE points if other
information such as audit reports, site
visit reports, and project evaluation
reports indicates the APR data used to
calculate PE are incorrect.
(b) The Secretary does not award PE
points for a given year to an applicant
that does not serve at least 90 percent
of the approved number of participants.
For purposes of this section, the
approved number of participants is the
total number of participants the project
would serve as agreed upon by the
grantee and the Secretary.
(c) For the criteria specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number
of participants), the Secretary does not
award any PE points if the applicant did
not serve the approved number of
participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved
number of participants, or the actual
number of participants served in a given
year if greater than the approved
number of participants, as the
denominator for calculating whether the
applicant has met its approved objective
related to paragraph (e)(2) of this section
(Research and scholarly activities).
(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation
of grants awarded after January 1, 2009,
the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s
PE on the basis of the following
outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants.
Whether the applicant provided services
to the approved number of participants.
(2) (3 points) Research and scholarly
activities. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective for providing
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
participants with appropriate research
and scholarly activities each academic
year.
(3) (3 points) Graduate school
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective with regard to
the acceptance and enrollment in
graduate programs of participants who
complete the baccalaureate program
during the academic year.
(4) (4 points) Continued enrollment in
graduate school. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objective with
regard to the continued enrollment in
graduate school of prior participants.
(5) (2 points) Doctoral degree
attainment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective with regard to
the attainment of doctoral level degrees
of prior participants in the specified
number of years.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW11.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
15)
§ 647.23
[Amended]
114. Section 647.23 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b), introductory text,
removing the words ‘‘beginning in fiscal
year 1995’’.
B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the
amount ‘‘$190,000’’ and adding, in its
place, the amount ‘‘$200,000’’.
115. Section 647.24 is added to
subpart C of part 647 to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 647.24 What is the review process for
unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error
for applications not reviewed. (1) An
applicant whose grant application was
not evaluated during the competition
may request that the Secretary review
the application if—
(i) The applicant has met all of the
application submission requirements
included in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department or an
agent of the Department made a
technical or administrative error in the
processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error
in the processing of an application
includes—
(i) A problem with the system for the
electronic submission of applications
that was not addressed in accordance
with the procedures included in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition;
(ii) An error in determining an
applicant’s eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but
is not limited to—
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was submitted by an
ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the
application exceeded the published
page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the
applicant requested funding greater than
the published maximum award; or
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the
application was missing critical sections
of the application; and
(iii) Any other mishandling of the
application that resulted in an otherwise
eligible application not being reviewed
during the competition.
(3)(i) If the Secretary determines that
the Department or the Department’s
agent made a technical or administrative
error, the Secretary has the application
evaluated and scored.
(ii) If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Administrative or scoring error for
applications that were reviewed. (1) An
applicant that was not selected for
funding during a competition may
request that the Secretary conduct a
second review of the application if—
(i) The applicant provides evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error in the review of its
application; and
(ii) The final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band
described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) An administrative error relates to
either the PE points or the scores
assigned to the application by the peer
reviewers.
(i) For PE points, an administrative
error includes mathematical errors made
by the Department or the Department’s
agent in the calculation of the PE points
or a failure to correctly add the earned
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
(ii) For the peer review score, an
administrative error is applying the
wrong peer reviewer scores to an
application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to
the peer review process and includes
errors caused by a reviewer who, in
assigning points—
(A) Uses criteria not required by the
applicable law or program regulations,
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the other published
application materials for the
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13901
competition, or guidance provided to
the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
(B) Does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate
section of the application.
(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not
include—
(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use
of his or her professional judgment in
evaluating and scoring an application;
(B) Any situation in which the
applicant did not include information
needed to evaluate its response to a
specific selection criterion in the
appropriate section of the application as
stipulated in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications or the other
published application materials for the
competition; or
(C) Any error by the applicant.
(c) Procedures for the second review.
(1) To ensure the timely awarding of
grants under the competition, the
Secretary sets aside a percentage of the
funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is
completed.
(2) After the competition, the
Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in § 647.20 based on
the available funds for the competition
minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a
notification of grant award to successful
applicants, the Secretary notifies each
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to
the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and
provides copies of the peer reviewers’
evaluations of the applicant’s
application and the applicant’s PE
score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected
for funding following the competition as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, may request a second review if
the applicant demonstrates that the
Department, the Department’s agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative
or scoring error as discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application
was not funded after the first review as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second
review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in
the Secretary’s written notification.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13902
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(6) An applicant’s written request for
a second review must be received by the
Department or submitted electronically
to a designated e-mail or Web address
by the due date and time established by
the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made an administrative error that relates
to the PE points awarded, as described
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE
score to reflect the correct number of PE
points. If the adjusted score assigned to
the application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the
Department, the Department’s agent or
the peer reviewer made an
administrative error that relates to the
peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the
Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer
reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error.
If the adjusted score assigned to the
application would have resulted in
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the Secretary funds the
application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer
review of applications described in
paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a
peer reviewer made a scoring error, as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the Secretary convenes a second
panel of peer reviewers in accordance
with the requirements in section
402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer
reviewers’ scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking
of applications. The average score
obtained from the second peer review
panel is the final peer reviewer score for
the application and will be used even if
the second review results in a lower
score for the application than that
obtained in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding
band, the Secretary funds these
applications in rank order based on
adjusted scores and the available funds
that have been set aside for the second
review of applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding
band. (1) For each competition, the
Secretary establishes a funding band for
the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the
funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of
those applications—
(i) With a rank-order score before the
second review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the
first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the
Secretary had 150 percent of the funds
that were set aside for the second review
of applications for the competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s
determination of whether the applicant
has met the requirements for a second
review and the Secretary’s decision on
re-scoring of an application are final and
not subject to further appeal or
challenge.
(2) An application that scored below
the established funding band for the
competition is not eligible for a second
review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW6.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
116. Section 647.30 amended by:
A. In paragraph (b), removing the
amount ‘‘$2,400’’ and, adding, in its
place, the amount ‘‘$2,800’’.
B. Revising paragraph (d).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 647.30
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, computer software,
or other equipment for participant
development, project administration, or
project recordkeeping.
117. Section 647.32 is amended by
adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
§ 647.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW11.)
*
*
*
*
*
PART 694—GAINING EARLY
AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS
(GEAR UP)
118. The authority citation for part
694 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21 to 1070a–
28.
119. Section 694.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (a), introductory text
to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 694.1 What is the maximum amount that
the Secretary may award each fiscal year to
a Partnership or a State under this
program?
(a) Partnership grants. The Secretary
may establish the maximum amount
that may be awarded each fiscal year for
a GEAR UP Partnership grant in a notice
published in the Federal Register. The
maximum amount for which a
Partnership may apply may not exceed
the lesser of the maximum amount
established by the Secretary, if
applicable, or the amount calculated by
multiplying—
*
*
*
*
*
120. Section 694.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 694.4 Which students must a State or
Partnership serve when there are changes
in the cohort?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Must continue to provide GEAR
UP services to at least those students in
the cohort who attend one or more
participating schools that together enroll
a substantial majority of the students in
the cohort.
*
*
*
*
*
121. Section 694.7 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 694.7 What are the matching
requirements for a GEAR UP grant?
(a) In order to be eligible for GEAR UP
funding—
(1) An applicant must state in its
application the percentage of the cost of
the GEAR UP project the applicant will
provide for each year from non-Federal
funds, subject to the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section; and
(2) A grantee must make substantial
progress towards meeting the matching
percentage stated in its approved
application for each year of the project
period.
(b) Except as provided in §§ 694.8 and
694.9, the non-Federal share of the cost
of the GEAR UP project must be not less
than 50 percent of the total cost of the
project (i.e., one dollar of non-Federal
contributions for every one dollar of
Federal funds obligated for the project)
over the project period.
(c) The non-Federal share of the cost
of a GEAR UP project may be provided
in cash or in-kind.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–23)
122. Part 694 is amended by
redesignating §§ 694.8, 694.9, 694.10,
694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Old section
§ 694.8
§ 694.9
§ 694.10
§ 694.11
§ 694.12
§ 694.13
§ 694.15
New section
§ 694.10
§ 694.11
§ 694.13
§ 694.15
§ 694.17
§ 694.18
§ 694.19
123. New § 694.8 is added to read as
follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 694.8 Under what conditions may the
Secretary approve a request from a
Partnership applying for a GEAR UP grant
to waive a portion of the matching
requirement?
(a) The Secretary may approve a
Partnership applicant’s request for a
waiver of up to 75 percent of the
matching requirement for up to two
years if the applicant demonstrates in its
application a significant economic
hardship that stems from a specific,
exceptional, or uncontrollable event,
such as a natural disaster, that has a
devastating effect on the members of the
Partnership and the community in
which the project would operate.
(b)(1) The Secretary may approve a
Partnership applicant’s request to waive
up to 50 percent of the matching
requirement for up to two years if the
applicant demonstrates in its
application a pre-existing and an ongoing significant economic hardship
that precludes the applicant from
meeting its matching requirement.
(2) In determining whether an
applicant is experiencing an on-going
economic hardship that is significant
enough to justify a waiver under this
paragraph, the Secretary considers
documentation of such factors as:
(i) Severe distress in the local
economy of the community to be served
by the grant (e.g., there are few
employers in the local area, large
employers have left the local area, or
significant reductions in employment in
the local area).
(ii) Local unemployment rates that are
higher than the national average.
(iii) Low or decreasing revenues for
State and County governments in the
area to be served by the grant.
(iv) Significant reductions in the
budgets of institutions of higher
education that are participating in the
grant.
(v) Other data that reflect a significant
economic hardship for the geographical
area served by the applicant.
(3) At the time of application, the
Secretary may provide tentative
approval of an applicant’s request for a
waiver under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for all remaining years of the
project period. Grantees that receive
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
tentative approval of a waiver for more
than two years under this paragraph
must submit to the Secretary every two
years by such time as the Secretary may
direct documentation that demonstrates
that—
(i) The significant economic hardship
upon which the waiver was granted still
exists; and
(ii) The grantee tried diligently, but
unsuccessfully, to obtain contributions
needed to meet the matching
requirement.
(c) The Secretary may approve a
Partnership applicant’s request in its
application to match its contributions to
its scholarship fund, established under
section 404E of the HEA, on the basis
of two non-Federal dollars for every one
Federal dollar of GEAR UP funds.
(d) The Secretary may approve a
request by a Partnership applicant that
has three or fewer institutions of higher
education as members to waive up to 70
percent of the matching requirement if
the Partnership applicant includes—
(1) A fiscal agent that is eligible to
receive funds under title V, or Part B of
title III, or section 316 or 317 of the
HEA, or a local educational agency;
(2) Only participating schools with a
7th grade cohort in which at least 75
percent of the students are eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch under the
Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act; and
(3) Only local educational agencies in
which at least 50 percent of the students
enrolled are eligible for free or reducedprice lunch under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–23)
124. New § 694.9 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.9 Under what conditions may the
Secretary approve a request from a
Partnership that has received a GEAR UP
grant to waive a portion of the matching
requirement?
(a) After a grant is awarded, the
Secretary may approve a Partnership
grantee’s written request for a waiver of
up to—
(1) 50 percent of the matching
requirement for up to two years if the
grantee demonstrates that—
(i) The matching contributions
described for those two years in the
grantee’s approved application are no
longer available; and
(ii) The grantee has exhausted all
funds and sources of potential
contributions for replacing the matching
funds.
(2) 75 percent of the matching
requirement for up to two years if the
grantee demonstrates that matching
contributions from the original
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13903
application are no longer available due
to an uncontrollable event, such as a
natural disaster, that has a devastating
economic effect on members of the
Partnership and the community in
which the project would operate.
(b) In determining whether the
grantee has exhausted all funds and
sources of potential contributions for
replacing matching funds, the Secretary
considers the grantee’s documentation
of key factors such as the following and
their direct impact on the grantee:
(1) A reduction of revenues from State
government, County government, or the
local educational agency (LEA).
(2) An increase in local
unemployment rates.
(3) Significant reductions in the
operating budgets of institutions of
higher education that are participating
in the grant.
(4) A reduction of business activity in
the local area (e.g., large employers have
left the local area).
(5) Other data that reflect a significant
decrease in resources available to the
grantee in the local geographical area
served by the grantee.
(c) If a grantee has received one or
more waivers under this section or
under § 694.8, the grantee may request
an additional waiver of the matching
requirement under this section no
earlier than 60 days before the
expiration of the grantee’s existing
waiver.
(d) The Secretary may grant an
additional waiver request for up to 50
percent of the matching requirement for
a period of up to two years beyond the
expiration of any previous waiver.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–23)
125. New § 694.12 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.12 Under what conditions do State
and Partnership GEAR UP grantees make
section 404E scholarship awards?
(a)(1) State Grantees. All State
grantees must establish or maintain a
financial assistance program that awards
section 404E scholarships to students in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 694.13 or § 694.14, as applicable.
(2) Partnership Grantees. Partnerships
may, but are not required, to award
scholarships to eligible students. If a
Partnership awards scholarships to
eligible students pursuant to section
404E of the HEA, it must comply with
the requirements of § 694.13 or § 694.14,
as applicable.
(b)(1) Section 404E scholarship
awards for grantees whose initial GEAR
UP grant awards were made prior to
August 14, 2008. A State or Partnership
grantee making section 404E
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13904
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
scholarship awards using funds from
GEAR UP grant awards that were made
prior to August 14, 2008, must provide
such scholarship awards in accordance
with the requirements of § 694.13 unless
it elects to provide the scholarships in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 694.14 pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
(2) Election to use § 694.14
requirements. A State or Partnership
grantee making section 404E
scholarship awards using funds from
GEAR UP grant awards that were made
prior to August 14, 2008, may provide
such scholarship awards in accordance
with the requirements of § 694.14
(rather than the requirements of
§ 694.13) provided that the grantee—
(i) Informs the Secretary, in writing, of
its election to make the section 404E
scholarship awards in accordance with
the requirements of § 694.14; and
(ii) Such election does not decrease
the amount of the scholarship promised
to any individual student under the
grant.
(c) Section 404E scholarship awards
for grantees whose initial GEAR UP
grant awards were made on or after
August 14, 2008. A State or Partnership
grantee making section 404E
scholarship awards using funds from
GEAR UP grant awards that were made
on or after August 14, 2008, must
provide such scholarship awards in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 694.14.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25)
126. Newly redesignated § 694.13 is
revised to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 694.13 What are the requirements
concerning section 404E scholarship
awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP
grant awards were made prior to August 14,
2008?
The following requirements apply to
section 404E scholarship awards for
grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant
awards were made prior to August 14,
2008 unless the grantee elects to provide
such scholarship awards in accordance
with the requirements of § 694.14
pursuant to § 694.12(b)(2).
(a)(1) The maximum scholarship
amount that an eligible student may
receive under this section must be
established by the grantee.
(2) The minimum scholarship amount
that an eligible student receives in a
fiscal year pursuant to this section must
not be less than the lesser of—
(i) 75 percent of the average cost of
attendance for an in-State student, in a
four-year program of instruction, at
public institutions of higher education
in the student’s State; or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(ii) The maximum Federal Pell Grant
award funded under section 401 of the
HEA for the award year in which the
scholarship is awarded.
(3) If an eligible student who is
awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends
an institution of higher education on a
less than full-time basis during any
award year, the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may
reduce the scholarship amount, but in
no case may the percentage reduction in
the scholarship be greater than the
percentage reduction in tuition and fees
charged to that student.
(b) Scholarships provided under this
section may not be considered for the
purpose of awarding Federal grant
assistance under title IV of the HEA,
except that in no case may the total
amount of student financial assistance
awarded to a student under title IV of
the HEA exceed the student’s total cost
of attendance.
(c) Grantees providing section 404E
scholarship awards in accordance with
this section—
(1) Must award GEAR UP
scholarships first to students who will
receive, or are eligible to receive, a
Federal Pell Grant during the award
year in which the GEAR UP scholarship
is being awarded; and
(2) May, if GEAR UP scholarship
funds remain after awarding
scholarships to students under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, award
GEAR UP scholarships to other eligible
students (i.e., students who are not
eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant)
after considering the need of those
students for GEAR UP scholarships.
(d) For purposes of this section, an
eligible student is a student who—
(1) Is less than 22 years old at the time
of award of the student’s first GEAR UP
scholarship;
(2) Has received a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent on
or after January 1, 1993;
(3) Is enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of
undergraduate instruction at an
institution of higher education that is
located within the State’s boundaries,
except that, at the grantee’s option, a
State or Partnership may offer
scholarships to students who attend
institutions of higher education outside
the State; and
(4) Has participated in activities
under § 694.21 or § 694.22.
(e) A State using a priority approach
may award scholarships under
paragraph (a) of this section to eligible
students identified by priority at any
time during the grant award period
rather than reserving scholarship funds
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for use only in the seventh year of a
project or after the grant award period.
(f) A State or a Partnership that makes
scholarship awards from GEAR UP
funds in accordance with this section
must award continuation scholarships
in successive award years to each
student who received an initial
scholarship and who is enrolled or
accepted for enrollment in a program of
undergraduate instruction at an
institution of higher education.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21 to 1070a–28)
127. New § 694.14 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.14 What are the requirements
concerning section 404E scholarship
awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP
grant awards were made on or after August
14, 2008?
The following requirements apply to
section 404E scholarship awards
provided by grantees whose initial
GEAR UP grant awards were made on or
after August 14, 2008 and any section
404E scholarship awards for grantees
whose initial GEAR UP grant awards
were issued prior to August 14, 2008,
but who, pursuant to § 694.12(b)(2),
elected to use the § 694.14 requirements
(rather than the § 694.13 requirements).
(a)(1) The maximum scholarship
amount that an eligible student may
receive under section 404E of the HEA
must be established by the grantee.
(2) The minimum scholarship amount
that an eligible student receives in a
fiscal year must not be less than the
minimum Federal Pell Grant award
under section 401 of the HEA at the
time of award.
(3) If an eligible student who is
awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends
an institution of higher education on a
less than full-time basis during any
award year, the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may
reduce the scholarship amount, but in
no case may the percentage reduction in
the scholarship be greater than the
percentage reduction in tuition and fees
charged to that student.
(b) For purposes of this section, an
eligible student is a student who—
(1) Is less than 22 years old at the time
of award of the first GEAR UP
scholarship;
(2) Has received a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent on
or after January 1, 1993;
(3) Is enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of
undergraduate instruction at an
institution of higher education that is
located within the State’s boundaries,
except that, at the grantee’s option, a
State or Partnership may offer
scholarships to students who attend
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
institutions of higher education outside
the State; and
(4) Has participated in the activities
required under § 694.21.
(c)(1) By the time students who have
received services from a State grant have
completed the twelfth grade, a State that
has not received a waiver under section
404E(b)(2) of the HEA of the
requirement to spend at least 50 percent
of its GEAR UP funds on scholarships
must have in reserve an amount that is
not less than the minimum Federal Pell
Grant multiplied by the number of
students the State estimates will enroll
in an institution of higher education.
(2) Consistent with paragraph (a) of
this section and § 694.16(a), States must
use funds held in reserve to make
scholarships to eligible students.
(3) Scholarships must be made to all
students who are eligible under the
definition in paragraph (b) of this
section. A grantee may not impose
additional eligibility criteria that would
have the effect of limiting or denying a
scholarship to an eligible student.
(d) A State using a priority approach
may award scholarships under
paragraph (a) of this section to eligible
students identified by priority at any
time during the grant award period
rather than reserving scholarship funds
for use only in the seventh year of a
project or after the grant award period.
(e) States providing scholarships must
provide information on the eligibility
requirements for the scholarships to all
participating students upon the
students’ entry into the GEAR UP
program.
(f) A State must provide scholarship
funds as described in this section to all
eligible students who attend an
institution of higher education in the
State, and may provide these
scholarship funds to eligible students
who attend institutions of higher
education outside the State.
(g) A State or a Partnership that
chooses to participate in the scholarship
component in accordance with section
404E of the HEA may award
continuation scholarships in successive
award years to each student who
received an initial scholarship and who
is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in
a program of undergraduate instruction
at an institution of higher education.
(h) A GEAR UP scholarship, provided
under section 404E of the HEA, may not
be considered in the determination of a
student’s eligibility for other grant
assistance provided under title IV of the
HEA, except that in no case may the
total amount of student financial
assistance awarded to a student under
title IV of the HEA exceed the student’s
total cost of attendance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
13905
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25(e))
128. Newly redesignated § 694.15 is
revised to read as follows:
130. Newly redesignated § 694.18 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 694.15 May a Partnership that does not
award scholarships under section 404E of
the HEA provide, as part of a GEAR UP
project, financial assistance for
postsecondary education using nonFederal funds?
§ 694.18 What requirements must be met
by a Partnership or State participating in
GEAR UP with respect to 21st Century
Scholarship Certificates?
A GEAR UP Partnership that does not
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship
component may provide financial
assistance for postsecondary education
with non-Federal funds, and those
funds may be used to satisfy the
matching requirement.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21 to 1070a–28)
129. Section 694.16 is added to read
as follows:
§ 694.16 What are the requirements for
redistribution or return of scholarship funds
not awarded to a project’s eligible
students?
The following requirements apply
only to section 404E scholarship awards
for grantees whose initial GEAR UP
grant awards were made on or after
August 14, 2008, and to any section
404E scholarship awards for grantees
whose initial GEAR UP grant awards
were made prior to August 14, 2008, but
who, pursuant to § 694.12(b)(2), elect to
use the § 694.14 requirements (rather
than the § 694.13 requirements):
(a) Scholarship funds held in reserve
by States under § 694.14(c) or by
Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of
the HEA that are not used by eligible
students as defined in § 694.14(b)
within six years of the students’
scheduled completion of secondary
school may be redistributed by the
grantee to other eligible students.
(b) Any Federal scholarship funds
that are not used by eligible students
within six years of the students’
scheduled completion of secondary
school, and are not redistributed by the
grantee to other eligible students, must
be returned to the Secretary within 45
days after the six-year period for
expending the scholarship funds
expires.
(c) Grantees that reserve funds for
scholarships must annually furnish
information, as the Secretary may
require, on the amount of Federal and
non-Federal funds reserved and held for
GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of these scholarship funds
to eligible students until these funds are
fully expended or returned to the
Secretary.
(d) A scholarship fund is subject to
audit or monitoring by authorized
representatives of the Secretary
throughout the life of the fund.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) A State or Partnership must
provide, in accordance with procedures
the Secretary may specify, a 21st
Century Scholar Certificate to each
student participating in its GEAR UP
project.
(b) 21st Century Scholarship
Certificates must be personalized and
indicate the amount of Federal financial
aid for college and the estimated
amount of any scholarship provided
under section 404E of the HEA, if
applicable, that a student may be
eligible to receive.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–26)
131. Newly redesignated § 694.19 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 694.19 What priorities does the Secretary
establish for a GEAR UP grant?
The Secretary awards competitive
preference priority points to an eligible
applicant for a State grant that has
both—
(a) Carried out a successful State
GEAR UP grant prior to August 14,
2008, determined on the basis of data
(including outcome data) submitted by
the applicant as part of its annual and
final performance reports, and the
applicant’s history of compliance with
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements; and
(b) A prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of
successful strategies.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21(b))
132. New § 694.20 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.20 When may a GEAR UP grantee
provide services to students attending an
institution of higher education?
(a) The Secretary authorizes an
eligible State or Partnership to provide
GEAR UP services to students attending
an institution of higher education if the
State or Partnership—
(1) Applies for and receives a new
GEAR UP award after August 14, 2008,
and
(2) In its application, requested a
seventh year so that it may continue to
provide services to students through
their first year of attendance at an
institution of higher education.
(b) A State grantee that uses a priority
(rather than or in addition to a cohort)
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
13906
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
approach to identify participating
students may, consistent with its
approved application and at any time
during the project period, provide
services to students during their first
year of attendance at an institution of
higher education, provided that the
grantee continues to provide all
required services throughout the Federal
budget period to GEAR UP students still
enrolled in a local educational agency.
(c) If a grantee is awarded a seven year
grant, consistent with the grantee’s
approved application, during the
seventh year of the grant the grantee—
(1) Must provide services to students
in their first year of attendance at an
institution of higher education; and
(2) May choose to provide services to
high school students who have yet to
graduate.
(d) Grantees that continue to provide
services under this part to students
through their first year of attendance at
an institution of higher education must,
to the extent practicable, coordinate
with other campus programs, including
academic support services to enhance,
not duplicate service.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21(b)(2))
133. New § 694.21 is added to read as
follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 694.21 What are required activities for
GEAR UP projects?
A grantee must provide
comprehensive mentoring, outreach,
and supportive services to students
participating in the GEAR UP program.
These services must include the
following activities:
(a) Providing information regarding
financial aid for postsecondary
education to eligible participating
students.
(b) Encouraging student enrollment in
rigorous and challenging curricula and
coursework, in order to reduce the need
for remedial coursework at the
postsecondary level.
(c) Implementing activities to improve
the number of participating students
who—
(1) Obtain a secondary school
diploma, and
(2) Complete applications for, and
enroll in, a program of postsecondary
education.
(d) In the case of a State grantee that
has not received a 100-percent waiver
under section 404E(b)(2) of the HEA,
providing scholarships in accordance
with section 404E of the HEA.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(a))
134. New § 694.22 is added to read as
follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 694.22 What other activities may all
GEAR UP projects provide?
A grantee may use grant funds to
carry out one or more of the following
services and activities:
(a) Providing tutors and mentors, who
may include adults or former
participants in a GEAR UP program, for
eligible students.
(b) Conducting outreach activities to
recruit priority students (identified in
section 404D(d) of the HEA) to
participate in program activities.
(c) Providing supportive services to
eligible students.
(d) Supporting the development or
implementation of rigorous academic
curricula, which may include college
preparatory, Advanced Placement, or
International Baccalaureate programs,
and providing participating students
access to rigorous core academic courses
that reflect challenging State academic
standards.
(e) Supporting dual or concurrent
enrollment programs between the
secondary school and institution of
higher education partners of a GEAR UP
Partnership, and other activities that
support participating students in—
(1) Meeting challenging State
academic standards;
(2) Successfully applying for
postsecondary education;
(3) Successfully applying for student
financial aid; and
(4) Developing graduation and career
plans, including career awareness and
planning assistance as they relate to a
rigorous academic curriculum.
(f) Providing special programs or
tutoring in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics.
(g) For Partnerships, providing
scholarships described in section 404E
of the HEA, and for all grantees
providing appropriate administrative
support for GEAR UP scholarships.
(h) Introducing eligible students to
institutions of higher education, through
trips and school-based sessions.
(i) Providing an intensive extended
school day, school year, or summer
program that offers—
(1) Additional academic classes; or
(2) Assistance with college admission
applications.
(j) Providing other activities designed
to ensure secondary school completion
and postsecondary education
enrollment of at-risk children, such as:
(1) Identification of at-risk children.
(2) After-school and summer tutoring.
(3) Assistance to at-risk children in
obtaining summer jobs.
(4) Academic counseling.
(5) Financial and economic literacy
education or counseling.
(6) Volunteer and parent involvement.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) Encouraging former or current
participants of a GEAR UP program to
serve as peer counselors.
(8) Skills assessments.
(9) Personal and family counseling,
and home visits.
(10) Staff development.
(11) Programs and activities that are
specially designed for students who are
limited English proficient.
(k) Enabling eligible students to enroll
in Advanced Placement or International
Baccalaureate courses, or college
entrance examination preparation
courses.
(l) Providing services to eligible
students in the participating cohort
described in § 694.3 through the first
year of attendance at an institution of
higher education.
(m) Fostering and improving parent
and family involvement in elementary
and secondary education by promoting
the advantages of a college education,
and emphasizing academic admission
requirements and the need to take
college preparation courses, through
parent engagement and leadership
activities.
(n) Disseminating information that
promotes the importance of higher
education, explains college preparation
and admission requirements, and raises
awareness of the resources and services
provided by the eligible entities to
eligible students, their families, and
communities.
(o) For a GEAR UP Partnership grant,
in the event that matching funds
described in the approved application
are no longer available, engaging other
potential partners in a collaborative
manner to provide matching resources
and to participate in other activities
authorized in §§ 694.21, 694.22, and
694.23.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(b))
135. New § 694.23 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.23 What additional activities are
allowable for State GEAR UP projects?
In addition to the required and
permissible activities identified in
§§ 694.21 and 694.22, a State may use
grant funds to carry out one or more of
the following services and activities:
(a) Providing technical assistance to—
(1) Secondary schools that are located
within the State; or
(2) Partnerships that are eligible to
apply for a GEAR UP grant and that are
located within the State.
(b) Providing professional
development opportunities to
individuals working with eligible
cohorts of students.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(c) Providing administrative support
to help build the capacity of
Partnerships to compete for and manage
grants awarded under the GEAR UP
program.
(d) Providing strategies and activities
that align efforts in the State to prepare
eligible students to attend and succeed
in postsecondary education, which may
include the development of graduation
and career plans.
(e) Disseminating information on the
use of scientifically valid research and
best practices to improve services for
eligible students.
(f)(1) Disseminating information on
effective coursework and support
services that assist students in achieving
the goals described in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this section, and
(2) Identifying and disseminating
information on best practices with
respect to—
(i) Increasing parental involvement;
and
(ii) Preparing students, including
students with disabilities and students
who are limited English proficient, to
succeed academically in, and prepare
financially for, postsecondary
education.
(g) Working to align State academic
standards and curricula with the
expectations of postsecondary
institutions and employers.
(h) Developing alternatives to
traditional secondary school that give
students a head start on attaining a
recognized postsecondary credential
(including an industry-recognized
certificate, an apprenticeship, or an
associate’s or a bachelor’s degree),
including school designs that give
students early exposure to college-level
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:32 Mar 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
courses and experiences and allow
students to earn transferable college
credits or an associate’s degree at the
same time as a secondary school
diploma.
(i) Creating community college
programs for individuals who have
dropped out of high school that are
personalized drop-out recovery
programs, and that allow drop-outs to
complete a secondary school diploma
and begin college-level work.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–24)
136. New § 694.24 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.24 What services may a GEAR UP
project provide to students in their first year
at an institution of higher education?
Consistent with their approved
applications and § 694.20, a grantee may
provide any services to students in their
first year of attendance at an institution
of higher education that will help those
students succeed in school, and that do
not duplicate services otherwise
available to them. Examples of services
that may be provided include—
(a) Orientation services including
introduction to on-campus services and
resources;
(b) On-going counseling to students
either in person or though electronic or
other means of correspondence;
(c) Assistance with course selection
for the second year of postsecondary
education;
(d) Assistance with choosing and
declaring an academic major;
(e) Assistance regarding academic,
social, and personal areas of need;
(f) Referrals to providers of
appropriate services;
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
13907
(g) Tutoring, mentoring, and
supplemental academic support;
(h) Assistance with financial
planning;
(i) Career counseling and advising
services; or
(j) Advising students about
transferring to other schools.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–24)
137. New § 694.25 is added to read as
follows:
§ 694.25 Are GEAR UP grantees required
to provide services to students who were
served under a previous GEAR UP grant?
If a Partnership or State is awarded a
GEAR UP grant on or after August 14,
2008 (i.e., initial grant), the grant ends
before all students who received GEAR
UP services under the grant have
completed the twelfth grade, and the
grantee receives a new award in a
subsequent GEAR UP competition (i.e.,
new grant), the grantee must—
(a) Continue to provide services
required by or authorized under
§§ 694.21, 694.22, and 694.23 to all
students who received GEAR UP
services under the initial grant and
remain enrolled in secondary schools
until they complete the twelfth grade;
and
(b) Provide the services specified in
paragraph (a) of this section by using
Federal GEAR UP funds awarded for the
new grant or funds from the non-Federal
matching contribution required under
the new grant.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21(b)(3)(B) and
1070a–22(d)(1)(C))
[FR Doc. 2010–4869 Filed 3–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM
23MRP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13814-13907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4869]
[[Page 13813]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, et al.
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program,
the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13814]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 694
RIN 1840-AD01
[Docket ID ED-2010-OPE-0002]
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant
Program, the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Program
AGENCIES: Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend current regulations, and
establish new regulations, for the High School Equivalency Program and
College Assistance Migrant Program (HEP and CAMP); the Federal TRIO
programs (TRIO Programs--Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs
(Training), Talent Search (TS), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC),
Upward Bound (UB), Student Support Services (SSS), and the Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Programs; and the Gaining
Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP)
program.
The purpose of HEP is to help migrant and seasonal farmworkers and
their immediate family members obtain a general educational development
(GED) credential, while CAMP assists students from this background to
complete their first academic year of college and continue in
postsecondary education. The Federal TRIO programs consist of five
postsecondary educational opportunity outreach and support programs
designed to motivate and assist low-income individuals, first-
generation college students, and individuals with disabilities to enter
and complete secondary and postsecondary programs of study and enroll
in graduate programs, and a training program for project staff working
in one or more of the Federal TRIO programs. The purpose of the GEAR UP
program is to increase the number of low-income students who are
prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.
These proposed regulations are needed to implement provisions of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) that relate to the HEP and
CAMP, Federal TRIO, and GEAR UP programs.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies.
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address
them to Pamela Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street,
NW., Room 8014, Washington, DC 20006-8014.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the
Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, Pamela J.
Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8014,
Washington, DC 20006-8014. Telephone: (202) 502-7704 or via the
Internet at: Pamela.Maimer@ed.gov.
For information related to HEP and CAMP issues, Nathan Weiss, U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Ave.
SW., Room 3E-321, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 260-7496
or via the Internet at: Nathan.Weiss@ed.gov.
For information related to Federal TRIO issues, Frances Bergeron,
U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 7059,
Washington, DC 20006-7059. Telephone: (202) 502-7528 or via the
Internet at Frances.Bergeron@ed.gov.
For information related to GEAR UP issues, James Davis, U.S.
Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 6109, Washington, DC
20006-6109. Telephone: (202) 502-7802 or via the Internet at:
James.Davis@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to any of the contact persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
As outlined in the section of this notice entitled Negotiated
Rulemaking, significant public participation, through six public
hearings and three negotiated rulemaking sessions, has occurred in
developing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In accordance
with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the
Department invites you to submit comments regarding these proposed
regulations on or before April 22, 2010. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed
regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your
comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, including its overall
requirements to assess both the costs and the benefits of the proposed
regulations and feasible alternatives, and to make a reasoned
determination that the benefits of these proposed regulations justify
their costs. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
You may also inspect the comments, in person, in Room 8033, 1990 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment
[[Page 13815]]
for this type of aid, please contact one of the persons listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the HEA requires the Secretary, before publishing
any proposed regulations for programs authorized by Title IV of the
HEA, to obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed
regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the
public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in
the discretionary grant programs authorized under title IV of the HEA,
the Secretary must subject the proposed regulations to a negotiated
rulemaking process. All proposed regulations that the Department
publishes on which the negotiators reached consensus must conform to
final agreements resulting from that process unless the Secretary
reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the
participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the
agreements. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process
can be found at: https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/.
On December 31, 2008, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register (73 FR 80314) announcing our intent to establish five
negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations. One
committee would focus on issues related to lender and general loan
issues (Team I--Loans-Lender General Loan Issues). A second committee
would focus on school-based loan issues (Team II--Loans-School-based
Loan Issues). A third committee would focus on accreditation (Team
III--Accreditation). A fourth committee would focus on discretionary
grants (Team IV--Discretionary Grants). A fifth committee would focus
on general and non-loan programmatic issues (Team V--General and Non-
Loan Programmatic Issues). The notice requested nominations of
individuals for membership on the committees who could represent the
interests of key stakeholder constituencies on each committee.
This NPRM reflects the work of Team IV--Discretionary Grants (Team
IV) which met to develop proposed regulations during the months of
February through April, 2009. This NPRM proposes regulations relating
to the administration of the HEP and CAMP, TRIO, and GEAR UP
discretionary grants programs.
The Department developed a list of proposed regulatory provisions
based on the provisions contained in the HEOA and from advice and
recommendations submitted by individuals and organizations as testimony
to the Department in a series of six public hearings held on--
September 19, 2008, at the Texas Christian University, in
Fort Worth, Texas;
September 29, 2008, at the University of Rhode Island, in
Providence, Rhode Island;
October 2, 2008, at the Pepperdine University, in Malibu,
California;
October 6, 2008, at Johnson C. Smith University, in
Charlotte, North Carolina;
October 8, 2008, at the U.S. Department of Education, in
Washington DC; and
October 15, 2008, at Cuyahoga Community College, in
Warrensville Heights, Ohio.
In addition, the Department accepted written comments on possible
regulatory provisions submitted directly to the Department by
interested parties and organizations. A summary of all comments
received orally and in writing is posted as background material in the
docket for this NPRM. Transcripts of the regional meetings can be
accessed at https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/.
Staff within the Department also identified additional issues for
discussion and negotiation.
At its first meeting, Team IV reached agreement on its protocols.
These protocols provided that for each community of interest identified
as having interests that were significantly affected by the subject
matter of the negotiations, the non-Federal negotiators would represent
the organizations listed after their names in the protocols in the
negotiated rulemaking process.
The Discretionary Grant Team IV Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
included the following members:
Representing the TRIO Programs
David Megquier and Maureen Hoyler (alternate), Council for
Opportunity in Education.
Charlene Manco and Larry Letourneau (alternate), National
Educational Opportunities Association.
Laura Qaissaunee and R. Renee Hampton (alternate),
American Association of Community Colleges.
Jon Westby, Minneapolis Community and Technical College
and Mike Henry, Southwest Virginia Community College (alternate),
representing TRIO two-year institutions.
Deltha Q. Colvin, The Wichita State University and Troy
Johnson, University of North Texas (alternate), representing TRIO four-
year institutions.
Brenda Dann-Messier, Dorcas Place Adult & Family Learning
Center, representing TRIO community organizations.
Representing the GEAR UP Program
Teena L. Olszewski, Northern Arizona University, Allison
G. Jones, The California State University, and Weiya Liang, Washington
Higher Education Coordinating Board (alternate), representing GEAR UP
four-year institutions.
Louis Niro, Cuyahoga Community College, representing GEAR
UP two-year institutions.
Jennifer Martin and Karen McCarthy (alternate), National
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
Linda Shiller, Vermont Student Assistance Corporation
representing GEAR UP State grantees.
Representing the HEP and CAMP Programs
Arturo Martinez and Javier Gonzalez (alternate), The
National HEP/CAMP Association.
Representing Students
Cedric Lawson, United Council of University of Wisconsin,
and Gregory A. Cendana (alternate), United States Student Association.
Representing the Federal Government
Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of Education.
Team IV's protocols also provided that, unless agreed to otherwise,
consensus on all of the amendments in the proposed regulations had to
be achieved for consensus to be reached on the entire NPRM. Consensus
means that there must be no dissent by any member.
During the meetings, Team IV reviewed and discussed drafts of
proposed regulations. At the final meeting in April 2009, the team
reached tentative agreement on the proposed regulations for the HEP,
CAMP and GEAR UP programs as well as on many of the proposed TRIO
program regulations. However, some non-Federal negotiators did not
agree to the Department's proposed regulations relating to the use of
Talent Search grants to pay tuition for students to take courses and
the proposed regulations to implement the new statutory requirement for
a second review of unsuccessful applications for TRIO grants. Because
the committee did not agree on the proposed regulations for the TRIO
programs, Team IV did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations
in this NPRM.
[[Page 13816]]
We propose to accept changes that reflect the tentative agreements
made in the negotiation sessions for the HEP, CAMP, and GEAR UP
programs in their entirety. In the TRIO proposed regulations, we
accepted many of the changes tentatively agreed to in the negotiation
sessions.
More information on the work of Team IV can be found at https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/grants.html.
Summary of Proposed Changes
These proposed regulations would implement changes made by the HEOA
to discretionary grant programs authorized by title IV of the HEA,
including:
HEP and CAMP Programs
Expanding eligibility for HEP and CAMP to allow students
to qualify for the program through their own qualifying work, or that
of an immediate family member, rather than only through their own work
or that of a parent, as the statute previously held (see section
418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Defining the term immediate family member to include only
individuals who are dependent upon a migrant or seasonal farmworker
(see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Revising the definition of the term seasonal farmworker to
clarify that the individual's primary employment in migrant and
seasonal farmwork must occur for at least 75 days within the past 24
months (see section 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Amending the authorized HEP services section to (1)
Provide that permissible HEP services include preparation for college
entrance examinations; (2) provide that permissible HEP services
include all stipends--not only weekly stipends--for HEP participants;
(3) add transportation and child care as examples of essential
supportive services; and (4) specify that HEP services include other
activities to improve persistence and retention in postsecondary
education (see section 418A(b) of the HEA).
Amending the authorized CAMP services section to specify
that (1) Permissible CAMP services include supportive and instructional
services to improve placement, persistence, and retention in
postsecondary education; (2) these supportive services include
personal, academic, career, economic education, or personal finance
counseling as an ongoing part of the program, and (3)permissible CAMP
services include internships (see section 418A(c)(1) of the HEA).
Amending the follow-up CAMP services section to include
(1) referring CAMP students to on-campus or off-campus providers of
counseling services, academic assistance, or financial aid, and
coordinating those services, assistance, and aid with other non-program
services, assistance, and aid, including services, assistance, and aid
provided by community-based organizations, which may include mentoring
and guidance, and (2) for students attending two-year institutions of
higher education, encouraging the students to transfer to four-year
institutions of higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the
rate of transfer of these students (see section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA).
Amending the minimum allocation for HEP and CAMP grants to
provide that the Secretary must not allocate an amount less than
$180,000 (see section 418A(e) of the HEA).
Adding to the HEP and CAMP program regulations the
criteria the Department considers in evaluating prior experience (see
section 418A(f) of the HEA).
Federal TRIO Programs
The HEOA made a number of significant changes to the Federal TRIO
programs that necessitate changes to the current regulations. The
statutory changes to the TRIO programs include:
Amending or adding definitions for different campus and
different population, which change current regulatory definitions of
these terms for the SSS program and current practice with regard to the
number of applications an eligible entity may submit under each of the
TRIO programs (see section 402A(h)(1) and (h)(2) of the HEA).
Amending the services or activities that projects funded
under the Federal TRIO programs must provide and services or activities
that these projects may provide (see section 402B(b) and (c) (TS);
section 402C(b), (c) and (d) (UB); section 402D(b) and (c) (SSS);
section 402E(b) and (c) (McNair); section 402F(b) (EOC); and section
402G(b) (Training) of the HEA).
Adding new categories of participants (foster care youth
and homeless children and youth) for whom projects funded under these
programs are to provide services (see section 402A(e)(3) of the HEA).
Adding new outcome criteria for most of the TRIO programs
(except for the Training program) which the Secretary must use for
prior experience determinations: TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA); UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS (see section
402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA); McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the
HEA); and EOC (see section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
Specifying a new procedure for handling unsuccessful
applications using a two-stage process (see section 402A(c)(8)(C) of
the HEA).
Revising definitions for some terms and adding new
regulatory definitions to implement amendments to the HEA by the HEOA:
Financial and economic literacy (see section 402B(b)(6) of
the HEA (TS), section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA (UB), section 402D(b)(4) of
the HEA (SSS), section 402E(c)(1) of the HEA (McNair)), and section
402F(b)(5) of the HEA (EOC));
Foster care youth and homeless children and youth (see
sections 402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7) (UB), 402D(a)(3) and
(c)(6) (SSS), 402F(b)(11) (EOC), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).
Graduate center (see sections 101 and 102 of the HEA and
section 402E(d)(2)of the HEA); groups underrepresented in graduate
school (see section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA); and research and scholarly
activities (see section 402E(b)of the HEA (McNair)).
Individual with disabilities (see sections 402B(c)(7)
(TS), 402C(d)(7) (UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS), 402F(b)(11) (EOC),
and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).
Individual who has a high risk for academic failure and
veteran who has a high risk for academic failure (see sections
402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2) of the HEA).
Institution of higher education (see sections 101 and 102
of the HEA (All Federal TRIO programs)).
Regular secondary school diploma and rigorous secondary
school program of study (see sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) and
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (TS and UB)).
Veteran (see section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS, EOC, and
UB)).
Additionally, the regulations for the TRIO programs need to be
amended to reflect other changes made by the HEOA, other amendments to
the HEA, and established administrative practices. These changes
include the following:
Amending the project period for the TRIO programs. The
proposed regulations would define the project period as five years for
TS, UB, SSS, McNair, and two years for TRIO Training (see section
402A(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the HEA).
Revising the selection criteria related to ``Objectives''
for the following TRIO pre-college and college programs:
[[Page 13817]]
TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA); UB (see section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA);
McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA); and EOC (see section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
Removing the minimum number of participants in the
regulations for TS, EOC, UB, Upward Bound Math and Science, and
Veterans Upward Bound projects (see sections 402A(f), 402A (b)(3),
402B, 402C, 402F of the HEA). For each grant competition, the
Department will establish minimum numbers of participants to be served
by a grantee through the Federal Register notice inviting application.
Revising sections of the TRIO Training regulations to
reflect current law and practice regarding: (1) The need for the
project selection criteria and the process for ranking applications by
priority; (2) the use of prior experience points in the ranking of
applications for funding; and (3) the number of prior experience points
that can be earned (see section 402G(2) of the HEA).
GEAR UP
Providing that the Secretary award competitive preference
priority points to an eligible applicant for a State GEAR UP grant that
has both carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August
14, 2008, and prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through collaboration and replication of
successful strategies; and specifying how the Department determines
whether a State GEAR UP grant has been ``successful'' (see section
404A(b)(3) of the HEA).
Explaining when a GEAR UP grantee is allowed to provide
services to students attending an institution of higher education (see
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
Requiring grantees that continue to provide services to
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of
higher education, to the extent practicable, to coordinate with other
campus programs in order not to duplicate services (see section
404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
Revising the matching requirement to require that a GEAR
UP grantee make substantial progress towards meeting the matching
percentage stated in its approved application for each year of the
project period. Grantees would no longer be required to meet the
matching requirement each year of the project period (section
404C(b)(1) of the HEA).
Revising the regulations concerning the matching
requirement for Partnerships by: (1) Providing authority for the
Secretary to waive up to 50 to 75 percent of the matching requirement
for up to two years under certain circumstances; and (2) creating a
multiple-tiered system for different types of waiver requests (see
section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
Providing for tentative approval of a Partnership
applicant's request for a 50-percent waiver for the entire project
period so that a Partnership applicant that meets the conditions for
such a waiver has an opportunity to apply for a grant without needing
to identify additional sources of match funding in the later years of
the project period (see section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
Adding a list of required and allowable activities and
separating these required and allowable activities into multiple
regulatory sections (see section 404D of the HEA).
Specifying that GEAR UP grantees may provide activities
that support participating students to develop graduation and career
plans and that these graduation and career plans may include career
awareness and planning activities as they relate to a rigorous academic
curriculum (see section 404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).
Clarifying that GEAR UP funds may be used to support the
costs of administering a scholarship program as well as the costs of
the scholarships themselves (see sections 404E(a)(1) and 404D(b)(7) of
the HEA).
Describing the types of services that a grantee may
provide to students in their first year of attendance at an institution
of higher education and listing examples of these services (see section
404D of the HEA).
Specifying the minimum amount of scholarship funding for
an eligible student, and providing that the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount if
an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends an
institution of higher education on a less than full-time basis during
any award year (see section 404E(d) of the HEA).
Incorporating the statutory definition of the term
eligible student (from section 404E(g) of the HEA) in the program
regulations.
Specifying the amount of funds that State grantees that do
not receive a waiver of the requirement that States must expend at
least 50 percent of their GEAR UP funding on scholarships must hold in
reserve for scholarships and how States must use these funds (see
section 404E(e) of the HEA).
Clarifying that scholarships must be made to all students
who are eligible under the definition in Sec. 694.12(b) and that a
grantee may not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have
the effect of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student
(see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
Requiring States awarding scholarships to provide
information on the eligibility requirements for the scholarships to all
participating students upon the students' entry into the GEAR UP
program (see section 404E(c) of the HEA).
Requiring States to provide scholarship funds to all
eligible students who attend an institution of higher education in the
State, and allowing States to provide these scholarship funds to
eligible students who attend institutions of higher education outside
the State (see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
Specifying that a State or Partnership may award
continuation scholarships in successive award years to each student who
received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an institution
of higher education (see section 404E of the HEA).
Providing that a GEAR UP Partnership that does not
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component may provide financial
assistance for postsecondary education using non-Federal funds obtained
to comply with the program's matching requirement (see section 404C(b)
of the HEA).
Specifying the requirements for the return of scholarship
funds. Specifically, (1) Providing that scholarship funds held in
reserve by States under Sec. Sec. 694.12 (b)(1) or 694.12(c) or by
Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that are not used by
an eligible student within six years of the student's scheduled
completion of secondary school may be redistributed by the grantee to
other eligible students; (2) requiring the return of remaining Federal
funds within 45 days after the six-year period for expending the
scholarship funds expires; (3) requiring grantees to annually furnish
information, as the Secretary may require, on the amount of Federal and
non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of those funds to eligible students until these funds are
fully expended or returned to the Secretary; and (4) providing that a
scholarship fund under the GEAR UP program is subject to audit or
monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout
the life of the fund (see section 404E(e)(4) of the HEA).
Requiring grantees that receive initial grant awards after
the passage of
[[Page 13818]]
the HEOA must continue to serve students from a previous grant received
by the grantee (see sec 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA).
Clarifying whom a grantee must serve if not all students
in the cohort attend the same school after the cohort completes the
last grade level offered by the school at which the cohort began to
receive GEAR UP services (see section 404B(d) of the HEA).
Specifying that 21st Century Scholarship Certificates are
to be provided by the grantees (rather than by the Secretary to the
grantees), and must indicate the estimated amount.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate
sections of the proposed regulations referenced in parentheses.
Part 206--Special Educational Programs for Students Whose Families Are
Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmwork--High School Equivalency
Program and College Assistance Migrant Program
HEP and CAMP Eligibility
Statute: Sections 408(1)(A) and 408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA amend
sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA, respectively,
to expand the pool of individuals who may receive HEP and CAMP services
from persons who themselves, or whose parents, have spent a minimum of
75 days during the past 24 months in migrant and seasonal farmwork, to
persons who themselves or whose immediate family have performed such
work. The statute does not define the term ``immediate family.''
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.3 specifies who is eligible
to participate in a HEP or CAMP project. It does not reflect the
changes made by the HEOA to the HEP and CAMP eligibility requirements.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise current Sec.
206.3(a)(1) to specify that in order to be eligible to participate in a
HEP or CAMP project a person, or his or her immediate family member,
must have spent a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months as a
migrant or seasonal farmworker. Current Sec. 206.3(a)(2), regarding
alternative eligibility for HEP and CAMP on the basis of eligibility
under the Migrant Education Program authorized under subpart C of Title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (MEP) or the National
Farmworkers Jobs Program authorized in section 167 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (NFJP), would remain unchanged except for
updating the reference to the MEP regulations to 34 CFR part 200.
We also are proposing to add to the list of definitions in current
Sec. 206.5 (What definitions apply to these programs?) a definition of
the term immediate family member. Specifically, we would redesignate
current Sec. 206.5(c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as proposed Sec.
206.5(c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively, and then add a new
paragraph (c)(5) to define the term immediate family member as one or
more of the following: a spouse; a parent, step-parent, adoptive
parent, foster parent, or anyone with guardianship; or any person who
(1) claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return
for either of the previous two years, or (2) resides in the same
household as the individual, supports that individual financially, and
is a relative of that individual.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.3(a) to
specify that in order to be eligible to participate in a HEP or CAMP
project a person, or his or her immediate family member, must have
spent a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months as a migrant or
seasonal farmworker. This proposed regulatory change would reflect the
changes made to sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA
by sections 408(1)(A) and 408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA, respectively. We
propose to use the term immediate family member in Sec. 206.3(a),
rather than the statutory term ``immediate family,'' for clarity.
During our negotiated rulemaking sessions, the Department and non-
Federal negotiators agreed that defining the term immediate family
member in these regulations would help ensure consistency in the
application of this term across HEP and CAMP projects. In developing a
proposed definition for this term, the Department considered examples
of similar definitions used by other government programs, as well as
the comments of the non-Federal negotiators and previous discussions
with stakeholders in the HEP and CAMP community. Most importantly, the
Department agreed with the non-Federal negotiators that it is important
to ensure that eligibility for the HEP and CAMP programs extends only
to an individual who is, or is dependent upon, a migrant or seasonal
farmworker, and defined the term immediate family member accordingly.
Finally, we are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.3(a)(2) to
update the regulatory cross-reference regarding the MEP, which appears
in 34 CFR part 200, subpart C, not 34 CFR part 201.
HEP and CAMP Definition of Seasonal Farmworker
Statute: Sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA
provide that the services authorized for HEP and CAMP include services
to reach persons who themselves have spent, or whose immediate family
have spent, a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months in migrant
and seasonal farmwork.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.5(c)(7) defines seasonal
farmworker as a person who, within the past 24 months, was employed for
at least 75 days in farmwork, and whose primary employment was in
farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant
year-round activity). This definition does not define when and for how
long the ``primary employment'' must occur.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend newly redesignated
Sec. 206.5(c)(8) (current Sec. 206.5(c)(7)) to clarify that the term
seasonal farmworker means a person whose primary employment was in
farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant
year-round activity) for a period of at least 75 days within the past
24 months.
Reasons: The Department believes that the current definition of
seasonal farmworker should be revised to clarify that the ``primary
employment'' in migrant and seasonal farmwork must occur for at least
75 days within the past 24 months. While this was the intended meaning
of the term in current Sec. 206.5(c)(7), the Department is concerned
that some have interpreted or may interpret the current definition to
require that a seasonal worker not only have been employed for at least
75 days over the past 24 months in farmwork, but that the person's
primary employment over that entire 24 months have been in farmwork.
Because we do not believe this to be required, we propose to clarify
the term seasonal farmworker and to ensure consistency in its
application across HEP and CAMP projects.
Regulations That Apply to HEP and CAMP
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.4 lists the regulations that
apply to HEP and CAMP. The list of applicable regulations in this
section was last updated in 1993.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 206.4 to add
four regulations to the list of regulations that apply to HEP and CAMP.
Specifically, we are proposing to (1) add 34 CFR part
[[Page 13819]]
84 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial
Assistance)); 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of Human Subjects); 34 CFR
part 98 (Student Rights in Research Experimental Programs, and Testing)
for HEP only; and 34 CFR part 99 (Family Educational Rights and
Privacy) to this list, and (2) redesignate two paragraphs in this
section.
Reasons: We are proposing to add these four regulations to the list
of applicable regulations so that the list of regulations that apply to
HEP and CAMP is complete and accurate. In order to maintain this list
of applicable regulations in numerical order, we propose to redesignate
Sec. 206.4(a)(6) and (a)(7) as Sec. 206.4(a)(7) and Sec.
206.4(a)(8), respectively.
HEP Services
Statute: Section 408(1)(B) through (1)(F) of the HEOA amended
section 418A(b) of the HEA to (1) authorize as a HEP service
preparation for college entrance examinations, and activities beyond
those otherwise identified to improve persistence and retention in
postsecondary education (see sections 418A(b)(3)(B) and 418A(b)(9) of
the HEA, respectively); (2) add transportation and child care as
examples of essential supportive services (see section 418A(b)(8) of
the HEA); and (3) remove the limitation that stipends provided to HEP
participants be ``weekly'' (see section 418A(b)(5) of the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.10(b)(1) specifies the types
of services that HEP projects may provide. It does not reflect the
changes made to the HEA by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(b) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend (1) Sec.
206.10(b)(1)(iii)(B) to provide that permissible HEP services include
preparation for college entrance examinations; (2) Sec.
206.10(b)(1)(v) to provide that permissible HEP services include
stipends--not only weekly stipends--for HEP participants; (3) Sec.
206.10(b)(1)(viii) to add transportation and child care as examples of
essential supportive services; and (4) Sec. 206.10(b)(1)(ix) to
specify that HEP services include other activities to improve
persistence and retention in postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.10(b)(1) to
reflect the changes in the HEP services authorized under the HEA, as
amended by section 408(1) of the HEOA.
CAMP Services
Statute: Section 408(2) of the HEOA amended section 418A(c) of the
HEA to provide that CAMP supportive and instructional services are to
improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary
education (see section 418A(c)(1)(B) of the HEA) and that these
supportive services include, as an ongoing part of the program, not
only personal, academic, and career counseling, but economic education
or personal finance counseling as well (see section 418A(c)(1)(B)(i) of
the HEA). Section 408(2) of the HEOA also amended section 418A(c) of
the HEA to authorize internships as a CAMP service (see section
418A(c)(1)(F) of the HEA), and to provide both that other supportive
services provided as necessary to ensure the success of eligible
students must be ``essential'', and that examples of such essential
supportive services are transportation and child care (see section
418A(c)(1)(G) of the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.10(b)(2) specifies the types
of services that CAMP projects may provide. It does not reflect the
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(c) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend (1) Sec.
206.10(b)(2)(ii) to specify that the permissible CAMP supportive and
instructional services are to improve placement, persistence, and
retention in postsecondary education; and (2) Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(ii)(A)
to specify that these supportive services include, as an ongoing part
of the program, economic education, or personal finance counseling as
well as the previously authorized personal, academic, and career
services. We also propose to redesignate Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vi) as
Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vii), and to add a new Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vi) to
clarify that permissible CAMP services include internships. We propose
to amend newly redesignated Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vii) to add
transportation and child care as examples of what now must be
``essential'' supportive service.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.10(b)(2) to
reflect the changes made to permissible CAMP services in section
418A(c) of the HEA by section 408A(2) of the HEOA.
Follow-Up CAMP Services
Statute: Section 408A(2)(B) of the HEOA amended section 418A(c)(2)
of the HEA to provide that in addition to previously authorized
referrals of CAMP students to on- or off-campus providers of counseling
services, academic assistance, or financial aid, follow-up services to
CAMP students may include (1) the coordination of such services,
assistance, and aid with other non-program services, assistance, and
aid, including services, assistance, and aid provided by community-
based organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance; and (2)
for students attending two-year IHEs, encouraging the students to
transfer to four-year IHEs where appropriate, and monitoring the rate
of transfer of these students.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.11 specifies the types of
services that CAMP projects must provide. Under current Sec.
206.11(a), CAMP projects must provide ``follow-up services'' for
project participants after they have completed their first year of
college. Current Sec. 206.11(b) provides a list of what ``follow-up
services'' may include.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend Sec. 206.11
to provide that follow-up CAMP services may include (1) in addition to
the previously authorized referrals of CAMP students to on- or off-
campus providers of counseling services, academic assistance, or
financial aid, the coordination of those services, assistance, and aid
with other non-program services, assistance, and aid, including
services, assistance, and aid provided by community-based
organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance, and (2) for
students attending two-year IHEs, encouraging the students to transfer
to four-year IHEs, where appropriate, and monitoring the rate of
transfer of these students.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.11 to reflect
the changes made to mandatory CAMP services in section 418A(c)(2)(B)
and (c)(2)(C) of the HEA by section 408A(2)(B) of the HEOA.
Minimum Allocations
Statute: Section 418A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 408A(4)
of the HEOA, increases from $150,000 to $180,000 the minimum amount of
any allocation the Secretary makes for any HEP or CAMP project.
Current Regulations: Consistent with prior law, current Sec.
206.20(b)(2) requires each applicant for a HEP or CAMP award to include
an annual budget of no less than $150,000.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 206.20(b)(2)
to provide that in applying for a HEP or CAMP grant, an applicant's
grant
[[Page 13820]]
application must include an annual budget of not less than $180,000.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.20(b)(2) to
reflect the changes made to minimum allocations for HEP and CAMP in
section 418A(f) of the HEA by section 408A(4) of the HEOA.
Prior Experience Points for HEP and CAMP Service Delivery
Statute: Section 418A(e) of the HEA, as amended by section 408A(3)
of the HEOA, provides that in making HEP and CAMP grants, the
Department must consider an applicant's prior experience of service
delivery under the particular project for which it seeks further
funding, and must give this prior experience the same level of
consideration it gives to the prior experience of applicants for TRIO
grants.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add a new
Sec. 206.31(a) to provide that in the case of an applicant for a HEP
award, the Secretary considers the applicant's experience in
implementing an expiring HEP project with respect to (1) whether the
applicant served the number of participants described in its approved
application; (2) the extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its
funded objectives with regard to project participants, including the
targeted number and percentage of (i) participants who received a
general educational development (GED) credential; and (ii) GED
credential recipients who were reported as entering postsecondary
education programs, career positions, or the military; and (3) the
extent to which the applicant met the administrative requirements,
including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial accountability under
the terms of the previously funded award.
We also are proposing to add a new Sec. 206.31(b) to provide that
in the case of an applicant for a CAMP award, the Secretary considers
the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring CAMP project
with respect to (1) Whether the applicant served the number of
participants described in its approved application; (2) the extent to
which the applicant met or exceeded its funded objectives with regard
to project participants, including the targeted number and percentage
of participants who (i) successfully completed the first year of
college; and (ii) continued to be enrolled in postsecondary education
after completing their first year of college; and (3) the extent to
which the applicant met the administrative requirements, including
recordkeeping, reporting, and financial accountability under the terms
of the previously funded award.
Reasons: The Department proposes adding to the HEP and CAMP program
regulations the specific criteria we would consider in evaluating prior
experience in order to be consistent with the Department's approach in
TRIO. The criteria for evaluating prior experience that we specify in
proposed Sec. 206.31 is based on the language in previously approved
application packages for HEP and CAMP. The non-Federal negotiators
agreed with this approach and reached tentative agreement on this
issue.
Note: The TRIO programs have had a longstanding requirement that
only applicants with an expiring TRIO project are eligible for the
priority for prior experience. Consequently, in providing the same
degree of consideration for prior experience as provided under the
Federal TRIO programs, we view this aspect of proposed Sec.
206.31(a) to be statutorily required.
Federal TRIO Programs--34 CFR Parts 642 (Training Program for Federal
TRIO Programs), 643 (Talent Search), 644 (Educational Opportunity
Centers), 645 (Upward Bound Program), 646 (Student Support Services
Program), 647 (Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program)
Section 403(a) of the HEOA has amended section 402A of the HEA to
include a number of new requirements that apply across the Federal TRIO
programs (i.e., the Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), Student
Support Services (SSS), Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement
(McNair), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), and Staff Development
Activities (Training) programs). Additionally, section 403(b) through
(g) of the HEOA amended sections 402B, 402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and
402G, to make specific changes to the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, EOC, and
Training programs, respectively.
Because a number of the statutory changes made to the HEA by the
HEOA affect multiple Federal TRIO programs similarly, we have organized
the discussion of proposed changes to the Federal TRIO program
regulations by first addressing crosscutting issues by subject matter
and then discussing program-specific issues on a program-by-program
basis. We group the crosscutting issues as follows:
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to
Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations.
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO
program.
Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program
Applicants.
Our discussion of issues applicable to specific programs follows
the order of the Department's regulations for those programs (i.e., 34
CFR parts 642 (Training), 643 (TS), 644 (EOC), 645 (UB), 646 (SSS), and
647 (McNair)).
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit To Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations
Statute: Section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(2)(C) of the HEOA, provides that the Secretary may not limit the
number of applications submitted by an eligible entity under any
Federal TRIO program if the additional applications describe programs
serving different populations or different campuses. The HEOA changed
section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA by replacing the term ``campuses'' with
the term ``different campuses''.
More significantly, section 403(a)(6) of the HEOA amended section
402A(h) of the HEA by adding definitions for the terms ``different
campus'' and ``different population''. Section 402A(h)(1) of the HEA
defines the term ``different campus'' as a site of an institution of
higher education that is geographically apart from the main campus, is
permanent in nature, and offers courses in educational programs leading
to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
Section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines the term ``different
population'' as a group of individuals that an eligible entity desires
to serve using a Federal TRIO grant and that is separate and distinct
from any other population that the entity has applied to serve, or a
population that, while sharing some of the same needs as another
population, has distinct needs for specialized services.
Current Regulations: Only two of the Federal TRIO programs, the UB
and SSS programs, have regulations that address the number of grant
applications an eligible entity may submit.
For the UB program, current Sec. 645.20(a) provides that the
Secretary will accept more than one application from an eligible entity
as long as any additional application describes a project that serves a
different participant population. The current regulations for the UB
program do not define the term ``different participant population''.
For the SSS program, current Sec. 646.10 provides that the
Secretary accepts more than one application from an eligible
[[Page 13821]]
applicant so long as each additional application describes a project
that serves a different campus, or a different population of
participants who cannot readily be served by a single project.
Current Sec. 646.7 defines the terms different campus and
different population of participants for purposes of the SSS program.
Current Sec. 646.7 defines different campus as an institutional site
that is geographically apart from and independent of the main campus of
the institution. The location of an institution is ``independent of the
main campus'' if it is: Permanent in nature; offers courses in
educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other
recognized credential; has its own faculty and administrative or
supervisory organization; or has its own budgetary authority. Current
Sec. 646.7 defines different population of participants as a group of
(1) low-income, first-generation college students, or (2) disabled
students.
While the current regulations for the TS, EOC, and UB programs do
not specifically address the number of applications an eligible entity
may submit or define the terms ``different population'' or ``different
campus'', these regulations do provide that the Secretary will consider
the ``target area'' (for the TS, EOC, and UB programs) or ``target
school'' (for the TS and UB programs) proposed to be served by the
project when selecting applications (see current Sec. Sec. 643.21,
644.21, 645.30 and 645.31). Current Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b)
(EOC), and 645.6(b) (UB) generally define the term target area as a
geographic area served by a project. Current Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS)
and 645.6(b) (UB) define the term target school as ``a school
designated by the applicant as a focus of project services''.
Proposed Regulations: To reflect the new statutory definitions for
the terms different campus and different population in section 402A(h)
of the HEA, we are proposing to amend the definitions sections of the
applicable Federal TRIO program regulations to incorporate the
statutory definitions of these terms. Specifically, we propose to add
the definition of different population to current Sec. Sec. 643.7(b)
(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 647.7(b) (McNair). We also
propose to add the definition of different campus to Sec. 647.7
(McNair). For the SSS program, we propose to amend Sec. 646.7 by
revising the definition of the term different campus and by replacing
the definition of the term different population of participants with
the statutory term different population.
To implement section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, which provides that the
Secretary may not limit the number of applications submitted by an
eligible entity if the additional applications describe programs
serving different populations or different campuses, we propose to
amend each of the Federal TRIO program regulations to clarify when an
eligible applicant may submit more than one application. Specifically:
For the Training program, we propose to add a new Sec. 642.7 to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
for a Training grant as long as each application describes a project
that addresses a different absolute priority that is designated in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications.
For the TS program, we propose to add a new Sec. 643.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
for TS grants as long as each application describes a project that
serves a different target area or target schools, or another designated
different population.
For the EOC program, we propose to add a new Sec. 644.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
for EOC grants as long as each application describes a project that
serves a different target area or another designated different
population.
For the UB program, we propose to revise Sec. 645.20(a) to provide
that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application as long
as each application describes a project that serves a different target
area or target school or another designated different population.
For the SSS program, we propose to revise Sec. 646.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
as long as each application describes a project that serves a different
campus or a designated different population.
For the McNair program, we propose to add a new Sec. 647.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
as long as each application describes a project that serves a different
campus or a designated different population.
In addition, for the TS, EOC, UB, SSS, and McNair programs, we
propose to add regulatory language that provides that, for each
competition, the Secretary designates, in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and other published application materials for the
competition, the different populations for which an eligible entity may
submit a separate application (see proposed Sec. Sec. 643.10(b),
644.10(b), 645.20(b), 646.10(b), and 647.10(b), respectively).
Reasons: During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, the negotiators
discussed whether the new definitions of the terms different campus and
different population should apply only to the SSS program (where these
terms are currently used) or to all of the Federal TRIO programs. The
current regulations for the Federal TRIO programs are reflect the fact
that the concept of a different campus is only relevant for the SSS and
McNair programs, which serve college students. The TS, EOC, and UB
programs are pre-college programs that do not necessarily target
different campuses. In addition, for the TS, EOC, and UB programs, the
traditional administrative practice has been to focus on different
populations of students by identifying where those students live
(target area) or where they attend school (target schools).
Some non-Federal negotiators recommended that the Department
continue its current practice and only apply the new definitions of
different campus and different population to the SSS program. Other
non-Federal negotiators disagreed, noting that the HEA now allows
applicants applying under both the pre-college programs (TS, EOC, and
UB) and the college programs (SSS and McNair) to submit separate
applications to serve different populations of students. We agree that
the HEA allows applicants under the TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair
programs to submit more than one application as long as each
application proposes to serve a different population.
For this reason, we are proposing to amend the regulations for the
TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair programs to incorporate the statutorily
defined term different population. We propose to use this term in
conjunction with the terms target area and target school from the
current regulations for TS, EOC, and UB. By clarifying that applicants
can submit more than one application if each application proposes to
serve a ``different target area or target schools or another designated
different population'' and incorporating the statutory definition of
the term different population, we would retain the current practice of
funding separate projects to serve different target areas and target
schools. We would also ensure that the regulations are consistent with
the statutory definition of the term different population in the HEA.
In determining how to reflect the definition for the term different
population in the proposed regulations, we also considered how we would
manage applications proposing to serve different populations. While
grantees must be able to serve more students and to tailor services to
meet the distinct needs of different populations (as
[[Page 13822]]
defined in 402A(h) of the HEA), it is necessary for the Department to
establish some limitations on the number of separate applications an
eligible entity may submit for each competition to serve different
populations. Without such limitations, adding the definition of the
term different population to the regulations could have the unintended
consequence of disproportionately increasing funding at some
institutions, agencies, and organizations that submit several
applications while limiting the funds available to expand program
services to other areas, schools, and institutions. To mitigate this
risk and ensure fairness and consistency in the application process,
the Department proposes to amend the regulations for each of the TRIO
programs. The proposed regulations would provide that the Department
will define, for each competition, the different populations of
participants for which an eligible entity can submit separate
applications in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and
other published application materials for the competition.
This approach would give the Department the flexibility to
designate the different populations for each competition based on
changing national needs. It also would permit the Department to manage
more effectively the program competitions within the available
resources.
For these reasons, under the proposed regulations, an entity
applying for more than one grant under the TS, EOC, and UB programs
would be able to submit separate applications to serve different target
areas and different target schools, and would also be able to submit
separate applications to serve one or more of the different populations
of participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications. Entities applying for grants under the SSS and McNair
programs would be able to submit separate applications to serve
different campuses and also would be able to submit separate
applications to serve one or more of the different populations of
participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition.
Finally, we are proposing to amend the Training program regulations
by adding a new Sec. 642.7 to provide that an eligible applicant may
submit more than one application for grants as long as each application
describes a project that addresses a different absolute priority. This
proposed change reflects the amendments made by the HEOA as well as the
Department's current practices.
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program (Newly
Redesignated Sec. 642.6 and Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, and
647.7)
As a result of the changes made by the HEOA to sections 402A, 402B,
402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and 402G of the HEA, the Department proposes to
add new definitions to the Federal TRIO program regulations and to
revise other definitions in those regulations. We also propose to add
to the TRIO Program regulations certain terms and their definitions
that are in other portions of the HEA and the Department's regulations.
In the following section, we discuss those proposed changes to
definitions used in more than one of the Federal TRIO program
regulations. For proposed changes to definitions that apply to only one
or two programs, we address those proposed changes under the specific
programs.
Disconnected Students
The HEOA amended the HEA to provide that each of the TRIO programs
may provide services to ``disconnected students,'' but the term
``disconnected students'' is never defined in the statute.
``Disconnected students'' is a broad term that could apply to a broad
spectrum of students, and could vary depending on the goals of the
particular project. In these circumstances, we do not believe it is
useful to define the term in these proposed regulations. Instead, we
believe it is more appropriate for an applicant proposing to provide
programs and activities specifically designed for ``disconnected
students'' to define the term for its proposed project and to identify
and describe in its application the specific needs of the
``disconnected students'' to be served by the project.
Different Campus and Different Population
Refer to the discussion of these terms earlier in this preamble,
under the heading Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit
to Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations.
Financial and Economic Literacy
Statute: Section 402 of the HEOA amended the HEA to include
education and counseling services designed to improve the financial and
economic literacy of students as (1) a required service for TS grantees
(see section 402B(b)(6) of the HEA), UB grantees (see section
402C(b)(6) of the HEA), and SSS grantees (see section 402D(b)(4) of the
HEA), and (2) a permissible service for McNair grantees (see section
402E(c)(1) of the HEA) and EOC projects (see section 402F(b)(5) of the
HEA). Section 402A(f)(1) of the HEOA also amended