High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, The Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program, 65712-65803 [2010-24324]
Download as PDF
65712
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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: Final regulations.
AGENCY:
The Secretary amends the
regulations, and establishes 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 (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 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 programs, and GEAR UP program.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Effective Date: These regulations
are effective December 27, 2010.
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 (TDD), 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.
DATES:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
On March
23, 2010, the Secretary published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
for the HEP and CAMP, the Federal
TRIO programs, and the GEAR UP
program in the Federal Register (75 FR
13814). In the preamble to the NPRM,
the Secretary discussed on pages 13816
through 13859 the major changes
proposed in that document to
strengthen and improve the
administration of the HEP and CAMP,
the Federal TRIO programs, and the
GEAR UP program authorized under the
HEA.
These final regulations implement
changes made by the HEOA to
discretionary grant programs authorized
by title IV of the HEA, including:
HEP and CAMP:
• Amending § 206.3(a)(1) 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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
parent, as the statute previously held
(see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
• Amending § 206.5(c) to define 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).
• Amending § 206.5(c) to revise 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 in § 206.10(b) 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 CAMP services in
§ 206.10(b)(2) 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 § 206.11(b) to specify
that follow-up CAMP services include:
(1) Referring CAMP students to oncampus 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 § 206.20(b)(2) to specify
that the Secretary must not allocate an
amount less than $180,000 for HEP and
CAMP grants (see section 418A(e) of the
HEA).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
• Adding § 206.31 to the HEP and
CAMP program regulations to specify
the criteria the Department considers in
evaluating prior experience (see section
418A(f) of the HEA).
Federal TRIO Programs
• Amending §§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b)
(EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS),
and 647.7(b) (McNair) to revise or add
definitions for different campus and
different population, which change the
prior regulatory definitions of these
terms for the SSS program and the
Department’s administrative 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).
• Adding new §§ 642.11 and 642.12
(Training) and amending § 643.4 (TS),
part 645 (UB, Upward Bound Math and
Science (UBMS), and Veterans Upward
Bound (VUB)) § 646.4 (SSS), and § 647.4
(McNair) to specify the services or
activities that projects funded under the
Federal TRIO programs must provide
and the services or activities that these
projects may provide.
• Amending §§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b)
(EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)
to add 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).
• Amending newly redesignated
§ 642.22 (Training) and §§ 643.22 (TS),
644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22
(SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) to align
prior experience determinations with
statutorily revised outcome criteria (see
section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA (TS),
section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (UB),
section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA (SSS),
section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA
(McNair), and section 402A(f)(3)(E) of
the HEA (EOC)).
• Adding §§ 642.25 (Training), 643.24
(TS), 644.24 (EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24
(SSS), and 647.24 (McNair) to provide a
new procedure to allow unsuccessful
grant applicants to request a review of
alleged technical, administrative, or
scoring errors that affected the
applicant’s application.
• Amending newly redesignated
§ 642.6(b) (Training) and §§ 643.7(b)
(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB),
646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair) to
revise definitions for some terms and to
add new definitions to implement
amendments to the HEA by the HEOA:
• Financial and economic literacy
(§§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC),
645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and
647.7(b) (McNair)) (see section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 (newly redesignated
§ 642.6(b) (Training) and §§ 643.7(b)
(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and
646.7(b) (SSS)) (see sections 402A(e)(3)
and 402B(c)(7) of the HEA (TS), section
402C(d)(7) of the HEA (UB), section
402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) of the HEA (SSS),
section 402F(b)(11) of the HEA (EOC),
and section 402G(b)(5) of the HEA
(Training)).
• Graduate center; groups
underrepresented in graduate school;
and research and scholarly activities
(§ 647.7(b) (McNair)) (see sections 101
and 102 of the HEA and section
402E(d)(2) of the HEA (McNair)).
• Individual with a disability (newly
redesignated § 642.6(b) (Training) and
§§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC),
645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)) (see
section 402B(c)(7) of the HEA (TS),
section 402C(d)(7) of the HEA (UB),
section 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) of the HEA
(SSS), section 402F(b)(11) of the HEA
(EOC), and section 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 (§ 645.6(b)
(UB and VUB)) (see sections
402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2)
of the HEA (UB)).
• Institution of higher education
(newly redesignated § 642.6(b)
(Training) and §§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b)
(EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS),
and 647.7(b) (McNair)) (see sections 101
and 102 of the HEA).
• Regular secondary school diploma
and rigorous secondary school program
of study (§§ 643.7(b) (TS) and 645.6(b)
(UB)) (see section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and
(iv) of the HEA (TS) and section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (UB)).
• Veteran (newly redesignated
§ 642.6(b) (Training) and §§ 643.7(b)
(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), and 645.6 (b) (UB))
(see section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS,
EOC, and UB)).
Additionally, the regulations for the
TRIO programs were 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 in newly redesignated
§ 642.4 (Training) and §§ 643.5 (TS),
644.5 (EOC), 645.34 (UB), 646.5 (SSS),
and 647.5 (McNair) to define the project
period as two years for Training and five
years for TS, EOC, UB, SSS, and McNair
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65713
(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:
TS (§ 643.21(b)); EOC (§ 644.21(b)); UB
(§ 645.31(b)(1), VUB (§ 645.31(b)(2));
SSS (§ 646.21(b)); and McNair
(§ 647.21(b)) (see section 402A(f)(3)(A)
of the HEA (TS), section 402A(f)(3)(B) of
the HEA (UB), section 402A(f)(3)(C) of
the HEA (SSS), section 402A(f)(3)(D) of
the HEA (McNair), and section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA (EOC)).
• Removing the minimum number of
participants in the regulations for TS,
EOC, UB, UBMS, and VUB projects (see
sections 402A(f), 402A(b)(3), 402B (TS),
402C (UB), 402F (EOC) of the HEA). For
each grant competition, the Department
will establish the minimum number of
participants to be served by a grantee
through the Federal Register notice
inviting applications.
• Amending newly redesignated
§§ 642.22 and 642.24 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
• Redesignating § 694.15 as § 694.19
to accommodate the proposed addition
of other regulatory provisions.
Amending newly redesignated § 694.19
to provide 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 demonstrated a
prior commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of
successful strategies; and to specify how
the Department determines whether a
State GEAR UP grant has been
‘‘successful’’ (see section 404A(b)(3) of
the HEA).
• Adding § 694.20 to explain 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).
• Adding new § 694.24 to require
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).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65714
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
• Amending § 694.7(a)(2) 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 are no
longer required to meet the matching
requirement each year of the project
period (section 404C(b)(1) of the HEA).
• Adding new § 694.8 to: (1) Provide
authority for the Secretary to approve a
Partnership applicant’s request for a
waiver of up to 50 or 75 percent of the
matching requirement for up to two
years under certain circumstances; and
(2) create a multiple-tiered system for
different types of waiver requests (see
section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
• Adding new § 694.8(b)(3) to specify
that at the time of application, the
Secretary may provide 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 new §§ 694.21 and 694.22
to specify required and allowable
activities and separate these required
and allowable activities into multiple
regulatory sections (section 404D of the
HEA).
• Adding new § 694.22(e) to specify
that GEAR UP grantees may provide
activities that support participating
students to develop graduation and
career plans, including career awareness
and planning assistance as they relate to
a rigorous academic curriculum (see
section 404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).
• Adding newly redesignated
§§ 694.13 and new 694.14 to clarify 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).
• Adding new § 694.24 to describe
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).
• Amending newly redesignated
§ 694.13(a) to specify the minimum
amount of scholarship funding for an
eligible student, and provide 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
basis during any award year (see section
404E(d) of the HEA).
• Adding new § 694.14(b) to
incorporate the statutory definition of
the term eligible student (from section
404E(g) of the HEA) in the program
regulations.
• Clarifying in new § 694.14(c)(2) 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 in newly redesignated
§ 694.13(c) that scholarships must be
made to all students who are eligible
under the definition in § 694.13(d) 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).
• Adding new 694.14(e) to specify
that States awarding scholarships must
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).
• Adding new 694.14(f) to specify
that States must provide scholarship
funds 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 (see section
404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
• Specifying in new § 694.14(g) that a
State or 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 (see
section 404E of the HEA).
• Amending newly redesignated
§ 694.15 to specify 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, and those funds may be
used to comply with the program’s
matching requirement (see section
404C(b) of the HEA).
• Adding new § 694.16 to specify the
requirements for the return of
scholarship funds. Specifically, (1)
providing that scholarship funds held in
reserve by States under §§ 694.12(b)(1)
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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).
• Adding new § 694.25 to require
grantees that receive initial grant awards
after the passage of the HEOA to
continue to serve students from a
previous grant received by the grantee
(see section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA).
• Adding new § 694.25(a) to clarify
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).
• Amending newly redesignated
§ 694.18 to specify 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 of any
scholarship that a student may be
eligible to receive.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
The regulations in this document
were developed through the use of
negotiated rulemaking. Section 492 of
the HEA requires that, before publishing
any proposed regulations to implement
programs under title IV of the HEA, the
Secretary must obtain public
involvement in the development of the
proposed regulations. After obtaining
advice and recommendations, the
Secretary must conduct a negotiated
rulemaking process to develop the
proposed regulations. The negotiated
rulemaking committee did not reach
consensus on the proposed regulations
that were published on March 23, 2010.
The Secretary invited comments on the
proposed regulations by April 22, 2010.
In response to the Secretary’s invitation
in the NPRM to the proposed
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
regulations, 455 parties submitted
comments on the proposed regulations.
An analysis of the comments and of the
changes in the regulations since
publication of the NPRM follows.
We group major issues according to
subject, with appropriate sections of the
regulations referenced in parentheses.
We discuss other substantive issues
under the sections of the regulations to
which they pertain. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor
changes, suggested changes that the law
does not authorize the Secretary to
make, or comments pertaining to issues
that were not within the scope of the
NPRM.
Part 206—Special Educational
Programs for Students Whose Families
Are Engaged in Migrant and Other
Seasonal Farmwork—High School
Equivalency Program (HEP) and College
Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
Who May Benefit From HEP and CAMP?
(34 CFR Part 206)
Comment: One commenter inquired
as to whether HEP would only benefit
farm workers and their families and
stated that there were others, not
necessarily in that group, who could
potentially be helped by this program.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s view that HEP could
potentially help individuals who are not
migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
However, section 418A of the HEA,
which authorizes both HEP and CAMP,
requires that program activities focus on
migrant and seasonal farmworkers and
their immediate family. The Department
does not have the authority to expand
this statutorily prescribed requirement.
Changes: None.
Types of Services for CAMP Projects
(§ 206.10(b)(2))
Comment: None.
Discussion: In our review of
§ 206.10(b)(2), we realized that
§ 206.10(b)(2)(iv) contained a
typographical error and we have
corrected it.
Changes: In § 206.10(b)(2)(iv), we
have removed the word ‘‘student’’ and
added, in its place, the word ‘‘students’’
to correct a typographical error.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Prior Experience in HEP and CAMP
(§ 206.31(a))
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department revise the wording
of a note that was included in the
NPRM’s preamble discussion of prior
experience under HEP and CAMP.
Specifically, the commenter suggested
deleting the phrase ‘‘for the priority’’
from the following note, which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
appeared on page 13820 of the NPRM
(75 FR 13814, 13820):
‘‘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.’’
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern for clarifying this
language from the preamble of the
NPRM. In this notice of final
regulations, we make changes, if
appropriate, to the regulations
themselves, not language from the
preamble of the NPRM. Moreover, we
do not believe that any change to the
regulations themselves is necessary
because § 206.31(a) refers only to the
Secretary considering the applicant’s
experience in implementing an expiring
HEP project; it does not use the phrase
‘‘for the priority’’.
Changes: None.
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 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.
We have organized the discussion of
comments received on and responses to
the proposed changes to the specific
Federal TRIO program regulations by
first addressing crosscutting issues by
subject matter and then discussing
program-specific issues on a programby-program basis.
Our discussion of comments
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)).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65715
Number of Applications an Eligible
Entity May Submit To Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that an applicant that submitted
a TRIO Program grant application to
provide services to one of the different
populations identified by the Secretary
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for one fiscal year
competition would be ineligible to
submit an application for a new grant
award to continue the existing project if
the population served by the existing
project was not designated as an eligible
population in the notice inviting
applications for the next competition.
The commenter suggested that the
Department include language in the
regulations to ensure that an applicant
with an expiring grant will be eligible to
apply for a new grant in a subsequent
competition to serve the same
population of students.
Discussion: As part of the HEOA,
Congress significantly revised the
definition of ‘‘eligible population’’ in
section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA. To
implement this statutory change, the
regulations specify that, for each
competition, the Department will
designate in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications for the
competition, the different populations
for which an entity may submit a
separate application (see §§ 642.7
(Training) 1, 643.10(b) (TS), 644.10(b)
(EOC), 645.20(b) (UB), 646.10(b) (SSS),
and 647.10(b) (McNair).
Under these regulations, therefore, an
entity that previously received a grant to
serve a particular population would be
eligible to submit an application for a
new grant to continue serving the same
population if that population is
included as a designated population in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the new competition. If
the population served by the grantee is
not designated for the new competition,
the entity would not be eligible to apply
for a grant to continue to serve the same
population it served under the expiring
grant. While an entity with an expiring
grant serving another population could
apply for a grant to serve one of the
populations designated in the notice
inviting applications for the new
competition, the entity would not be
eligible for PE points based on its
expiring grant.
Changes: None.
1 For the Training Program, the Federal Register
notice inviting applications will include the
statutory and other priorities that applicants must
address for the competition. Training program
grantees will provide training on the topics
identified in the published priorities.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65716
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Designating Different Populations in the
Federal Register Notice Inviting
Applications
Comment: One commenter questioned
whether designating different
populations for each competition was
consistent with the TRIO programs’
goals. The commenter believed that this
approach would politicize the
application process because it would
force applicants to constantly change
the focus of their projects to meet the
changing requirements of the times.
Ultimately, the commenter expressed
concern that the proposed approach
would destabilize the programs because
it would reduce the effectiveness of the
grantees.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
designation of different populations to
be served for each competition will
politicize the application process or
reduce the effectiveness of the TRIO
programs because most of the projects
funded under any competition will be
for traditional TRIO projects (i.e.,
projects that provide services to eligible
participants—low-income, firstgeneration college students, and
students with disabilities—but that do
not focus services on a specific
population). For example, during the FY
2010 SSS grant competition only a small
percentage of the applicants proposed
projects to serve different populations
that had distinct needs for specialized
services that could not be addressed
through a regular SSS project. As
discussed in the NPRM, 75 FR at 13821–
22, the designation of different
populations for each competition will
give the Department the flexibility to
address changing national needs and to
ensure that Federal funds are targeted to
areas or populations most in need. The
Secretary believes that it is appropriate
to change the focus of the TRIO
programs if the national needs change.
That said, this does not mean that the
Department will change the designated
populations for each new competition.
Changes: None.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Clarification of the Term ‘‘Designated
Different Population’’
Comment: One commenter asked for
clarification regarding what qualifies as
a designated different population.
Discussion: 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. Section
402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines ‘‘different
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 that, while sharing some of the
same needs as another population, has
distinct needs for specialized services.
The definition sections of each of the
TRIO program regulations will include
the new statutory definition for
‘‘different population’’ for each program
to which the term applies. In addition,
each of the TRIO program regulations
provide that the Secretary will
designate, in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and other
published application materials for each
competition, the different populations
for which an eligible entity can submit
separate applications. Therefore, what
qualifies as a designated different
population for each grant competition
will be determined by the Department
and described in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for that
competition. For example, under the FY
2010 SSS grant competition, the
Secretary designated projects that serve
five different populations: Individuals
with disabilities, individuals for whom
English is a second language,
individuals pursing science, technology,
engineering and math disciplines,
individuals pursuing teacher
preparation, and individuals pursuing
health sciences.
Changes: None.
Definitions Applicable to More Than
One Federal TRIO Program Definition
of Financial and Economic Literacy
(§§ 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, 647.7)
Comment: One commenter suggested
that providing education or counseling
services designed to improve financial
and economic literacy should be a
required service for all TRIO programs.
Multiple commenters noted that EOC
projects do not have enough time or
resources to provide education or
counseling services to improve
participants’ knowledge about all of the
examples of personal financial decisionmaking listed in the definition of
financial and economic literacy.
Discussion: Under these regulations,
all Federal TRIO programs—other than
the Training program—include as a
mandatory or permissible activity
providing education or counseling
services designed to improve the
financial and economic literacy of
participants (see §§ 643.4(a)(6) TS),2
2 In the case of the TS program, projects must
provide connections for participants to education or
counseling services designed to improve the
financial and economic literacy of the participants
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
644.4(e) (EOC), 645.11(a)(6) (UB),
646.4(a)(4) (SSS), and 647.4(b)(1)
(McNair)). The definition of financial
and economic literacy is consistent
across programs. We intended the
proposed definition to include a nonexhaustive list of examples of the types
of knowledge that comprise knowledge
about personal financial decisionmaking. We have made minor changes
to this definition to make clear that the
list of examples is not exhaustive and is
not a list of mandatory activities.
Changes: For clarity we have changed
the phrase ‘‘including but not limited to’’
to ‘‘which may include but is not limited
to’’ in order to emphasize that the list of
types of knowledge that may constitute
knowledge about personal financial
decision-making is not exhaustive and
is not a list of mandatory activities.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended changes to the language
used for some of the examples included
in the definition of the term financial
and economic literacy. One commenter
suggested changing the reference to
‘‘secondary education’’ in § 646.7 (SSS)
to ‘‘postsecondary education’’. Other
commenters suggested that we add the
term ‘‘postbaccalaureate’’ after the
reference to ‘‘postsecondary’’, that we
change the words ‘‘scholarship, grant
and loan education’’ to ‘‘financial
assistance education,’’ and that we
include the word ‘‘assistanceships’’ in
the definition of financial and economic
literacy.
Discussion: We generally agree with
these requested changes because we
believe that they help to clarify the
types of knowledge one should have to
be financially and economically literate.
Therefore, we have revised §§ 643.7,
644.7, 645.6, 646.7, 647.7 to make these
changes. With respect to the request to
add the words ‘‘financial assistance
education,’’ we agree with the concept
behind the comment but believe it is
more appropriate to refer to ‘‘financial
assistance’’ because it is knowledge
about financial assistance, not financial
assistance education, that is relevant.
Changes: In the definition of financial
and economic literacy in § 646.7 (SSS),
we have changed the reference to
‘‘secondary education’’ to
‘‘postsecondary education’’. In addition,
in the definition of financial and
economic literacy included in the
regulations for the TS, EOC, UB, and
McNair programs, we have added the
term ‘‘postbaccalaureate’’ after the
reference to ‘‘postsecondary’’, replaced
the words ‘‘scholarship, grant and loan
education’’ with the words ‘‘financial
or the participants’ parents, including financial
planning for postsecondary education.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
assistance,’’ and included
‘‘assistanceships’’ as an example.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Definition of Homeless Children and
Youth (§§ 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 645.6,
646.7)
Comment: Multiple commenters
asked for clarification of the definition
of ‘‘youth’’. These commenters stated
that the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act defines the age of
children and youth as ending prior to
being college aged. The commenters
expressed concern that this definition
would limit the services that TRIO
programs could offer to these students.
One commenter asked if homeless
children and youth will be a separate
group of eligible participants like firstgeneration or low-income students.
Discussion: The McKinney-Vento Act
defines ‘‘homeless children and youths’’
in terms of what qualifies the individual
as homeless, not by age.3 Therefore,
there is no cut-off age for the definition
of ‘‘youth’’ in the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act.
Those TRIO programs that provide
pre-college programs assist students
who are individuals covered by the
definition of homeless children and
youth in the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act. In the SSS program,
however, assistance for securing
temporary housing during breaks in the
academic year may be provided to
students who are homeless children and
youths or formerly homeless children or
youths (see § 646.30(j)).
Finally, while section 402A(c)(6) of
the HEA requires TRIO projects, as
appropriate, to make services available
3 Subtitle B of Title VII of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act defines ‘‘homeless’’ as
follows:
The term ‘‘homeless children and youths’’—
(A) Means individuals who lack a fixed, regular,
and adequate nighttime residence (within the
meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and
(B) includes—
(i) children and youths who are sharing the
housing of other persons due to loss of housing,
economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living
in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds
due to the lack of alternative adequate
accommodations; are living in emergency or
transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or
are awaiting foster care placement;
(ii) children and youths who have a primary
nighttime residence that is a public or private place
not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular
sleeping accommodation for human beings (within
the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));
(iii) children and youths who are living in cars,
parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings,
substandard housing, bus or train stations, or
similar settings; and
(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined
in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for
the purposes of this subtitle because the children
are living in circumstances described in clauses (i)
through (iii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
to homeless children and youths,
homeless children and youths are not a
separate group of eligible participants.
Therefore, homeless children and
youths are only eligible if they also meet
the program’s participant eligibility
criteria (e.g., low-income, firstgeneration).
Changes: None
Definition of Individual With a
Disability (§§ 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 645.6,
and 646.7)
Comment: Multiple commenters
requested that we broaden the definition
of the term individuals with disabilities
to mirror the language used in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Another commenter requested
clarification on whether the inclusion of
the term ‘‘individual with disabilities’’
means that a student with a documented
disability or individualized education
plan could participate in a TRIO project
even if he or she does not meet one of
the other eligibility criteria.
Discussion: The ADA, as revised by
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
defines the term ‘‘disability’’ to mean,
with respect to an individual, (A) a
physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major
life activities of such an individual, (B)
a record of such an impairment or (C)
being regarded as having such an
‘‘impairment.’’ This definition also
applies under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
(Section 504). We agree that it is
appropriate to use a definition of an
individual with a disability that
incorporates the ADA’s definition of
‘‘disability.’’ Accordingly, we have
changed the definition of individual
with disabilities to be a definition of the
term individual with a disability and we
define individual with a disability to
mean a person with a disability, as that
term is defined in section 12102 of the
ADA (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
With respect to the comment seeking
clarification on whether the inclusion of
the term individual with disabilities in
these regulations means that a student
with a documented disability or
individualized education program could
participate in a TRIO project even if he
or she does not meet one of the other
eligibility criteria, we note that—except
under the SSS program—being an
individual with a disability is not a
separate and additional eligibility
criterion, such as being a firstgeneration or low-income student.
Therefore, under all but SSS, being an
individual with a disability does not, on
its own, make an individual eligible to
participate in a TRIO project. It is
important to note that adopting the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65717
ADA’s definition of an individual with
a disability does not mean that grant
funds under these programs may be
used to pay for services required by the
ADA that are not directly related to the
goals of the TRIO programs. However,
this prohibition would not relieve the
institution of their obligations under the
ADA or Section 504. For example, it
would not be appropriate to use SSS
program funds to pay for a sign language
interpreter for a student who is hard of
hearing to participate in his or her
Calculus class as required by the ADA
or Section 504.
Changes: In §§ 642.6, 643.7, 644.7,
645.6, and 646.7 of the final regulations,
we define individual with a disability to
mean a person with a disability, as that
term is defined in section 12102 of the
ADA (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
Definition of Veteran (§§ 643.7, 644.7,
and 645.6)
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the proposed definition of veteran
be modified to include National Guard
veterans who served on active duty in
Iraq and/or Afghanistan given that a
large number of these individuals were
called to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan
and served for long tours of duty.
Discussion: National Guard veterans
who served on active duty in Iraq and/
or Afghanistan are included in the
definition of veteran. These individuals
qualify as veterans under the last two
paragraphs of that definition (i.e., the
individual 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 the individual 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 on or after September 11,
2011).
Changes: None.
Evaluating Prior Experience—Outcome
Criteria Definition of ‘‘High Quality
Service Delivery’’ (§§ 642.20(b),
643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i),
645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i),
647.20(a)(2)(i))
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns about the proposed
regulations that would provide that the
Secretary would consider an applicant’s
prior experience of ‘‘high quality service
delivery’’ in deciding which new grants
to make. Some commenters
recommended that the phrase ‘‘high
quality service delivery’’ be defined to
provide projects with clear expectations
and performance standards. Other
commenters stated that, because the
phrase ‘‘high quality service delivery’’ is
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65718
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
not defined, it should not be included
in the regulations. One commenter
argued that because project performance
data is strictly quantitative in nature, a
determination of a grantee’s quality of
service cannot be made.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters’ suggestion that the term
‘‘high quality service delivery’’ needs to
be defined in the regulations. We also
disagree that a grantee’s quality of
service cannot be determined based on
project performance. As stated in
section 402A(f)(1) of the HEA and in
these regulations, the determination of
an applicant’s prior experience of ‘‘high
quality service delivery’’ will be based
on the outcome criteria for the specific
program. Therefore, a grantee that met
or exceeded its approved project
objectives for its expiring grant would
be considered to have delivered high
quality services. The Department will
use data provided by the grantee in the
APR, as well as audit findings, site visit
reports, and any other information
received by the Department to
determine if the grantee met or
exceeded these objectives.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing proposed
§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i),
645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i),
647.20(a)(2)(i)), we determined that it
would be clearer to have these sections
refer to ‘‘outcome criteria’’ rather than to
‘‘criteria’’ only. This change aligns the
regulatory language more closely with
section 402A(f) of the HEA, which refers
to the specific outcome criteria to be
used to determine an entity’s prior
experience (PE) points under the TS,
UB, SSS, McNair, and EOC programs.
Changes: We have amended
§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i),
645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i),
647.20(a)(2)(i)) by adding the word
‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of
§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i),
645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), we
determined that technical changes were
needed in these sections. Because the
HEA now permits entities to submit
multiple applications to serve different
populations, campuses, or both, it is
important that the regulations clarify the
conditions under which an entity may
receive PE points for applications for
new grants (depending on whether the
new grant will serve the different
populations, campuses, or both served
under an expiring grant). The
Department has revised these
regulations to clarify that PE points are
awarded only to the application for a
new grant that proposes to continue to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
serve substantially the same populations
and campuses that the applicant is
serving under an expiring grant.
Therefore, an entity will not receive PE
points for (a) applications to serve
different populations, even if the
different populations are on the same
campus as the population or
populations served by the existing grant,
or (b) applications to serve a different
campus altogether.
Changes: We have amended
§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i),
645.30(a)(2)(i), and 646.20(a)(2)(i) by
replacing the word ‘‘or’’ after the words
‘‘same populations’’ with the word
‘‘and.’’
Incorrect Annual Performance Report
(APR) Data (§§ 642.22(a)(3),
643.22(a)(3), 644.22(a)(3), 645.32(a)(3),
646.22(a)(3), 647.22(a)(3))
Comment: The Department received
numerous comments on the proposed
regulatory language that would permit
the Secretary to adjust a PE score or
decide not to award PE points if other
information indicates that the APR data
used to calculate the applicant’s PE are
incorrect. Several commenters requested
that the regulations be revised to take
into consideration projects that
knowingly provide fraudulent
information and those that act in good
faith but inadvertently provide data
containing errors, so that the
Department does not penalize projects
for honest mistakes. Several
commenters stated that Department
officials have acknowledged that
numerous projects have made data
errors in their APRs, and these
commenters believe that it is in the best
interest of the Department and the
projects to work to correct these errors,
rather than not to award PE points to
these projects.
Discussion: We understand the
commenters’ concern about data
reporting errors potentially resulting in
the loss of PE points for an applicant.
The Department does not intend to use
this authority to penalize applicants that
make reporting errors despite their
‘‘good faith’’ efforts. However, because
the Department cannot always tell
whether an applicant intentionally
provides false data or if the applicant
made a mistake in data reporting, we
believe it is appropriate for the
Department to have the flexibility to
address issues of concern in audit
findings, site visits, or other information
that identifies problems in a grantee’s
efforts to meet the established objectives
on a case-by-case basis. For this reason,
we decline to make any changes to the
regulations to distinguish between
projects that knowingly provide
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fraudulent information and those that
act in good faith but inadvertently
provide data containing errors.
Changes: None.
Notification of PE Points Awarded
(§§ 642.22, 643.22, 644.22, 645.32,
646.22, 647.22)
Comment: Many commenters
requested that the Department notify
grantees of their PE points earned each
project year within a certain amount of
time (e.g., 60 to 90 days) after the end
of the grant period. They also
recommended that the Department
provide relevant comments to grantees
that score less than the maximum 15 PE
points, to assist the grantees in
improving their projects in future years.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestions on how to
improve communication about project
performance between the Department
and grantees. The Department provides
applicants with standardized objectives
for the relevant TRIO program in the
application materials for each TRIO
competition. Applicants then must
specify their performance targets, and
grantees report on their progress in
achieving approved objectives in their
APR. At the conclusion of each
competition, grantees receive a
summary of the PE scoring by
standardized objective for each of the
three years assessed. Moreover, the APR
for each program is designed so that
grantees should be able to calculate
their own annual PE scores. However,
the Department will continue to perfect
its assessment of PE and find ways to
provide timely feedback to grantees on
their projects’ performance.
Changes: None.
PE Points for Financial and Economic
Literacy (§§ 642.22, 643.22, 644.22,
645.32, 646.22, 647.22)
Comment: The Department received
several comments recommending that
PE points be granted for experience
providing services to improve
participants’ financial and economic
literacy as well as financial aid
application support. Some commenters
offered this recommendation for only a
specific TRIO program. These
commenters argued that services related
to financial and economic literacy and
financial aid support are required by the
HEA, have been incorporated into
certain of the TRIO programs’ purposes,
and are pivotal to helping participants
prepare for college. Some commenters
also noted that it makes sense to provide
PE points for these services, because
project staff spend a substantial amount
of time engaged in these services.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Discussion: The Secretary
acknowledges that the HEA emphasizes
the importance of providing or
connecting participants to services
related to improving a participant’s
financial and economic literacy.
However, the HEA does not list this
activity as one of the outcome criteria to
be used for PE points. To remain
consistent with the statute, which
requires that the Secretary determine an
entity’s prior experience based on the
statutory outcome criteria, the Secretary
is not adding PE criteria not included in
section 402A(f) of the HEA.
Changes: None.
Timeline for Earning PE Points—
Postsecondary Completion
(§§ 643.22(d)(6) (TS), 645.32(e)(1)(vi)
and (e)(2)(v) (UB))
Comment: Several commenters sought
clarification on the timeframe in which
UB and TS grantees will be eligible to
earn the PE points associated with
meeting their approved objectives for
postsecondary degree completion,
particularly if the criterion is evaluated
after the second, third, and fourth
program years, given the length of time
it typically takes a student to complete
a postsecondary degree. Some
commenters requested an explanation of
whether participants under an entity’s
expired or expiring grant may be
counted toward meeting approved
objectives for this criterion. One
commenter recommended that grantees
earn PE points for this criterion based
on either postsecondary academic
progress (persistence) or completion.
Discussion: We understand the
commenters’ concern that applicants
may not be eligible for all the PE points
available for each competition, due to
the amount of time it takes to track
enrollment in and completion of
postsecondary education of the
participants served in the applicants’
expired or expiring grants. Under the
UB program, some applicants would be
eligible to earn PE points for
participants they served under earlier
grants who attain a postsecondary
degree within the number of years
specified in the approved objective.
Because the Department has been
collecting individual participant data
through the UB APRs for several years,
the Department will be able to match
participant data from prior years to
determine the extent to which UB
participants completed programs of
postsecondary education.
However, under the TS program, we
have not been collecting data on the
academic progress of TS participants
through postsecondary completion as
this is a new outcome criterion for this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
program. Therefore, the Department will
not be able to match participant data
from prior years to assess the extent to
which TS participants completed
programs of postsecondary education.
Going forward, the Department will
work with grantees to develop a new
APR for the TS program that will
capture the data needed to award PE
points for postsecondary completion.
The Department acknowledges that TS
projects will not be eligible for the PE
points for postsecondary completion for
several years.
Finally, we have not accepted the
commenter’s suggestion that we award
PE points under the postsecondary
completion criteria based on the extent
to which project participants were
either still persisting in or had
completed a program of postsecondary
education because the requirement of
the HEA is postsecondary completion,
not progress or completion.
Changes: None.
Years Considered in PE Assessment
(§§ 643.20(a)(2)(iii), 644.20(a)(2)(iii),
645.30(a)(2)(iii), 646.20(a)(2)(iii)
647.20(a)(2)(iv))
Comment: Multiple commenters
expressed concern regarding the
proposed regulation that would provide
that the Secretary will designate in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications and other published
application materials for a competition
which three years of the expiring five
year grant period will be considered in
the PE assessments for new awards.
Several commenters stated that the
regulations should specify which three
years will be used, while a few others
suggested clarifying that the middle
three years (i.e., years two through four)
of the grant cycle would be considered.
These commenters contended that
including this information in the
regulations would reduce confusion
among grantees as to the timeframe
evaluated for purposes of determining
PE points. One commenter
recommended using data for the four
years preceding the date of application
for the new competition. This
commenter noted that such an approach
would be consistent with the
Department’s current system in which
the average rates of achievement for the
preceding three years are used.
Similarly, other commenters had
concerns that the proposed use of three
years of project data will fail to take into
consideration two project years’ worth
of a project’s performance.
Discussion: The HEA now provides
that all TRIO grants will be awarded for
five years, but the Secretary has
determined that PE points should be
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65719
assessed for only three of the five year
project period. In making this
determination, the Secretary took
several factors into consideration. First,
the Department’s experience has
demonstrated that, for a number of
reasons, many first-time or new grantees
do not meet their approved objectives
for the first year of funding. Not using
the first year of the grant cycle for PE
points, therefore, will give new grantees
time to effectively implement the
project prior to having its performance
evaluated for purposes of assessing PE.
Second, evaluating performance from
the last year of a project period to
determine PE points for new awards
presents a number of challenges.
Applications for new grants are due
about a year prior to the end of the
current grant period and new awards are
announced several months prior to the
end of the grant period. Thus, it is not
possible to consider a project’s
performance in the fifth year of an
expiring grant prior to making funding
decisions for the new grant competition
because the APR data for the last year
of the expiring grant would not be
available for calculating PE points until
several months after the new grant
period begins.
For these reasons, we do not think it
is appropriate or possible to use the first
and fifth years of the expiring grant
cycle to assess PE points for new
competitions. Generally, we expect that
the published application materials will
designate the three middle years of the
expiring grant (i.e., project years two
through four). However, designating the
specific years to be considered in the
application materials, rather than in the
regulations, will give the Secretary
flexibility to address unique situations
on a competition-by-competition basis.
For example, there may be situations
when some grantees started their
expiring grant period a year or more
later than other grantees. In such a
situation, the applicant’s performance
during the first three years, instead of
the middle three years, of the expiring
grant would be used to award PE points.
The published application materials
would designate the project years that
would be used for PE (e.g., 2007–08,
2008–09, and 2009–10) for all
applicants in the competition.
Changes: None.
Use of Approved Versus Actual
Number of Participants Served
(§§ 645.32(d), 646.22(d), 647.22(d))
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerns about the proposal
that the Secretary will use the approved
number of participants, or the actual
number of participants served in a given
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65720
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
year if that number of participants is
greater than the approved number, as
the denominator in calculating whether
the applicant has met its approved
objectives under its expiring grant to
earn PE points for the new grant
application. A few commenters argued
that a grantee who does not serve the
approved number of participants is
penalized in two ways: First, by not
receiving PE points for the criterion
measuring whether the approved
number was served, and, second, by not
receiving any PE points at all if at least
90 percent of the approved number was
not served. These commenters stated
that using the approved number instead
of actual number as the denominator in
PE calculations is unnecessarily
punitive. Furthermore, one commenter
recommended that either the actual
number of participants should be used
as the denominator or the number of PE
points associated with serving the
approved number of participants should
be reduced. This commenter argued that
the number of points assigned to this
criterion, combined with the proposed
use of the approved number as the
denominator, makes the penalty for
projects that do not serve their approved
number too severe. The commenter
stated that this concern particularly
applies to small projects, for which the
commenter notes that one or two
students can affect an objective by two
or more percentage points.
Discussion: Grant award amounts and
performance targets are based largely on
the number of participants a project is
funded to serve each year of the grant
period. Therefore, we believe that, for
those PE criteria applicable to all
participants served in the project year,
the denominator should be the greater of
the approved number of participants to
be served or the actual number of
participants served. PE points are
rewards, and give projects a competitive
advantage in a subsequent grant
competition. Therefore, it is reasonable
to expect a grantee to meet the
performance targets it proposed and that
were approved through the grant
process to earn the maximum number of
PE points. Therefore, we do not accept
the commenters’ suggestion not to use
the approved number as the
denominator for calculating PE points
for some objectives or to reduce the PE
points a project can earn for serving its
approved number of participants.
Changes: None.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
PE Criterion Related to Number of
Participants (§§ 642.22(d) and (e)(1);
643.22(c) and (d)(1); 644.22(c) and
(d)(1); 645.32(c), (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2)(i));
646.22(c) and (e)(1); 647.22(c) and
(e)(1))
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that the phrase
‘‘approved number of participants’’ in
the proposed regulations means that a
grantee would not receive PE points if
the project served more than their
approved number of participants. These
commenters argued that it is difficult to
ensure that a project only serves the
exact number of participants that were
proposed, as projects often accept more
participants than they are funded to
serve to ensure that at least the
minimum number is met throughout the
year. Two commenters further noted
that the phrase ‘‘met or exceeded the
entity’s objectives’’ is used in several
areas of the HEOA, suggesting that the
spirit of the law is for projects to serve
at least the funded number. Several
commenters requested that the criterion
be revised to reflect that the Department
will examine whether the applicant
provided services to ‘‘at least the
approved number of participants’’ or to
‘‘no less than the approved number of
participants.’’
One commenter suggested that PE
points for serving the approved number
of participants should be commensurate
with the percentage of the approved
number that was served. Two
commenters suggested that the
regulatory provision that states that the
Secretary does not award PE points to
a grantee that does not serve at least 90
percent of the approved number of
participants conflicts with the separate
regulatory provision that states that the
Secretary does not award PE points for
the criterion measuring whether the
grantee served the approved number if
the approved number is not served.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that the use of the words ‘‘approved
number’’ in the ‘‘Number of participants’’
PE criterion regulations may be
confusing. We did not intend for this
provision to imply that a project could
not serve more than the approved
number of participants. Therefore, we
have accepted the commenters’
recommendations to revise the
regulatory language to make it clear that
a project can serve more than the
approved number of participants.
We note, however, that for a grantee
to receive PE points for this criterion,
the project must meet or exceed the
approved number that it has been
funded to serve; no partial credit will be
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
given for this criterion to a grantee that
served fewer than the approved number.
The commenters’ concern that the PE
criteria conflict with each other is based
on a misunderstanding. The two criteria
are complementary. First, to be eligible
to receive any PE points for a given year,
a grantee must have served at least 90
percent of the participants it was funded
to serve. For example, if a project was
funded to serve 100 participants but
only served 85 participants (85 percent
of the approved number), the grantee
would receive no PE points for that
project year because it did not serve at
least 90 percent of its funded number.
Second, if a grantee serves at least 90
percent of the number of participants it
was funded to serve but did not serve
100 percent of the approved number of
participants (e.g., project was funded to
serve 100 participants but only served
98 participants), the grantee would not
receive any points for the ‘‘Number of
participants’’ criterion. However, the
grantee would be eligible to earn up to
12 PE points based on whether or not
the project achieved its other PE
objectives.
Changes: We have amended
§§ 642.22(d); 643.22(c); 644.22(c);
645.32(c); 646.22(c); 647.22(c)) to clarify
that the Secretary does not award PE
points if the applicant did not serve at
least the approved number of
participants. In addition, we have
amended the Number of participants
criterion in §§ 642.22(e)(1), 643.22(d)(1),
644.22(d)(1), 645.32 (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(2)(i); 646.22(e)(1); and 647.22(e)(1) to
clarify that the award of PE points for
that criterion is based on whether the
applicant provided services to no less
than the approved number of
participants.
Review Process for Unsuccessful
Federal TRIO Program Applicants
Percentage of Funds Set Aside for
Secondary Review Competition
(§§ 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))
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification of some of the
procedures and processes proposed for
the second review of unsuccessful grant
applications. Several commenters
wanted to know the percentage of
competition funds that would be
reserved for the second review or how
the Department would determine the
percentage of funds set aside for grants
after the second review. Commenters
also expressed concern that some of the
funds reserved for awards after the
second review might not be awarded
and recommended that the regulations
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
be modified to allow for and explain the
equitable disbursement of unused
reserved funds.
Discussion: To implement the new
statutory requirement that unsuccessful
applicants may request a second review
of their applications under certain
conditions, the Department proposed
and, through these final regulations,
adopts a two-slate process. After the
peer review of applications and the
awarding of PE points, as applicable, the
Department will rank all the
applications. The Department then will
establish a funding band to determine
the percentage of the total funds allotted
for the competition that will be set aside
for the second review (for example, we
might set aside six percent of the total
funds allotted for the competition). The
determination of the percentage of funds
to be reserved for the second review and
the applications to be included in the
funding band will be based on the
distribution of application scores. For
example, we expect to include in the
funding band all applications that
scored within two or three points below
the initial cut-off score.
The funding band for each
competition will include all of the
applications with a rank-order score 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 funds that were set
aside for the second review (e.g. nine
percent of funds).
The first slate of new awards will be
made based on the rank-order of the
applications using the amount of funds
available for the competition minus the
amount of funds set aside for the second
review of unsuccessful applications
(e.g., six percent).
Only those unsuccessful applicants
whose applications scored within the
funding band will be eligible for the
second review. In addition, those
applicants eligible for the second review
will have to provide evidence
demonstrating that the Department, an
agent of the Department, or a peer
reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error (as defined in the
regulations) in the review of its
application.
If the Department determines that
there was an administrative error in the
review of an application (which
includes mathematical errors in the
calculation of PE points or assigning the
earned PE points or the peer reviewers’
scores to the wrong application) the
Department will correct the error and
adjust the score assigned to the
application as appropriate. If the
adjusted score assigned to the
application would place the application
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
above the cut-off score for funding
under the first slate, the application will
be funded (if funds are available) prior
to the re-ranking of applications based
on the second peer review of
unsuccessful applications.
If there is an error in how the peer
reviewers scored an application (see
§§ 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); and
647.24(b)(3) (McNair)), a second peer
review panel will review the
application. After all of the second
reviews are completed, a second rankorder slate of applications in the
funding band will be prepared. The
rankings in the second slate will be
based on the new reviewers’ score for
those applications that were read by a
second peer review panel; any applicant
in the funding band that did not request
or receive a second review will be
ranked based on its original score.
Applications in the funding band will
be funded based on the second rank
order slate until all the available funds
are committed.
The decision to use a funding band
and the specific parameters for the
funding band are based on the
Department’s experience. In the past,
adjustments for administrative and
scoring errors have resulted in a score
increase of no more than two or three
points; therefore, under these
regulations, the funding band will
include only those applications that
have a reasonable chance of being
funded if the second review of the
application resulted in an adjustment to
the score. By selecting those
applications with an original score that
is most likely to have a chance of being
funded after a second review, the
Department will be better able to
effectively manage the grant
competition and make timely funding
decisions.
The funding band approach to the
second review process ensures that
eligible applicants have a meaningful
opportunity to request a second review
while ensuring that the Department can
provide timely notice of grant awards.
It is important to note that not every
application selected for inclusion in the
funding band will be awarded a grant.
As discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, we will put aside an
appropriate amount of funds for grants
awarded after the second review, but
those funds will not be sufficient to
provide funding for all applicants in the
funding band. However, this process
will ensure that we obligate all of the
funds available for new grants and that
there is no lapse of funds.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65721
Number of Days To Prepare and Submit
a Written Request for a Second Review
(§§ 642.25(c)(5) and (6)(Training),
643.24(c)(5) and (c)(6)(TS), 644.24(c)(5)
and (c)(6) (EOC), 645.35(c)(5) and (c)(6)
(UB), 646.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) (SSS), and
647.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) (McNair))
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the proposed regulations by
increasing the 15 calendar days to
prepare a written request for a second
review to 30 to 45 calendar days. These
commenters stated that 15 days is not
enough time for unsuccessful applicants
to receive and review the reader’s
evaluations and prepare an appropriate
request for a secondary review to the
Department. Five commenters expressed
concern that the amount of time it takes
to deliver and receive mail, especially
for applicants in the Pacific, would
reduce the amount of time applicants
would have to respond and request a
secondary review. Other commenters
gave examples of circumstances that
could interfere with an applicant’s
ability to respond within the proposed
15 day period, such as the need to get
appropriate signatures, delays resulting
from the institution being closed for
vacations or furloughed days, or delays
in getting the peer reviewers’ comments
and the assessments of PE points.
Another commenter suggested that the
Department provide a grantee with its
PE score annually to provide more time
in which to do the research needed to
appeal the assigned PE score. One
commenter also noted that the
regulations seemed contradictory in
providing that the applicant will have
15 calendar days to submit a written
request but then also stating that the
written request for a second review
must be received by the Department by
the due date and time established by the
Secretary.
Discussion: We understand the time
constraints institutions may face in
submitting their request for a second
review and supporting information in a
timely manner. However, the statutory
requirement for a second review process
adds several new steps to the
competition schedule. Consequently, we
must compress many stages of the
competition to incorporate these new
procedures into the competition
schedule so that we meet our legal
obligation to commit all appropriated
funds by the end of the fiscal year.
The Department will establish
internal procedures to ensure that
applicants in the funding band receive
at least 15 days after receiving
notification that their applications were
not funded in which to submit a written
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65722
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
request for a second review. At the time
of notification, these applicants will
receive copies of the peer reviewers’
written evaluations and, if applicable, a
report detailing how the PE score was
calculated. We will use multiple
notification methods (e.g., electronic
mail, overnight mail) to ensure
applicants will have at least 15 days
from receipt of the notification in which
to respond. Applicants will also be
permitted to submit their responses
electronically. Further, our Web site
will provide applicants with updated
information as to when funding
decisions might be announced and the
proposed schedule for the second
review so applicants can ensure that
staff are available to prepare a request
for a second review, if appropriate.
In establishing a due date and time for
receipt of the applicant’s written request
for a second review, the Department
will give applicants at least 15 days in
which to respond.
Changes: We have amended
§§ 642.25(c)(5), 643.24(c)(5),
644.24(c)(5), 645.35(c)(5), 646.24(c)(5),
and 647.24(c)(5) to clarify that
unsuccessful applicants who are within
the funding band will have at least 15
calendar days in which to submit a
written request for a second review.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Technical or Administrative Errors
(§§ 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))
Comment: Three commenters
suggested that if a technical or
administrative error by the Department
or a peer reviewer results in an
application not being reviewed, the
applicant should automatically receive a
grant even if program funds are not
available.
Discussion: We cannot accept the
suggestion made by the commenters. If
correcting a technical or administrative
error results in the application receiving
a score above the cut-off score for
funding under the first slate, the
application would be funded prior to
the re-ranking of applications based on
the second peer review of unsuccessful
applications. Therefore, we do not
anticipate a situation in which funds
would not be available to fund these
applications. However, we do not have
the legal authority to commit funds that
we do not have and the regulations must
include the statement ‘‘provided funds
are available’’.
Changes: None.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Criteria for Scoring Errors on
Applications That Were Reviewed
(§§ 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), and
647.24(b)(3) (McNair))
Comment: One commenter argued
that the criteria proposed in the
regulations for demonstrating scoring
errors in the evaluation of the
application are too narrow and should
include other criteria that take into
account possibilities such as human
error on the part of the reader. Another
commenter asserted that the reader’s
professional judgment should be
considered as a type of scoring error in
determining whether or not an
application is eligible for a secondary
review. This commenter expressed the
opinion that readers do not have the
appropriate knowledge to adequately
judge whether or not an applicant can
meet the objectives set forth in the
application. Another commenter was
concerned about readers who may
misread or misinterpret information
provided in the application.
Discussion: We do not agree with
these comments. We believe that the
regulations appropriately define the
type of error that should be considered
a technical, administrative or scoring
error and would warrant a second
review of an application. We disagree
with the suggestion that the professional
judgment of the peer reviewers should
be subject to review as a scoring error.
The HEA requires that each application
be reviewed by a panel of non-Federal
peer reviewers. These experts have
programmatic knowledge and
experience in serving low-income, firstgeneration students and in
administering student assistance
programs. As required by Congress, we
rely on their expertise to make
judgments about the quality of the
applications under review. The readers
appropriately exercise their judgment in
providing scores on the applications
and a low score is not evidence of an
error by the reviewer. We also do not
agree that the reader’s interpretation of
an application should be a basis for
review. It is the applicant’s
responsibility to make sure the
information provided in the application
is clear and understandable.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Timely Notification of Applications
Determined To Be Ineligible Because of
a Technical or Administrative Error
(§§ 642.25(a) (Training), 643.24(a) (TS),
644.24(a) (EOC), 645.35(a) (UB),
646.24(a) (SSS), and 647.24(a)
(McNair))
Comment: One commenter asserted
that the regulations should require the
Secretary to provide timely notification
to an applicant whose application was
not reviewed because it was determined
to be ineligible, so that the applicant
would have sufficient time to appeal the
decision prior to the conduct of the peer
review process.
Discussion: To the extent feasible, the
Department notifies applicants who
were determined to be ineligible in
writing prior to the start of the peer
review of applications or as soon as
possible thereafter. Under these
regulations, if it is determined that the
Department or the Department’s agent
made a technical or administrative
error, as defined in the regulations, in
making that determination the
application will be evaluated and
scored. If the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in the
funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds
available, the application will be funded
prior to the re-ranking and funding of
applications after the second review.
Changes: None.
Final Decision (§§ 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))
Comment: Two commenters
expressed concern that scoring errors
also could occur during the secondary
review process. For this reason, the
commenters suggested that applicants
be allowed to appeal the decision of the
secondary review process.
Discussion: The Secretary disagrees
with the suggestion that an applicant
should be permitted to appeal the
decision of the secondary review
process. The second review provides a
formal process for addressing scoring
errors made during the first review that
might impact the funding of an
application. Appealing the decision of
the second review is beyond the
requirements of the statute and would
interfere with the timely awarding of
grants under the competition.
Changes: None.
Eliminate the Second Review (§§ 642.25
(Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24 (EOC),
645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24
(McNair))
Comment: One commenter requested
that we remove from the regulations the
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
entire section on the review process for
unsuccessful applicants because it
would increase the Department’s
administrative burden and would
increase administrative costs, resulting
in fewer projects being funded and
fewer students being served.
Discussion: The HEA requires the
creation of the second review process
for unsuccessful applications. The
Department does not have the authority
to eliminate this statutorily required
process.
Changes: None.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Training Program for Federal TRIO
Programs (34 CFR part 642) What is the
Training Program for Federal TRIO
Programs? (§ 642.1)
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that it is difficult for Training
Program grantees to meet the minimum
requirements for the number of TRIO
professionals that they must train. The
commenter suggested making awards in
a way that allows grantees to structure
training sessions to be more focused,
such as training for specific programs
(e.g., for only Upward Bound staff or
Talent Search staff), only new directors
or staff, or only seasoned staff, to reduce
the competition among grantees for the
same audiences. In addition, the
commenter urged the Department to
ensure that TRIO professionals are able
to take advantage of training
opportunities by requiring directors to
send staff to the trainings.
Discussion: Section 402G(b) of the
HEA requires Training Program grantees
to offer training annually for new
directors of TRIO projects as well as
annual training on topics specified in
the statute and other topics chosen by
the Secretary. If grantees are offering
training to the same audiences and are
unable to attract appropriate numbers of
participants, rather than changing the
requirements on the number of project
staff a Training grant must serve, the
Secretary may consider reducing the
number of grants available under this
program while still ensuring that
training is available throughout the
Nation. Although the Secretary hopes
that TRIO professionals will be able to
take advantage of these training
opportunities, the Secretary does not
want to require their participation. It is
the responsibility of each TRIO director
to determine which staff could benefit
from the offered training and how much
of the project budget should be used for
this purpose and to make decisions
about staff participation in trainings
under the TRIO Training program
accordingly.
Changes: None.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
What activities does the Secretary
assist? (§ 642.11)
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department remove the
requirement that Training Program
projects offer training covering strategies
for recruiting and serving hard-to-reach
populations, as reflected in
§ 642.11(b)(5). The commenter
maintained that it does not make sense
to include this requirement because
some of the TRIO programs, such as
McNair and Upward Bound MathScience (UBMS), are not required to
serve these populations. The commenter
suggested that the Department make this
a permissible training topic that could
be combined with other topics.
Discussion: In section 402G(b)(5) of
the HEA, as amended by section 403(g)
of the HEOA, Congress added training
on strategies for recruiting and serving
hard to reach populations to the list of
required training that must be offered
annually. Therefore, we do not have the
authority to remove this requirement or
to make it a permissive topic. The
Federal Register notice inviting
applications will provide applicants
with additional guidance regarding the
types of TRIO staff that should be
offered training on this topic.
Changes: None.
How does the Secretary evaluate an
application for a new award? (§ 642.20)
Comment: One commenter suggested
that, in making awards under the
Training Program, the Department
should take into consideration the
diversity of training topics and the
opportunities for TRIO professionals to
attend training. The commenter also
suggested that the Secretary make only
one award for each major training topic
to ensure that comprehensive training is
available for TRIO staff.
Discussion: For each competition for
grants under the Training Program, the
notice inviting applications will identify
the training priorities (from the list of
priorities in § 642.24) for the
competition and the expected number of
Training projects to be funded under
each priority. Under section 402G(b) of
the HEA, training must be offered each
year for new project directors and for
each of the topics listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(5) of that section and
in § 642.11. The required topics provide
the appropriate diversity and
opportunities for training.
Changes: None.
What are the Secretary’s priorities for
funding? (§§ 642.7 and 642.24)
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further
departmental review of § 642.7 and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65723
newly redesignated § 642.24, we have
determined that the provisions should
be clearer with regard to the
implementation of the Secretary’s
authority to select and designate
training priorities. Proposed § 642.7
stated that an applicant may submit
more than one application for Training
grants as long as each application
described a project that addresses a
different absolute priority designated in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications. The absolute priorities are
from the list of training priorities in
newly redesignated § 642.24. We have
made a change to § 642.24 to make this
clearer. In addition, while § 642.7 states
that the Secretary designates the
absolute priorities in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications,
newly redesignated § 642.24, as
proposed, did not include
corresponding language. For the sake of
clarity, therefore, we have added
language to § 642.24 that states that the
Secretary designates one or more of the
priorities in § 642.24 in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications for
the competition.
Changes: We have added language to
§ 642.7 to clarify that the absolute
priorities designated in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications are
from the list of training priorities in
§ 642.24. We also have added paragraph
(c) to newly redesignated § 642.24 to
clarify that, for each competition, the
Secretary designates one or more
training priorities in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications.
Comment: Multiple commenters
advocated expanding the Secretary’s list
of priorities for the Training Program to
include additional priorities, such as the
provision of counseling services
designed to improve financial and
economic literacy. The commenters
argued that additional priorities should
be included as priorities in § 642.24 to
reflect the emphasis on these activities
in the HEA.
Discussion: Section 642.11(b) reflects
the list of training topics required by
section 402G(b) of the HEA. Section
642.24 reflects the Secretary’s statutory
authority to designate—in a notice
inviting applications for a
competition—one or more subjects as
training priorities for grantees. In
exercising the authority provided in
§ 642.24, the Secretary may consider the
priorities suggested by the commenters
for future competitions.
Changes: None.
Talent Search (TS) Program (34 CFR
Part 643)
The Secretary has changed the current
TS Program regulations to implement
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65724
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the changes made to the program by
sections 403(a) and (b) of the HEOA.
The HEOA made changes to the goals
and purposes of the TS program through
the addition of statutory outcome
criteria and required activities. These
HEOA changes require TS grantees to
provide more intensive academic
interventions than they have in the past.
As we discuss subsequently under the
applicable sections of the regulations,
the Department received many
comments and questions about the new
TS program requirements, particularly
with regard to the requirements relating
to a rigorous secondary school program
of study. Numerous commenters
expressed concerns that funding levels
would be insufficient to provide the
required services and activities to the
number of students currently being
served and recommended that, if
additional funding were not available
for TS, grantees should be permitted to
reduce the number of students to be
served. Some commenters suggested
that the proposed regulations would
require grantees to implement a twotiered program of service delivery—the
first tier would support participants
completing a rigorous curriculum and
the second tier would provide college
preparatory education for those
participants not taking a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
The Department also received
comments requesting additional
guidance regarding the Department’s
expectations for the cost-effective
delivery of services for students in a
rigorous program of study.
As discussed in the NPRM, in light of
the changes made to the HEA, the
Department has removed from the
regulations the requirement that a TS
grantee must serve a specific minimum
number of participants. Instead, the
Secretary will identify the minimum
number of participants a TS grantee
must serve each year of a grant cycle in
the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the grant competition.
This approach will give the Department
the flexibility to establish the minimum
number of participants to be served
based on the available resources and
other priorities for each competition,
and to adjust these numbers for
subsequent competitions based on
experience, changing priorities, and cost
analyses.
Further, the Department
acknowledges that some of the proposed
regulations with regard to the rigorous
program of study would impose a
significant burden on grantees and
could not be fully implemented without
substantial increases in program
funding or large reductions in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
number of participants served.
Therefore, as discussed in more detail in
the following sections, we have revised
many of the proposed regulations
related to the rigorous program of study.
For example, instead of requiring TS
grantees to provide many of the services
a participant may need to complete a
rigorous program of study, the
Department is encouraging all TS
projects to work in a coordinated,
collaborative, and cost-effective manner
with the target schools or school system
and other programs for disadvantaged
students to provide TS participants with
access to and assistance in completing
a rigorous secondary school program of
study.
The Department also plans to provide
additional guidance to applicants on
how to respond to the new program
requirements and outcome criteria in
the published application materials. In
addition, the Department will conduct
10 pre-application workshops to assist
persons interested in applying for TS
grants and will post a list of frequently
asked questions on the TRIO Programs
Web site at: https://www.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ope/trio/.
What is the Talent Search program?
(§ 643.1)
Comment: Several commenters
expressed dissatisfaction with the
language that the Secretary proposed to
add to this section. The commenters
expressed concern that it appeared that
the TS program is no longer focused on
its historically targeted audiences of
middle and high school students
because TS projects are now expected to
also ‘‘encourage’’ persons who have not
completed postsecondary education to
‘‘complete such programs.’’ The
commenters argued that working with
persons to complete a program of
postsecondary education is beyond the
scope of the TS program.
Discussion: We do not have the
discretion to make the changes
suggested by the commenters because
the regulatory language at issue is
required by section 402B(a)(3) of the
HEA.
Changes: None.
Who is eligible for a grant? (§ 643.2)
Comment: Many commenters
questioned the practicality or need to
include secondary schools and
community-based organizations as
eligible grantees for the TS program and
suggested that the regulations be
modified to exclude these entities from
being eligible applicants.
Discussion: We cannot make the
changes required by the commenters.
Congress amended section 402A(b)(1) of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the HEA to eliminate the limitation on
the eligibility of secondary schools and
to include community-based
organizations in the definition of public
and private agencies that are eligible for
the TS program.
Changes: None.
Who is eligible to participate in a
project? (§ 643.3)
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the regulations retain
the requirement, reflected in current
§ 643.3(a)(3)(ii) that a participant have
the ability to complete a program of
postsecondary education. Some
commenters requested that the
participant eligibility requirements
concerning individuals receiving
support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study be
removed from § 643.3(b). A majority of
the comments on § 643.3 concerned the
requirement that an individual is
eligible to receive support to complete
a rigorous secondary school program of
study only if the individual is accepted
into the TS program by the end of the
first term of the tenth grade. Some of
these commenters recommended that
this provision be changed to allow
individuals who are accepted into the
TS program by the end of the 10th grade
academic year. Another one of these
commenters suggested that identifying
students for a rigorous secondary school
program of study in the 9th grade
presents a challenge due to the mobility
and attrition issues that TS projects
encounter, which make it difficult to
identify a cohort of students to follow
for four years. This commenter noted
that projects in rural States, in
particular, have these challenges
because the number of schools in which
services can be provided would be
small. The commenter suggested that we
amend the regulations to identify an
overall percentage of the total number of
high school students served by a project
who will complete a rigorous secondary
school program of study by the end of
their senior year. Other commenters also
stated that this provision was too
restrictive and recommended that TS
projects be given more flexibility to
recruit, select, and provide additional
services for students among all grade
levels. Some commenters argued that
using TS funds for a rigorous secondary
school program of study is a misplaced
priority and that funds would be better
utilized providing services aimed at the
6th through 8th grade population.
Discussion: We have not accepted the
commenters’ recommendation with
regard to retaining § 643.3(a)(3)(ii)
because we amended this provision to
comply with the changes made by
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
section 403(b)(1)(B) of the HEOA to
section 402B(a)(3) of the HEA.
However, in response to other
comments, we have decided not to
include in these final regulations the
participant eligibility requirements for
the rigorous secondary school program
of study that were reflected in proposed
§ 643.3(b). We have been convinced by
the commenters that this provision
would have imposed a significant
burden on grantees by adding additional
participant eligibility criteria for those
participants needing assistance in
completing a rigorous secondary school
program of study. Also, after
considering the comments, we have
decided that TS projects should
encourage all participants, not just those
in high school, to undertake a rigorous
secondary school program of study and
should coordinate and collaborate with
the target schools or school system and
other programs for disadvantaged
students to provide all TS participants
with access to and assistance in
completing a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
In response to the comment that using
TS funds for a rigorous secondary
school program of study is a misplaced
priority and that funds would be better
utilized providing services aimed at the
6th through 8th grade population, we
note that section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the
HEA now requires TS grantees to assist
participants in completing a rigorous
program of study; therefore, we require
this assistance in the regulations.
However, these final regulations reflect
changes we have made to the proposed
regulations that should help reduce the
costs to the TS project of providing
these services. Encouraging participants
to pursue a rigorous program of study
should be part of the services a TS
project provides to participants in the
6th through 8th grades.
Changes: We have amended the
regulations by removing proposed
§ 643.3(b). As a result, current
§ 643.3(b), which would have been
redesignated as § 643.3(c), remains
unchanged as § 643.3(b) in these final
regulations.
What services does a project provide?
(§ 643.4)
Comment: The majority of individuals
who commented on § 643.4 suggested
that the required services listed in
§ 643.4(a) were too burdensome, time
intensive, cost prohibitive, or
impractical for TS grantees and should
be eliminated. One commenter
suggested that these services should be
allowable but not required. One
commenter requested that we revise
section § 643.4(b) to clarify that grantees
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
may provide additional activities that
are not included in the list of
permissible services from the TRIO
statute provided that these activities
meet the goals of the TS program.
Discussion: Section 643.4(a) includes
the list of ‘‘Required Services’’ for a TS
project, as mandated by section 402B(b)
of the HEA. We do not have the
discretion to eliminate these required
services or to make them permissible.
However, a grantee may provide the
required services itself or through
linkages with other organizations.
Moreover, while a grantee must make all
of the required services listed in
§ 643.4(a) available to its participants,
not all TS participants may need all of
the services or may choose not to take
advantage of them. We did not intend
for the regulations to prohibit grantees
from offering additional services to meet
the goals of the program; grantees may
offer additional services not explicitly
mentioned as required or permissible.
Therefore, we have revised § 643.4(b) to
reflect that intent more clearly.
Changes: We have revised § 643.4(b)
by adding paragraph (b)(8), which
clarifies that a TS project may provide
services other than those specified in
§ 643.4(b)(1) through (b)(7) that are
designed to meet the purposes of the TS
program.
What definitions apply? (§ 643.7)
Regular Secondary School Diploma
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that the definition for the
term regular secondary school diploma
be removed from the TS regulations
because the assumption would
otherwise be that any secondary school
diploma would be a regular diploma.
Many commenters asked what criteria
the Secretary will use to determine
whether a diploma constitutes a regular
secondary school diploma under this
definition. Other commenters suggested
that we revise § 643.7 to define the term
regular secondary school diploma with
more specificity. Several commenters
indicated that beginning in 2014 a
‘‘regular’’ diploma within their State will
be the same as a diploma for completing
the State’s rigorous secondary school
program of study.
In addition, several commenters
requested that the definition for the
term regular secondary school diploma
be revised to include a timeline for the
‘‘standard number of years’’ in which
participants would complete secondary
school. A number of the commenters
suggested that there was some confusion
as to whether the phrase ‘‘standard
number of years,’’ as used in
§§ 643.21(a)(3) (selection criteria) and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65725
643.22(d)(3) (criteria for calculating PE
points) would be considered to end at
the conclusion of the academic year or
at the conclusion of a summer session.
The commenters indicated that this
difference would be significant due to
the fact that some States require exit
examinations. In these States, if a
student does not graduate at the end of
the academic year, he or she still has the
opportunity to pass the examination
during the summer. These commenters
argued, therefore, that if the meaning of
the phrase ‘‘standard number of years’’
includes the summer period, a project
would be able to include as graduates
those students who pass the
examination in the summer. The
commenters asked the Department to
revise the definition of regular
secondary school diploma to clarify
whether to meet this definition a
diploma must be obtained within the
academic year.
Discussion: Because we recognize that
State policies concerning the
requirement for a regular secondary
school diploma may differ, we proposed
a regulatory definition for this term that
is broad enough to encompass varying
requirements for a regular secondary
school diploma. We do not agree with
the commenters’ suggestion that this
definition be removed; we believe that
the definition clarifies for grantees that
their respective State standards should
be used to determine whether a
participant has attained a regular
secondary school diploma.
With regard to the comments
concerning the meaning of the phrase
‘‘standard number of years,’’ we
acknowledge that there are a variety of
State policies concerning graduation
requirements, including exit
examinations. We also appreciate that
some States may not define what
timeframe constitutes a ‘‘standard
number of years’’ for high school
graduation with a regular secondary
school diploma; and, therefore, we
should establish a consistent point of
measurement for determining a
grantee’s performance under the
outcome criterion for high school
graduation with a regular secondary
school diploma. The National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) generally
measures ‘‘on time’’ high school
graduation (i.e., graduating within the
standard number of years) as receiving
a regular diploma within four years of
entering ninth grade, which is
consistent with the general approach to
measurement and with high school
graduation rates determined under the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65726
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
The Department interprets the
standard number of years for high
school graduation with a regular
secondary school diploma generally to
be one grade per year from the
beginning of high school, which is
usually ninth grade. Further, consistent
with the ESEA regulations, in 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(iii), a student who passes
the exit examinations for a regular high
school diploma during the summer after
the senior year would be considered to
have graduated within the standard
number of years. Finally, a student who
graduates prior to the conclusion of a
student’s fourth (or final) year of high
school would also be considered to have
graduated within the standard number
of years.
Changes: None.
Definition of Rigorous Secondary School
Program of Study
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that a dual enrollment
program should be considered as
meeting the TS definition of a rigorous
secondary school program of study. The
commenters also recommended that this
definition be revised to include as a
rigorous secondary school program of
study a secondary school program in
which a student completed at least two
dual enrollment courses for which the
student received a grade of ‘‘B¥’’ or
better and college credit. Another
commenter suggested adding to the type
of rigorous secondary school program of
study described in paragraph (3)(iii) of
the definition the requirement that
students must successfully complete, at
minimum, courses in Anatomy/
Physiology, Physical Science, and
Environmental Science. Another
commenter asked whether the language
in paragraph (3) of the definition that
provides that a rigorous secondary
school program of study include one
year of a language other than English
would be satisfied by computer science
coursework.
Several commenters asked whether
the types of programs described in
paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition
of rigorous secondary school program of
study are redundant. The commenters
stated that the State Scholars Initiative
of the Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education (WICHE) requires
the same coursework as that listed in
the type of program described in
paragraph (3) of the definition.
Therefore, under the WICHE
standards, any student who completes a
rigorous secondary school program of
study under paragraph (4) of the
definition would also have completed a
rigorous secondary school program of
study that satisfies paragraph (3) of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
definition. Several commenters
suggested that the definition of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study be amended to provide a common
single definition instead of including
several types of programs that meet this
definition, so grant applications can be
judged and scored using a common
definition. Other commenters indicated
that they believed that the presentation
of the six types of programs that would
meet the definition of a rigorous
secondary school program of study
suggests that an individual program of
study would have to meet all six options
to meet the definition. They suggested
that the definition be clarified by
including the word ‘‘or’’ after each of the
first five paragraphs. Another
commenter suggested that the
Department add the words ‘‘one of the
following’’ to the definition to clarify
that any one of the listed options meets
the definition of rigorous secondary
school program of study.
Discussion: The Secretary disagrees
with the commenters who suggested
that completion of either a dual
enrollment program or a secondary
school program that includes two dual
enrollment courses with a grade of B¥
or better should qualify as a rigorous
secondary school program of study. We
do not believe all dual enrollment
programs or courses are rigorous enough
to support either of these approaches. Of
course, a dual enrollment program or
secondary school program that includes
dual enrollment courses that otherwise
meets one of the criteria in the
definition in the regulations would
qualify as a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
The Secretary also does not agree with
the suggestion to add additional
required coursework to the definition or
with the suggestion to provide a single
definition of a rigorous program of
study. These suggestions would make
the definition overly restrictive and
might limit the States’ authority to
establish curricular standards.
A project, if using the criteria for a
rigorous secondary school program of
study in paragraph (3), cannot substitute
a computer science course for one year
of a language other than English.
However, the specific course
requirements for a rigorous secondary
school program of study in paragraphs
(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) may differ from
those in paragraph (3).
Further, we believe that the criteria
provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) in the
definition of a rigorous secondary
school program of study are sufficiently
different in content and should not be
combined into a single criterion. While
some programs may meet both
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paragraphs (3) and (4), this will not
always be the case. We note, for
example, that the WICHE course
requirements are more specific than
those described in paragraph (3) of the
definition. Under paragraph (3) of the
definition, a program of study must
include three years of science, including
one year each of at least two of the
following courses: Biology, chemistry,
and physics; in contrast, under WICHE
requirements, a program of study must
require that students complete courses
in all three of these subjects. A program
of study that meets paragraph (4) of the
definition, therefore, will also meet the
criteria under paragraph (3) of the
definition, but the reverse is not true.
Finally, we do not believe it is necessary
to add the word ‘‘or’’ after each criterion
in this definition. The definition
provides that a program meeting any
one of paragraphs (1) through (6) would
satisfy the definition of rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters noted
that the term ‘‘rigorous secondary school
diploma’’ was not defined in the TS
regulations.
Discussion: We inadvertently referred
to ‘‘rigorous secondary school diploma’’
in the amendatory language when we
meant ‘‘rigorous secondary school
program of study,’’ and have corrected
this typographical error.
Change: We have corrected the
typographical error in the amendatory
language describing the changes to
§ 643.7(b).
What assurances must an applicant
submit? (§ 643.11(a))
Comment: Some commenters objected
to the proposed change, reflected in
proposed § 643.11(a), that would have
required a project to provide an
assurance that at least two-thirds of the
subset of participants receiving support
to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study must be low-income
individuals who are potential firstgeneration college students. The
commenters argued that the requirement
was an unnecessary burden and would
be costly for TS projects, which serve
large numbers of participants, because it
would require the project to monitor the
eligibility and services provided to this
subset of participants separately.
Discussion: After reviewing the
information provided by the
commenters, the Secretary agrees that
tracking the eligibility of participants in
a rigorous secondary school program of
study separately from other TS
participants may be overly burdensome
and costly to grantees so we have
decided not to adopt the revisions we
proposed for § 643.11(a).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Changes: In these final regulations,
§ 643.11(a) will not include the
proposed addition of the words ‘‘, and
at least two-thirds of the participants
selected to receive support for a rigorous
secondary school program of study.’’
Instead, § 643.11(a) will remain
substantively unchanged from current
§ 643.10(a).
Coordination Among Outreach
Programs Serving Similar Populations
(§ 643.11(b))
Comment: The Department received
many comments regarding the language
in proposed § 643.11(b), which would
have required applicants to provide an
assurance that individuals receiving
project services will not receive the
same services from another TRIO
project, a GEAR UP project, or other
programs serving similar populations.
Several commenters argued that this
provision goes beyond the statutory
language and will restrict collaboration
among programs. The commenters
stated that collaboration is essential in
the current economic climate.
Several commenters also expressed
concerns about how this provision
would be implemented. The
commenters stated that participants may
receive the same service from two
programs, but at different times of the
year or on different days of the week.
Some commenters expressed concerns
that the provision could negatively
affect individuals who already
participate in more than one program
and who may have to stop receiving
certain services. Many commenters
argued that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, for projects to track and
record all of the services that
participants may receive from other
programs. Some commenters noted that,
as proposed, § 643.11(b) could prevent
participants from receiving specialized
services, and that often services that
appear duplicative can actually serve to
reinforce important concepts. One
commenter suggested that this provision
could create competition among
programs. A few commenters also
suggested that this provision could
impede a project’s ability to comply
with other sections of the HEA, such as
exposing participants to institutions of
higher education, cultural events, or
academic programs.
In light of these concerns, many
commenters recommended that the
Department delete § 643.11(b) in its
entirety. Others recommended striking
the words ‘‘a GEAR UP project under 34
CFR part 694’’ and ‘‘or other programs
serving similar populations.’’ Some
commenters noted that projects should
consult with other programs to ensure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
minimal overlap of services and
suggested that the language in this
section be revised to permit a
participant to enroll in one or more
programs as long as the programs
document which program will provide
which services.
Discussion: We intended § 643.11(b)
to help ensure that the limited funds
available under the TRIO, GEAR UP,
and other programs for disadvantaged
students are used effectively and
efficiently by minimizing the
duplication of services. Because many
of the same services are provided by TS,
UB, GEAR UP, and other pre-college
preparation programs, coordination of
activities is essential to ensure that
these programs reach as many students
as possible.
Grantees are encouraged to share
ideas and coordinate services and
activities with other Federal and nonFederal programs serving similar
populations, as long as each project
maintains fiscal practices that ensure
that funds are not comingled and that
services provided are appropriately
documented. For example, a TS project
and a UB project may jointly conduct a
field trip to a college campus for
participants from both projects while
assigning costs to each project based on
the number of its participants and staff
who attended.
To ensure effective coordination of
services, we recommend that a project,
when selecting target schools, determine
if there is another TRIO, GEAR UP, or
similar program at the school; and, if
additional services are needed at the
school, the project should develop
collaboration plans to avoid duplication
of services and competition among
projects for participants. In selecting
project participants, a project should
also ask the student whether he or she
is involved in similar college readiness
programs so services can be
coordinated.
Based on the comments, the Secretary
has determined that proposed
§ 643.11(b) may be difficult to
implement. Accordingly, we have
revised the regulatory provision to
address implementation problems like
those raised by the commenters.
Changes: We have amended
§ 643.11(b) to require applicants to
submit assurances that the project will
collaborate with other Federal TRIO
projects, GEAR UP projects, or programs
serving similar populations that are
serving the same target schools or target
area to minimize the duplication of
services and promote collaborations so
that more students can be served.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65727
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Need for the project.
(§ 643.21(a))
Comment: We received a number of
comments on the requirement that, for
certain criteria in § 643.21(a), the
applicant provide data for ‘‘the most
recent year for which data is available.’’
These commenters suggested that the
Department revise § 643.21 to require
applicants to submit data for multiple
years or to reinstate the current
regulatory language requiring the
applicant to provide the required data
for the preceding three years to
substantiate the basis of need.
Discussion: To reduce the burden on
TS applicants, these final regulations
only require a grantee to provide data on
high school persistence (see
§ 643.21(a)(2)), graduation (see
§ 643.21(a)(3)), and postsecondary
enrollment (see § 643.21(a)(4)) for the
most recent year for which data are
available. Based on our experience,
these data remain fairly consistent over
a three year period; therefore, we
believe the most recent year’s data
should be sufficient for the peer
reviewers to assess the extent of the
need for the project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that § 643.21(a)(1) should focus on
students ‘‘enrolled in’’ or ‘‘participating
in’’ the free or reduced price lunch
program, as described in sections 9(b)(1)
and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, rather than
students ‘‘eligible for’’ this program. This
commenter also noted that applicants
from areas such as the Republic of the
Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, and other outlying areas
would not be able to respond to the
criterion regarding eligibility for free or
reduced price lunch.
Discussion: We used the words
‘‘eligible for’’ free or reduced priced
lunch because reporting only on those
‘‘enrolled or participating’’ in this
program may undercount the number of
low-income students in the target
schools because many secondary school
students choose not to participate in the
free or reduced priced lunch program.
In responding to the selection criterion
in § 643.21(a)(1), applicants may choose
to report either the number or
percentage of low-income families
residing in the target area (see paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section) or the number or
percentage of students attending the
target schools who are eligible for free
or reduced priced lunch (see paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section). Therefore,
applicants from areas that do not have
the free and reduced priced lunch
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65728
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
program may satisfy this criterion by
providing data on the number or
percentage of low-income families
residing in the target area.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the TS program is critical to increasing
high school persistence and
postsecondary enrollment rates in target
schools but argued that the criteria for
determining the need for the project in
§ 643.21(a) worked against this goal. The
commenter argued that these criteria
penalize TS projects that are successful
in helping the target schools increase
their high school persistence and
postsecondary enrollment rates when
these projects apply for a new grant to
continue to serve these schools. The
commenter expressed concern that as
the performance of these target schools
improves, the need for the TS project, as
defined in these criteria, diminishes.
The commenter acknowledged the
Department’s need to establish the
postsecondary enrollment and high
school persistence rates for the purposes
of benchmarking objectives, but
recommended that: (1) The Need criteria
for low postsecondary enrollment and
high school persistence rates be
removed from the Need section; and (2)
that the points assigned for low high
school persistence and postsecondary
enrollment rates be redistributed among
the other Need criteria.
Another commenter requested
guidance on how applicants in States
where attrition rates are not reported
should respond to the high school
persistence criterion in § 643.21(a)(2).
Other commenters stated that data on
graduation rates are not collected by
their school districts and, therefore, are
not available at the target schools,
which would penalize applicants from
those areas.
Several commenters suggested that
the high school persistence and high
school graduation criteria disadvantage
projects serving rural schools that do
not have high dropout rates and do not
have low high school graduation rates
but have low postsecondary enrollment
rates and little access or low
participation in courses needed to
complete rigorous secondary school
programs of study.
One commenter expressed concern
about the criterion on low rates of
students in the target schools who
graduated high school with a regular
secondary school diploma reflected in
§ 643.21(a)(3). The commenter believes
TS applicants would be discouraged
from selecting target schools that had
high rates of students who graduated
with a regular secondary school
diploma as these schools would not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
demonstrate high need. Another
commenter noted that in the
commenter’s State, the minimum
graduation requirements almost
guarantee a rigorous secondary school
program of study for all graduates. This
commenter expressed concern that TS
applicants in areas that have these
rigorous graduation requirements would
be allowed fewer points for project need
under § 643.21(a)(5) and that this result
would be unfair to the students in those
areas or States that have been proactive
by setting high standards for high school
graduation. Another commenter
questioned the use of the term ‘‘regular’’
diploma noting that, beginning in 2014,
a ‘‘regular’’ diploma in the commenter’s
State would be the same as a diploma
for completing the State’s rigorous
curriculum. Those students not taking a
rigorous secondary school program
would receive a ‘‘modified’’ diploma.
The commenter stated that by using the
term ‘‘regular’’ in the regulations, all TS
students in the State would have to
meet the rigorous curriculum standards.
Discussion: The proposed criteria for
evaluating the need for a TS project
reflect the changes made by sections
403(a)(5) and 403(b)(1) of the HEOA to
sections 402A(f)(3)(A) and 402B(a) of
the HEA, respectively. The new criteria
reflected in § 643.21(a) align with the
purpose of the TS program and with the
new statutory outcome criteria for the
program. Therefore, we do not have the
discretion to revise § 643.21(a) as
requested by the commenter.
The selection criteria require the
applicant to provide in the application
the data the peer reviewers need to
assess the extent to which an applicant’s
designated target area and target schools
need the services of a TS project.
Further, the data provided in the Need
section of the application provide
baseline data that the peer reviewers use
to evaluate the appropriateness of the
applicant’s proposed project objectives
(see § 643.21(b)) and the quality of the
applicant’s plan of operation for
addressing the identified needs (see
§ 643.21(c)).
In responding to the selection criteria,
an applicant is expected to present the
required data and discuss how the data
support the need for a TS project in the
proposed target area and target schools.
With regard to selection criteria for
which the target schools do not collect
the required information, the applicant,
to the extent appropriate, may use other
data sources (e.g., State or census data)
and describe how these data relate to
the criteria and demonstrate a need for
a TS project in the target area and target
schools. Although some applicants may
have difficulty securing certain data, all
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
applicants should be able to provide the
data required for most of the criteria.
The Department believes that it is the
responsibility of applicants to judge the
need for TS services among potential
target schools and to present data that
supports the need for a TS project in the
proposed target schools.
We do not believe the Need criteria
will disadvantage an applicant
providing services in rural communities
because the applicant can justify the
need for a TS project by presenting their
data in the context of the geographic
area in which it is providing services.
Further, the applicant does not need to
compare its data with data from other
geographic areas (e.g., urban schools).
The Secretary commends those States
that have set high standards for high
school graduation and the Need criteria
in the TS regulations do not conflict
with such standards. Under
§ 643.21(a)(5), an applicant can
demonstrate a need for a TS project by
providing data on 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. Therefore, an applicant can
show the need for a TS project in
schools that have high academic
standards for high school graduation if
TS eligible students are not taking
rigorous courses. The Secretary also
believes that the extent to which TS
eligible students succeed in completing
rigorous courses is an important
indicator of need. Therefore, we have
added the extent to which low-income
or first generation students in target
secondary schools succeed in rigorous
secondary school program of study
courses as an indicator of need.
With regard to the commenter’s
concern about the use of the term
‘‘regular diploma,’’ we do not have the
discretion to change the regulatory
language at issue because it is required
by sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and
(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, which mandate
that the TS program include the
following two measures: (1) The extent
to which participants graduate from
secondary school with a regular
secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years; and (2) the
extent to which participants complete a
rigorous secondary school program of
study.
Changes: The Secretary has amended
proposed § 643.21(a)(5) by adding the
words ‘‘or low success’’ after the word
‘‘participation.’’
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the Need criteria do not
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
adequately consider students’
achievement and performance in their
target schools. The commenter stated
that proposed § 643.21(a) does not
reflect the purpose of the TS program,
which he believes is to promote equal
educational access and to eliminate
barriers to higher education for lowincome students. The commenter
suggested that persistence and
graduation rates are not an accurate
reflection of student performance and
achievement within schools in the
lowest income communities. The
commenter suggested that in addition to
the points awarded for low high school
persistence, graduation, and college
completion, points also should be given
for low student achievement and low
standardized test scores in the target
schools or areas.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that low academic
achievement and low standardized test
scores of students in the target schools
are other indicators of need for a TS
project. Therefore, we have revised the
criteria in § 643.21(a)(6) to make these
changes. We have also redistributed the
points assigned to the Need criteria to
better reflect the relative importance of
each of the criteria.
Changes: We have revised the criteria
in § 643.21(a)(6) to include low
academic achievement and low
standardized test scores of students
enrolled in the target schools as
examples of other indicators of need for
a TS project. We have also reduced the
number of points assigned to the criteria
in § 643.21(a)(1)—high number or
percentage of low-income families
residing in the target area or low-income
students attending the target schools—
from six points to four points. Finally,
we have increased the number of points
assigned to the criteria in § 643.21(a)(6)
from four points to six points.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Objectives. (§ 643.21(b))
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that proposed § 643.21(b)(4)
and (b)(5), which would require
grantees to track participants through
postsecondary completion is not within
the scope or purpose or the TS program.
These commenters asserted that the
HEA only requires projects to encourage
and prepare participants for
‘‘enrollment’’ into postsecondary
programs. Some commenters also
suggested that the tracking requirement
for this criterion is unrealistic based on
the high number of participants that are
served by a TS project.
Several commenters requested
clarification regarding whether grantees
will need to track all graduates through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
postsecondary completion or just those
who participated in a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Several commenters suggested that
grantees only be required to include in
the random selection process for
tracking postsecondary completion
seniors that graduate from high school
during the project year. Several
commenters requested that a more
feasible requirement would be to
request postsecondary acceptance rates
or ‘‘college going rates’’ because they
believe that the criterion regarding
tracking postsecondary enrollment and
completion discriminates against high
schools that do not track these outcomes
and that there is no reasonable method
to collect this data accurately.
Other commenters suggested that
projects should not be held responsible
for students’ postsecondary degree
attainment, which requires tracking for
four to six years after each graduating
class and will require projects to follow
the academic progress of these students
once they enter college even though the
TS program is not providing any
services during this time. These
commenters expressed concern that this
criterion does not consider the many
factors that determine whether or not
students will be successful in
postsecondary education.
One commenter requested that we
consider revising the regulations to
avoid imposing mandatory, inefficient,
and unreasonable tracking and sampling
methods. Specifically, the commenter
recommended that, because sampling
and other tracking methods will
increase the burden on programs, we
should eliminate the sampling
requirement altogether and instead limit
tracking of postsecondary completion to
only current year participants who
complete secondary school during the
current project year.
Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi)
of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the
Department to use postsecondary
education completion, if practicable, in
evaluating the quality and effectiveness
of a TS project. Because TS projects
serve relatively large numbers of
participants, we recognize that it may be
difficult for the project to track all
participants through completion of
postsecondary education. Therefore, a
TS project may track a randomly
selected sample of its participants. The
purpose of § 643.22(d)(6) is to reduce,
not increase, the burden on grantees. A
grantee, however, is not required to use
a sample but may choose to track all
participants that complete secondary
schools and enroll in postsecondary
education.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65729
The Secretary plans, subject to
meeting the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to
establish standard objectives related to
postsecondary completion and provide
the sampling parameters in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications
and the application package for the TS
program.
Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The
plan to identify and select eligible
project participants. (§ 643.21(c)(2))
Comment: Some commenters
requested that § 643.21(c)(2), regarding
the applicant’s plan for identifying and
selecting eligible participants, be
revised to track current § 643.21(c)(2),
which requires applicants to have a plan
to identify and select eligible
participants and ensure their
participation without regard to race,
color, national origin, gender, or
disability.
Discussion: In developing proposed
§ 643.21(c)(2), the Department elected
not to retain the selection criterion
requiring applicants to have a plan to
ensure participants’ participation
without regard to race, color, national
origin, gender or disability because we
believed that this language was
duplicative of other regulations. Every
applicant for Federal financial
assistance must submit an assurance to
the Department that it will comply with
the Federal civil rights laws (see 34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Further, grantees under the TRIO
programs and other programs funded by
the Department are required to comply
with Federal laws that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race,
color, national origin, sex, handicap, or
age (see 34 CFR 75.500, § 643.6(a)(2)).
Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The
plan to identify and select eligible
project participants, and the plan
regarding a rigorous secondary school
program of study. (§ 643.21(c)(2) and
(4)) and Number of Participants
(§ 643.32(b))
Comment: Some commenters
applauded the Secretary for proposing
to include in the selection criteria the
requirement that applicants have a plan
to identify and select eligible
participants and to provide TS services
for individuals who need them to
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study. The commenters
requested guidance from the
Department on its expectations
regarding the number or percentage of
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65730
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
participants that would have to be
served in a rigorous program under
these selection criteria.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the selection criteria requiring
grantees to assist students to complete a
rigorous curriculum (§ 643.21(c)(4))
would place grantees serving rural areas
at a serious disadvantage in comparison
to those serving urban areas. The
commenters argued that in order to
serve the required number of
participants, a TS project serving a rural
area typically serves more target schools
and a larger geographic area, which
increases project costs, particularly staff
travel costs. Further, the commenters
noted that many small rural schools do
not offer all the courses a student would
need to complete a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
Many commenters expressed concern
that requiring grantees to assist students
to complete a rigorous curriculum
would add costs for a grantee. These
commenters stated that providing these
services would require grantees to hire
staff with special skills needed to
recruit, monitor, and track students in a
rigorous curriculum program. The
commenters suggested that, at the
current funding level for this program,
for a grantee to provide these types of
rigorous curriculum services to at least
10 percent of the participants, it would
need to reduce the number of
participants from 600 (the currently
required minimum) to 450. Other
commenters noted that the increased
costs of assisting students taking a
rigorous curriculum under § 643.21(c)(4)
and the new requirement to follow
participants through postsecondary
education in § 643.21(c)(5) would force
current TS projects to serve fewer
students than currently being served or
reduce services.
Some commenters suggested that the
selection criteria in § 643.21(c)(2) and
(c)(4) will require projects to implement
a two-tiered program of service
delivery—the first tier would support
the participants completing a rigorous
curriculum and the second tier would
provide college preparatory education
for those participants not taking a
rigorous secondary school program of
study. The commenters argued that this
two-tiered approach would force current
projects to change their participant
recruitment and selection strategies,
hire additional staff, and reduce the
number of students currently being
served. These commenters also
contended that, given the current budget
crisis in local school districts, some
projects would not be able to assist
participants in completing a rigorous
secondary school of study under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 643.21(c)(4) due to the unavailability
of the curriculum and other resources.
Other commenters noted that the
proposed changes requiring projects to
provide intensive services appear to be
very similar to the requirements of the
Upward Bound program. Several
commenters requested guidance
regarding the delivery of services for
students in a rigorous secondary school
program of study who have different
educational and developmental needs
compared to traditional TS students.
Discussion: In amending the HEA,
Congress substantially changed the
purpose and goals of the TS program. By
including in section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA several new outcome criteria for
evaluating the quality and effectiveness
of TS projects, Congress effectively
required all TS projects to expand the
types of services provided. Prior to
enactment of the HEOA, the statute did
not prescribe any specific performance
measures for TS projects; the current
measures were established through
regulations (see current § 643.22). The
new statutory outcome criteria for
assessing the success of a TS project
include the following two new
measures, which are not included in the
current regulations: (1) The completion
by participants of a rigorous secondary
school program of study; and (2) to the
extent practicable, completion by
participants of postsecondary education.
In addition, Congress amended section
402B of the HEA to require TS grantees
to provide certain services; previously
the HEA included only a list of
‘‘permissible’’ services that a grantee
could choose to provide to participants.
These final TS regulations appropriately
reflect these statutory changes.
The Department acknowledges that
many rural schools and low achieving
high schools may not offer all of the
courses needed to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study and
recognizes that there will probably be
some participants that will need more
costly and intensive services, such as
tutoring or tuition assistance to
complete the requirements of a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
In recognition of the additional costs
that grantees likely will incur in
providing the new services required by
the HEOA, including the increased costs
of assisting students taking a rigorous
curriculum and following participants
through postsecondary education, the
Secretary revised § 643.32(b) by
removing the requirement that grantees
serve a specified minimum number of
participants. Section 643.32(b) specifies
that the Department will identify the
minimum and maximum grant award
amounts and the minimum number of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
participants a TS project must serve
each year of the grant cycle in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. This
practice will give the Department the
flexibility to establish the minimum
number of participants to be served
based on the available resources and
other priorities for each competition and
to adjust these numbers for subsequent
competitions based on our experience,
changing priorities, and cost analyses.
The Department acknowledges that
not all TS eligible students may be
ready for a rigorous secondary school
program of study. Therefore, the
Secretary has revised proposed
§ 643.21(c)(4), which would have
specified that we evaluate a TS
applicant on a plan to provide services
sufficient to enable TS participants to
succeed in a rigorous program of study.
Instead, the final regulations specify
that we will evaluate a TS applicant on
a plan to work in a coordinated,
collaborative, and cost-effective manner
as part of an overarching college access
strategy with the target schools or
school system and other programs for
disadvantaged students to provide
participants with access to and
assistance in completing a rigorous
secondary school program of study. We
expect TS grantees to work with their
target schools, students, and parents to
explain the eligibility requirements for
participation, and the services and
activities that will be provided by the
TS project and those services that will
be provided through the target school or
by other programs.
Further, because all TS participants
will be encouraged to complete a
rigorous curriculum, the Secretary has
also revised proposed § 643.21(c)(2) by
removing the requirement that an
applicant present a plan for selecting
individuals who would receive support
to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
Although the new statutory outcome
criteria for the TS program are
somewhat similar to those for the UB
program and will require new project
goals and objectives for the TS program,
the Department does not believe that
Congress intended for the TS program to
replicate or duplicate UB. For example,
section 402C(c) of the HEA requires UB
projects to provide instruction in
mathematics through precalculus,
laboratory science, foreign language,
composition, and literature while TS
projects need only provide
‘‘connections’’ to high quality academic
tutoring services (section 402B(b)(1) of
the HEA). The regulations properly
reflect the differences between the
programs.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Regarding the comment about
students in a rigorous secondary school
program of study who have different
educational and developmental needs
compared to traditional TS students, we
recognize that students in a rigorous
secondary school of study may have
different educational and
developmental needs than traditional
TS students, most of whom have needed
assistance in completing admission and
financial aid applications, not academic
support. Applicants for TS grants must
design and implement new service
delivery models that are consistent with
the new statutory requirements and that
balance intensity of services with
strategic coordination with schools and
other programs to carry out projects that
are cost efficient and that best meet
students’ needs, including the needs of
students in rigorous secondary school
program of study.
Changes: We have amended proposed
§ 643.21(c)(2) to remove the selection
criterion requiring an applicant to
provide a plan for identifying and
selecting participants for a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Thus, final § 643.21(c)(2) requires only
that an applicant provides a plan for
identifying and selecting participants.
We also have removed the proposed
criterion in § 643.21(c)(4) and replaced
it with a criterion that requires an
applicant to present a plan to work in
a coordinated, collaborative, and costeffective manner as part of an
overarching college access strategy with
the target schools or school system and
other programs for disadvantaged
students to provide participants with
access to and assistance in completing
a rigorous secondary school program of
study.
In § 643.21(c)(5) we have removed
from the proposed criterion the words
‘‘coordination with other programs for
disadvantaged youth’’ to eliminate
duplication of the provision we are
adding to § 643.21(c)(4).
Finally, we have revised § 643.32(b) to
specify that for each year of the project
period, a grantee must serve at least the
number of participants that the
Secretary identifies in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications for
a competition, and to state that through
this notice, the Secretary provides the
minimum and maximum grant award
amounts for the competition.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The
plan to follow former participants as
they enter, continue in, and complete
postsecondary education.
(§ 643.21(c)(6))
Comment: Some commenters objected
to the proposed criteria in § 643.21(c)(6)
that would require TS applicants to
have a plan to follow former
participants as they progress in
postsecondary education. These
commenters suggested that it is not
reasonable, practicable, or economically
feasible for the Department to judge the
success and effectiveness of a TS project
on the basis of the degree to which
participants enter, continue in, and
complete postsecondary programs when
the project cannot provide retention
services during the participants’ college
years.
Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(v)
and (f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA includes the
enrollment in and completion of
postsecondary education as an outcome
criterion for the TS Program. To
implement these statutory requirements,
§ 643.21(c)(6) requires applicants to
have a plan to achieve goals in these
areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we define the phrase
‘‘complete postsecondary education,’’ as
it is used in § 643.21(c)(6). In particular,
these commenters asked if completion
of vocational and technical degree
programs and/or other community
college degrees would constitute
completion of postsecondary education
under this selection criterion. The
commenters suggested that if the
standard is the completion of a four-year
degree, a project could not count TS
participants enrolling in and completing
community and junior colleges and
career technology programs.
Discussion: For purposes of § 643.21,
the Secretary considers programs of
postsecondary education to include
vocational and technical degree
programs, associate degree programs, as
well as bachelor degree programs.
Because TS participants may enroll in
all types of postsecondary programs, the
project should present a plan to follow
a sample of former participants through
completion of their programs of
postsecondary education.
Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Applicant and
Community Support: Resources secured
through written commitments.
(§ 643.21(d)(2))
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification of the selection
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65731
criteria requiring that TS applicants get
commitments from the community.
Some commenters asked if an applicant
that is an institution of higher education
must get commitments from institutions
other than the host institution. Other
commenters expressed concern that
secondary schools would not be
interested in becoming educational
partners with university-based projects
because secondary schools are now
eligible to apply for TS grants. The
commenters stated that secondary
school applicants would have an unfair
advantage in a TS competition, because
they could operate a TS project without
getting commitments from colleges and
universities while an applicant that is
an institution of higher education or
community-based organization would
need commitments from the secondary
schools to effectively serve the
secondary school students participating
in the TS project. The commenters
recommended that secondary schools be
held to the same selection criteria as
higher education institutions and other
eligible entities.
Discussion: The intent of
§ 643.21(d)(2) is to ensure a fair and
equitable competition by requiring that
all applicants secure commitments from
various entities within the community.
The Secretary believes that schools and
community organizations should secure
commitments from institutions of higher
education so that these organizations
have the full scope of partners necessary
to implement a successful TS program.
The Secretary does not agree with the
contention that possible applicants in
the secondary school systems would not
be interested in partnering with higher
education institutions, community
organizations, or others. Nonetheless,
based on the comments received, the
Secretary believes that the wording of
proposed § 643.21(d)(2) may be unclear.
For this reason, we have made clarifying
changes to this provision.
Changes: We have revised proposed
§ 643.21(d)(2) to state that: (i) An
applicant that is an institution of higher
education must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and community
organizations; (ii) an applicant that is a
secondary school must include in its
application commitments from
institutions of higher education,
community organizations, and as
appropriate, other secondary schools
and the school district; and (iii) an
applicant that is a community
organization must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and institutions of higher
education.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65732
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? (§ 643.22)
Comment: Some commenters asked
that we revise § 643.22 to clarify the
meaning of the term ‘‘prior participants’’
for purposes of the PE evaluation in
§ 643.22(d)(3) through (d)(5). These
commenters requested that TS projects
not be required to track prior
participants through postsecondary
completion. The commenters stated that
a requirement to track prior participants
after they participate in the program is
an undue burden on a TS project given
the number of students served and the
amount of funding per participant. The
commenters argued that grantees should
not be required to track non-active
participants who graduated from the
program years earlier.
Several commenters also asked that
§ 643.22(d)(5) be changed to permit
participants’ postsecondary enrollment
to be by the ‘‘fall or spring’’ term
immediately following the school year,
instead of by the ‘‘fall’’ term immediately
following the school year because some
participants may need to delay
enrollment in postsecondary education.
Discussion: As noted earlier in this
preamble, with the enactment of the
HEOA, the HEA includes new outcome
criteria for the TS program, including:
Graduation from secondary school with
a regular secondary school diploma in
the standard number of years; the
completion of a rigorous secondary
school program of study; and
postsecondary enrollment. The
Department is required to use these
criteria to assess the success of a TS
project. However, the Department
acknowledges that TS projects serve
large numbers of participants each year
and may not have the resources needed
to track prior participants through high
school and into postsecondary
education. Therefore, the Department is
revising § 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5)
by removing the requirement to track
prior participants and clarifying, in
§ 643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4), that grantees
must track participants served during
the project year.
Further, we have decided to revise the
outcome criterion in § 643.22(d)(5) to
focus on participants’ enrollment in
programs of postsecondary education
within the time period specified in the
approved objective rather than stating in
the regulation the time frame for
measurement. The Secretary will,
subject to meeting the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
include in the application package for
the TS programs a standard objective
related to postsecondary enrollment that
includes the time frame for measuring
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
postsecondary enrollment. This will
give the Secretary the flexibility to
change the period of measurement for
each grant competition based on
changing situations.
We have also revised the outcome
criterion in § 643.22(d)(6) to clarify that
a grantee must track the postsecondary
completion for only those participants
who enrolled in a program of
postsecondary education. The option to
use a randomly selected sample of
participants to track this postsecondary
completion should reduce the reporting
burden on grantees.
For consistency with the regulatory
language used in § 643.22(d)(2), (d)(3)
and (d)(6), we have deleted the words
‘‘the percentage of’’ in § 643.22(d)(4) and
(d)(5). In addition, we have revised
§ 643.22(d)(4) by removing the words
‘‘who enrolled in and’’ before the words
‘‘completed a rigorous secondary school
program of study’’ to be consistent with
the changes we have made to
§§ 643.3(b), 643.11(a), 643.21(c)(2) and
(c)(4) and 643.32(b)(5), which now
include additional participant eligibility
and recordkeeping requirements for
students in a rigorous program of study.
Changes: We have changed proposed
§ 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) by
removing the reference to prior
participants in each of these three
provisions. In § 643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4),
we have clarified that current
participants are ‘‘participants served
during the project year.’’ In addition, in
§ 643.22(d)(4) and (d)(5), we have
removed the words ‘‘the percentage of’’
and in § 643.22(d)(4) we have also
removed the words ‘‘enrolled in and.’’
Further, we have changed proposed
§ 643.22(d)(5) by replacing the words
‘‘by the fall term immediately following
the school year’’ with the words ‘‘within
the time period specified in the
approved objective’’ and have revised
§ 643.22(d)(6) by replacing the words
‘‘regarding the completion of’’ with the
words ‘‘project participants who
enrolled in and completed.’’
Comment: Some commenters stated
that the 1.5 PE points in § 643.22(d)(6)
for postsecondary completion should be
reduced because there are many
variables outside the control of the TS
project that could affect this outcome.
The commenters recommended that
only one-half of one point (0.5 point) be
assigned to this criterion because the
participants’ postsecondary completion
may not be based on direct services the
project provides to participants.
Discussion: The Secretary does not
agree with the commenters’ suggestion
to reduce the points allocated to the
postsecondary-completion criterion.
The Secretary believes that one-half of
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
one point is a negligible amount, which
goes against the spirit of the HEA. The
1.5 points for this criterion in
§ 643.22(d)(6) represents only 10
percent of the total PE points a project
could earn.
Changes: None.
What are allowable costs? (§ 643.30)
Comment: A number of commenters
suggested including several additional
costs to the list of allowable costs for the
TS program in § 643.30. Some
commenters recommended that we add
as an allowable cost, participant meals
while on field trips, in tutoring sessions,
or at other events because many
participants cannot afford to pay for
meals while on field trips or at other
project sponsored events. Some
commenters recommended that we add
transportation and meals for parents to
attend certain workshops and college
visits.
Other commenters suggested that we
add an allowable cost provision for
cultural events, including associated
transportation, meals, and admission
fees, because cultural events are
permitted under § 643.4(b)(4) and TS
participants would benefit from
exposure to these events. Commenters
also recommended that costs associated
with hiring instructional staff, evening
and weekend staff, or retraining or
renegotiating contracts with current staff
to provide tutoring for rigorous
coursework, financial literacy
programming, or college entrance exam
preparation be allowable.
Commenters also suggested that
testing fees, including general
educational development (GED) exam
fees, should be allowable, as these costs
are increasing and TS projects are not
always able to attain fee waivers.
Some commenters requested
clarification regarding the Department’s
addition of the word ‘‘project’’ before the
word ‘‘staff’’ in § 643.30(a). These
commenters noted that the provision
now appears to prohibit projects from
paying meals and lodging for
chaperones and part-time summer staff.
Discussion: Section 643.30(a) permits
a project to pay transportation, meals,
and, if necessary, lodging, for
participants and staff in a number of
situations, including for field trips to
observe and meet with persons
employed in various career fields.
However, the TS program is a low cost
per participant program and we do not
believe adding meals as an allowable
cost for all field trips, tutoring sessions,
or other events, or adding transportation
and meals for parents to attend certain
workshops and college visits would be
the best use of limited resources.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Section 643.30(c) establishes the
conditions upon which a TS project
may pay for college applications or
entrance examinations. We have revised
§ 643.30(c) to include fees that are
required for alternative education
examinations, including the GED.
Further, as one of the required services,
a TS project must assist participants in
preparing for college entrance
examinations; however, because the TS
program is a low cost per participant
program, we do not believe it is
reasonable for a TS project to pay a third
party for college entrance exam
preparation for individual participants.
Regarding an allowable cost provision
for cultural events, the Department
believes that field trips and campus
visits, which are allowable costs, may
have cultural benefits for participants.
While we encourage grantees to
incorporate cultural events into these
types of trips, we do not agree that
cultural events should be added to the
regulations as a separate allowable cost
category. While the Department
understands the value of cultural
events, we believe that adding them as
an allowable cost would divert scarce
resources away from direct collegeaccess services. Connections to tutoring
and financial and economic literacy
services are required services of the TS
program; therefore, costs associated
with providing these services would be
allowable, including hiring or retraining
staff members to provide these services.
Nonetheless, the Department
encourages grantees to seek low cost
alternatives to hiring instructional staff,
such as seeking connections to existing
tutoring or financial literacy services for
TS participants. Further, TS grantees
should coordinate with the target
schools and other organizations in the
community to ensure that participants
have access to the full range of services
required for success.
Finally, the term project staff, as used
in § 643.30(a), includes part-time staff,
including summer staff, and volunteers
responsible for chaperoning TS
participants on field trips and campus
visits; therefore project funds may be
used to pay for these individuals’ meals
and lodging.
Changes: We have revised § 643.30(c)
to include examination fees for
alternative education programs if a
waiver of the fee is unavailable and the
fee is paid by the grantee to a third party
on behalf of a participant.
Comment: One commenter noted that
transportation costs for participants in a
rigorous curriculum in rural areas
would be costly and may use up limited
TS funds. The commenter argued that
level funding has damaged a TS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
project’s ability to provide additional
transportation costs, particularly in light
of the costs of the fringe benefits
required to be provided to TS staff as
mandated by most State institutions.
Other commenters argued that projects
do not have sufficient funding to
provide tuition for participants. Some
commenters also noted that payment of
tuition for a few participants may be
perceived as discriminatory by
participants pursuing regular secondary
school diplomas.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern that the costs
associated with transportation of
participants in rural areas and payment
of tuition would use up limited TS
funding. We also appreciate
commenters’ concern that payment of
tuition for a few participants may be
perceived as discriminatory. On the
other hand, during the negotiated
rulemaking sessions, some non-Federal
negotiators argued that allowing
grantees to use grant funds for this
purpose was necessary to meet the goals
of the statute. As discussed earlier in
this preamble, one of the new statutory
outcome criteria for the TS program
requires that TS projects report data on
the completion by participants of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study that would make them eligible for
grants under the Academic
Competitiveness Grants (ACG) Program.
Some non-Federal negotiators
recommended that TS grantees be
authorized to pay transportation and
tuition costs for participants who are
trying to complete a rigorous program,
when courses required for the program
are not offered at the secondary school
the participant attends or at another
local school. The Department decided to
allow grantees to use program funds for
this purpose. The regulations do not
require TS grantees to provide tuition or
transportation costs for participants but
authorizes this expense as an allowable
cost to assist students in completing a
rigorous secondary school program of
study.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested allowing TS program funds to
be used to pay for ‘‘service agreements’’
for computer systems and related
technology because many technology
systems may require service agreements
to cover repairs and software packages.
Discussion: We agree with the
suggestion made by the commenters.
Changes: We have amended
§ 643.30(f) and (g) to include service
agreements as an allowable cost.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that we revise
§ 643.30(h)(3) to allow TS funds to be
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65733
used to pay for tuition costs for
accredited courses offered online
because the availability of online
courses has increased and allowing TS
funds to be used for these courses could
increase student access to rigorous
curriculum study. One commenter
recommended revising § 643.30(h)(3) to
allow TS funds to be used to pay for
coursework that may be offered by a
college at sites other than the college
campus, such as online or at a
secondary school campus. Other
commenters suggested allowing costs
for Advanced Placement (AP) and the
Idaho Digital Learning Academy
coursework as these options may be
available at participants’ high schools
and may cost less than postsecondary
tuition.
Some commenters noted that in the
commenters’ State, students must earn a
grade of ‘‘C’’ or better in a series of
courses to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study. Due
to budget constraints, however, many
high schools will not allow students to
repeat a course in which the student
earned a ‘‘D,’’ since the student would
still receive credit for the course.
Despite receiving credit in this case, the
student would not be eligible to
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study, unless the student
was able to repeat the course and earn
a grade of ‘‘C’’ or better. The commenter
recommended that projects be allowed
to provide tuition assistance for
participants under this circumstance.
One commenter noted that one reason
participants may not have access to
rigorous coursework is that available
slots in the courses are full due to
overcrowding in the district. This
commenter noted that under the current
regulations, TS projects may only use
TS funds to pay tuition for participants
if ‘‘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,’’
which would not allow projects to assist
participants who are not able to take a
course due to overcrowding. The
commenter recommended that the
regulations permit projects to provide
tuition assistance for these participants
to take the needed courses elsewhere.
One commenter requested
clarification as to whether text books
and lab fees are allowable costs.
Another commenter requested
clarification on whether all eight criteria
listed in the regulations must be met for
a project to provide tuition assistance.
Discussion: We agree with the
proposal to revise § 643.30(h)(3) to
allow TS grantees to pay for courses
taken through an accredited institution
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65734
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of higher education, including online
courses and courses provided at a site
other than the institution’s campus,
such as at a secondary school campus,
provided the course meets all the
conditions in § 643.30(h). Section
643.30(h)(3) does not authorize TS
grantees to pay for courses provided by
accredited institutions at the secondary
school’s campus if the course is
generally available to students at the
target schools through an arrangement
between the school district and the
institution of higher education (e.g.,
dual enrollment courses).
We do not agree that TS grant funds
should be used to pay for Advanced
Placement (AP) and other courses
available through the participant’s high
school, for students to repeat courses to
receive a higher grade, or for
participants to enroll elsewhere in cases
of overcrowded courses that are already
offered at their schools or in their school
districts. The purpose of § 643.30(h) is
to allow grantees to pay the costs of
courses that are part of a rigorous
secondary school program of study only
in exceptional situations in which a
participant does not have access to a
course or courses through his or her
high school.
Furthermore, while we recognize that
districts may face overcrowding for
enrollment in some secondary school
courses, we believe that applicants
should partner closely with target
schools and the school districts during
pre-grant planning efforts to mitigate
enrollment hurdles, to the extent
practicable. We do not believe that
limited project funds should be used to
pay tuition for courses that are already
offered in a participant’s school or
district. As part of the collaboration
with the target schools, institutions of
higher education and other community
organizations, TS participants should be
provided the same opportunities and
access to rigorous courses as other
students in the target schools.
Finally, project funds may be used to
cover tuition and required textbooks
and lab fees only if all eight criteria
listed in § 643.30(h) have been met.
Changes: We have amended proposed
§ 643.30(h)(3) to authorize the use of TS
funds to pay for courses taken through
an accredited institution of higher
education.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended allowing TS projects to
pay stipends to students in a rigorous
secondary school program of study to
help defray transportation costs when a
student has to stay after school or obtain
additional tutoring. The commenters
requested that participant stipends be
added to the list of allowable costs so
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
that TS will offer benefits comparable to
those in other programs such as GEAR
UP and Upward Bound.
Discussion: The cost for
transportation for participants to receive
instruction, tutoring, or other services
provided by the project that is part of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study is an allowable cost in
§ 643.30(a)(4). We do not agree with the
proposal to authorize the use of TS
funds to pay stipends to participants.
Stipends are only permitted in the TRIO
programs when they are specifically
authorized by statute. The HEA does not
authorize stipends in the TS program.
Changes: None.
What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
Number of Participants
Comment: We received three
comments on the proposal to remove
the minimum number of participants
from the regulations. One commenter
noted that the provision would favor
newer, smaller projects while another
commenter expressed concern about the
possible fluctuation in participant
numbers from one grant cycle to the
next which might jeopardize
relationships with the target schools if
the project had to reduce the number of
student services. Another commenter
hoped that the Department would
consider the higher costs of providing
services to participants taking a rigorous
program of study and the varying cost
of living indexes throughout the country
in determining the minimum number of
participants for a competition.
Discussion: In recognition of the
additional costs that grantees likely will
incur in providing the new services
required or permitted by the HEOA,
including the increased costs of
assisting students taking a rigorous
curriculum and following participants
through postsecondary education, the
Secretary is not including in § 643.32(b)
the requirement that grantees serve a
specified minimum number of
participants. Instead, as discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, we believe
it is appropriate for the Secretary to
identify the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts and the minimum
number of participants a TS project
must serve each year of the grant cycle
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. This
practice will give the Department the
flexibility to establish the minimum
number of participants to be served
based on the available resources and
priorities for each competition and to
adjust these numbers for subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
competitions based on our experience,
changing priorities, and cost analyses.
Changes: We have revised § 643.32(b)
to clarify that a grantee must serve at
least the number of participants that the
Secretary identifies in the application
notice for the competition.
List of Courses Taken by Participants
(proposed § 643.32(b)(5))
Comment: Commenters expressed
concerns about proposed § 643.32(b)(5),
which would have required TS grantees
to maintain a list of courses taken by
participants that receive support to
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study. The commenters
argued that this requirement would
impose an additional burden on
grantees and increase the costs of staff
time for recordkeeping and the
utilization of office resources.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with
the commenters that the requirement for
a list of courses would impose a
significant recordkeeping burden that
would outweigh the benefits of the
practice and, therefore, has deleted
proposed § 643.32(b)(5).
Changes: The Secretary is not
including proposed § 643.32(b)(5) in
these final regulations.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received regarding proposed § 643.11(b),
we have revised the required assurance
in § 643.11(b). Because of the change to
§ 643.11(b), we believe it is necessary to
add a new § 643.32(c)(5) to require that
for each TS participant, the grantee, to
the extent practicable, must maintain a
record of any services the participant
receives during the project year under
other TRIO or federally funded
programs that serve populations similar
to those served under the TS program.
This provision has been added to help
ensure that the limited funds available
under TRIO, GEAR UP, and other
programs for disadvantaged students are
used effectively and efficiently by
minimizing the duplication of services
through coordination of activities.
Change: A new § 643.32(c)(5) has
been added, requiring grantees to
maintain a record of any services TS
participants receive during the project
year from another TRIO program or
federally funded program that serves
populations similar to those served
under the TS program.
Project Director (proposed § 643.32(c))
Comment: Many commenters
suggested that proposed § 643.32(c),
which restricts a grant program director
from administering more than three
programs, was confusing. One
commenter also suggested that the
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Department strike the words ‘‘one or
two,’’ so that project directors may
administer more than three programs in
order to foster collaboration and cost
savings.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that
proposed § 643.32(c)(3) may have been
confusing and has clarified the
regulation. The Secretary, however,
does not agree with the
recommendation to permit a project
director to administer more than three
programs without receiving a waiver.
We acknowledge that permitting a
project director to administer more than
one program encourages collaboration
among the programs and may provide
cost savings. However, project directors
responsible for more than three
programs may not be able to effectively
manage each of the programs. In
situations in which a grantee wants the
project director to administer more than
three TRIO or similar programs, the
grantee must submit a detailed
justification to the Secretary for
approval.
Changes: We have revised proposed
§ 643.32(c)(3) (final § 643.32(d)(3)) to
clarify the standard the Secretary will
use to consider requests for a waiver of
the restriction on the number of
programs a project director may
administer.
Educational Opportunity Centers (34
CFR Part 644)
Section 403(f) of the HEOA made
changes to the requirements for the
Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)
program in section 402F of the HEA.
The HEA now includes a requirement
that EOC projects be designed ‘‘to
improve the financial literacy and
economic literary of students’’ and
education and counseling services
‘‘designed to improve the financial and
economic literacy of students’’ as
services an EOC project may provide.
The Department received several
comments and questions about this new
program requirement. The commenters
expressed concern that EOC projects do
not have sufficient time with
participants to ‘‘improve’’ their financial
and economic literacy, in addition to
meeting all other programmatic
requirements and needs of participants.
Another commenter was concerned that
the additional services required of EOC
projects, in addition to the new
populations to be served, will not be
supported by increased funding. One
commenter expressed the belief that the
proposed regulations would require
EOC grantees to focus on fully preparing
adult participants for postsecondary
education programs, where previously
the program focused on simply
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
providing information about
opportunities to attend college and to
assist participants with college
admission and financial aid
applications.
We address specific comments on the
changes to the EOC program regulations
in the following section. The
Department also plans to provide
applicants with additional guidance on
the new program requirements through
the published application materials. In
addition, the Department will conduct
10 pre-application workshops to assist
entities interested in applying for EOC
grants and will post a list of frequently
asked questions on the TRIO Programs
Web site at: https://www.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ope/trio/.
Educational Opportunity Centers (34
CFR Part 644)
What is the Educational Opportunity
Centers program? (§ 644.1)
Comment: Several commenters stated
that § 644.1 should be revised to
specifically mention that EOC projects
provide assistance for individuals who
have dropped out of secondary schools
because projects are assessed, in the
objectives and prior experience sections,
on their success in assisting participants
without a secondary school diploma or
its equivalent. Some commenters also
expressed concerns that EOC projects do
not have sufficient time with
participants to ‘‘improve’’ their financial
and economic literacy. These
commenters suggested that the word
‘‘improve’’ in § 644.1 be changed to
‘‘provide.’’
Discussion: To ensure consistency
between the statutory language in
section 402F(a) of the HEA, which
describes the program authority and
services to be provided under the EOC
program, and § 644.1, we decline to
make the changes requested by the
commenters.
Changes: None.
Who is eligible for a grant? (§ 644.2)
Comment: Several commenters
questioned the fact that § 644.2 now
includes secondary schools as eligible
applicants. Specifically, they expressed
concern that because the target
population of EOC participants is
adults, secondary schools would be less
capable of operating an EOC project
than organizations that serve primarily
adult populations, such as immigrant
education programs, employment
agencies, or postsecondary institutions.
Two commenters suggested that
secondary schools should be allowed to
receive an EOC grant only if there are
no similar projects in the area designed
to assist adult students.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65735
Discussion: We do not have the
authority to remove secondary schools
from the list of eligible applicants or to
limit their eligibility under this program
because section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA
specifically includes secondary schools
among the entities eligible to receive
EOC grants.
Changes: None.
What services may a project provide?
(§ 644.4)
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern about § 644.4(e),
which includes education and
counseling services designed to improve
the financial and economic literacy of
participants as a permissible service for
EOC grantees. One commenter wanted
to know whether participants must be
tested on their financial literacy to
determine whether they have benefitted
from the training. Another commenter
expressed concern that the additional
services for the new populations listed
in § 644.4(k) would not be supported by
increased funding.
Discussion: Section 644.4 reflects the
statutory changes made to the list of
services that an EOC project may
provide, as specified in section 402F(b)
of the HEA. An EOC project may, but is
not required, to provide these services
listed in § 644.4. While an EOC project
may provide education and counseling
services designed to improve the
financial and economic literacy of
participants, there is no requirement
that participants be tested to determine
if they benefitted from the services.
Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? (§ 644.21)
Objectives (§ 644.21(b))
Comment: A number of commenters
stated that they believed that the point
value assigned to the first two objectives
in proposed § 644.21(b) (i.e., (a)
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 and (b) postsecondary
enrollment) should be weighted less
than or equal to the second two
objectives (i.e., financial aid assistance
and college admissions assistance)
because EOC staff spend most of their
resources and time assisting participants
with financial aid and college admission
assistance. One commenter
recommended reducing the points for
the postsecondary enrollment objective
to three points and increasing the points
for financial assistance and college
admission assistance objectives to one
and one half points each.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65736
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
One commenter expressed concern
that the weighting of the points for the
objective on enrollment in secondary
education was less than for
postsecondary enrollment and that this
strongly suggested that working with
persons without a secondary education
diploma or its equivalent has a lesser
value than focusing on postsecondary
enrollment of participants. The
commenter further stated that it would
appear more equitable if greater value
were placed on efforts to assist persons
in continuing and completing their
secondary education and to assist those
same persons in enrolling in a
postsecondary program. Therefore, the
commenter recommended that we
provide four points for enrolling in
programs that lead to a secondary
degree or its equivalent and two points
for postsecondary enrollment.
Several commenters recommended
that we revise the postsecondary
enrollment objective in § 644.21(b)(2)
and the related PE criterion in
§ 644.22(d)(2) by eliminating the
restriction that the participants be
secondary school graduates before
enrolling in postsecondary education.
The commenters recommended these
changes because, they argued, many
postsecondary institutions with open
enrollment policies accept individuals
who have not first obtained a high
school diploma or its equivalent. Some
commenters expressed concern that it
would be difficult for projects to fulfill
the postsecondary enrollment objective
because many adult education programs
are overbooked and underfunded,
resulting in EOC participants being
placed on waiting lists to either
participate in adult education classes or
take the GED exam.
Numerous commenters recommended
that the word ‘‘student’’ in
§§ 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4) be replaced
with the word ‘‘participant’’ to better
reflect the population assisted by EOC
grantees. One commenter also
recommended that EOC grantees be
evaluated on how many participants
applied for financial aid, rather than
how many participants were assisted
with applications for financial aid, and
on how many participants actually
applied for admission, rather than how
many participants were assisted with
college applications.
Discussion: The objectives for an EOC
project in § 644.21(b) and the related PE
criterion in § 644.22(d) generally reflect
the statutory outcome criteria in section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA. With regard to
the postsecondary enrollment objective
in § 644.21(b)(2) and the related PE
criterion in § 644.22(d)(2), the language
referenced is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
the HEA and cannot be changed as the
commenters requested.
The Secretary agrees with the
commenters’ recommendation to
increase the number of points assigned
to the student financial aid and the
college admission objectives, but we do
not agree that the points assigned to
these two criteria should be equal to or
greater than the points assigned to the
postsecondary enrollment criterion.
Further, we do not agree with the
commenter that the points for the
secondary school diploma objective
should be equal to or greater than the
postsecondary enrollment objective
since postsecondary enrollment is the
primary goal of the program.
Nonetheless, we have reduced the
number of points assigned to the
postsecondary enrollment objective and
increased the points assigned to the
financial aid and college admission
objectives. While we agree that assisting
participants in completing financial aid
and college admission applications are
valuable services of the program, they
are not the ultimate goal of EOC. We
believe that educational attainment is
the mission of the program and, that
secondary school completion and
postsecondary enrollment are the more
important performance measures for the
program and should be rewarded
accordingly.
The objectives for an EOC project in
§ 644.21(b) and the related PE criterion
in § 644.22(d) generally reflect the
language used for the statutory outcome
criteria in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the
HEA. With regard to the postsecondary
enrollment objective in § 644.21(b)(2)
and the related PE criterion in
§ 644.22(d)(2), the language referenced
is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) and cannot be
changed as the commenters requested.
We have responded to the comment
about eliminating the restriction that the
participants be secondary school
graduates before enrolling in
postsecondary education in the
preamble discussion section for
comments on § 644.22(d)(2) through
(d)(5) later in this preamble.
Finally, the Secretary agrees with the
suggestion to change § 644.21(b)(3) and
(b)(4) to better reflect the intent of the
objective, which is to measure the
extent to which participants completed
financial aid and college admission
applications. This change is consistent
with the statutory language in section
402A(f)(3)(E)(iv) of the HEA.
Changes: The Secretary has revised
the wording of the proposed objectives
in § 644.21(b)(1) through (b)(5) to refer
to: (1) Secondary school diploma or
equivalent, (2) Postsecondary
enrollment, (3) Financial aid
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
applications, and (4) College admission
applications. The Secretary has also
revised § 644.21(b) by reducing the
number of points assigned to the
postsecondary enrollment objective to
three points (see paragraph (b)(2)) and
increasing the number of points for the
financial aid applications and the
college admission applications to 1.5
points each (see paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4), respectively).
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Applicant and
community support § 644.21(d)
Comment: All of the comments
regarding our proposed changes to
§ 644.21(d) recommended that we not
require EOC applicants to obtain
commitments from secondary schools.
The commenters argued that because
most EOC participants are adults, most
EOC projects do not work with
secondary schools; therefore, it does not
make sense to require EOC projects to
secure commitments from secondary
schools.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with
the commenters and has decided not to
specifically evaluate the extent to which
the applicant secures commitments of
support from secondary schools.
Further, the Secretary has decided that
current § 644.21(d)(2) remains
appropriate for the EOC program. The
Department believes that this provision
is appropriate because it allows, but
does not require, the Secretary to
consider the extent to which an
applicant secures commitments from
entities that may include secondary
schools or institutions of higher
education. We continue to believe that
secondary schools and institutions of
higher education may be able to offer
assistance and resources to help an EOC
project achieve its goals. For example, a
secondary school or college may make
its computer lab available for adult
students to use in the evenings.
Therefore, the Secretary encourages
each EOC project to solicit
commitments from many organizations
within the community it serves,
including, if appropriate, secondary
schools.
Changes: We are not including the
proposed changes to § 644.21(d) in the
final regulations.
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience?—Secondary school
diploma; Postsecondary enrollment;
Financial Aid Applications; College
Admission Applications (§ 644.22(d)(2)
through (d)(5))
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed concern that awarding PE
points for the number of participants
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
who receive a secondary school diploma
conflicts with the selection criteria that
focuses on the enrollment of
participants in programs leading to a
secondary school diploma or its
equivalent. In addition, some
commenters stated that it would be
difficult for projects to meet this
objective because many adult education
programs are overbooked and
underfunded, resulting in EOC
participants being placed on waiting
lists to participate in adult education
classes and to take the GED exam.
Some commenters noted that while
some postsecondary institutions permit
attendance without a high school
diploma, students who enroll this way
cannot be counted as EOC successes if
the project is only permitted to measure
the number of participants who enroll
‘‘in programs leading to a secondary
school diploma or its equivalent.’’ The
commenters suggested that the prior
experience criterion in § 644.22(d)(2) be
changed to refer to the number of
participants who enroll in a continuing
education program, so that the criterion
includes participants without a high
school diploma who enroll in secondary
or postsecondary education.
Alternatively, one commenter
recommended that the Department
eliminate this criterion entirely. Other
commenters noted that § 644.22(d)(2)
prevents projects from counting a
participant who enrolls in
postsecondary education prior to
attaining a high school diploma as a
success under the postsecondary
enrollment, financial aid assistance, or
college admission assistance criteria,
which would use high school
graduation or its equivalent in their
calculations
Regarding the postsecondary
enrollment criterion in § 644.22(d)(3),
one commenter expressed concern that
the phrase ‘‘secondary school graduates’’
in this criterion would preclude projects
from counting a student who directly
enrolls in postsecondary education,
prior to attaining a high school diploma,
as a success under the criterion. Several
other commenters recommended
extending the time period specified in
this criterion (i.e., the fall term
immediately following the school year)
in which a participant must enroll in a
program of postsecondary education.
Specifically, the commenters thought
the period used to calculate this
criterion consider the following factors:
Many EOC participants enroll in
community colleges, which are
currently deferring admissions to the
spring semester because of
overcrowding; EOC participants enroll
in nontraditional programs with rolling
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
admissions dates that are not
necessarily in the fall; and EOC
participants often have greater burdens
than the typical TRIO participants and,
as a result, take longer to get into
postsecondary programs than do lowincome, first-generation students who
did not drop out of high school.
Some commenters argued that the
point value assigned to the
postsecondary enrollment criterion in
§ 644.22(d)(3) should be less than or
equal to the other objectives. A number
of commenters also argued that the
point value assigned to the financial aid
and college admission criteria in
§ 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) should have the
same or greater value than the other
criteria because financial aid and
college admissions assistance are key
services and EOC staff spend the
majority of their time assisting
participants in these areas.
One commenter suggested that the
Department change the point value
assigned to the postsecondary
enrollment criterion in § 644.22(d)(3) to
four points and increase the point value
for financial aid and college admissions
assistance in § 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) to
two and one half points each.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that the proposed
secondary school graduation objective
criterion, under the selection criteria in
§ 644.21(b), should be changed to align
with the PE outcome measures. (See the
discussion and changes for § 644.21(b)
earlier in this preamble.) We do not,
however, agree with the commenters’
suggestion that the Department remove
or substantively revise the outcome
criterion in § 644.22(d)(3) because this
outcome criterion reflects the criterion
described in section 402A(f)(3)(E)(ii) of
the HEA.
While we sympathize with the
concerns of the commenters who find
that it is more difficult for the
populations served by EOC projects to
achieve educational goals because of the
many barriers they face, the purpose of
PE points is to reward the applicants
who have met or exceeded their
approved objectives. Applicants are
expected to propose objectives that are
ambitious and attainable given the plan
they develop to address the needs of the
target population in their application.
The applicant’s objectives should take
into consideration known barriers to
success, such as waitlists for
participation in adult education
programs in the applicant’s target area.
Section 402A(f)(3)(E)(ii) of the HEA
specifies that, for the postsecondary
enrollment criterion, participants must
be secondary school graduates.
However, the financial aid and college
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65737
admission applications criteria in the
statute (see section 402A(f)(3)(E)(iv) of
the HEA) do not require participants to
be secondary school graduates;
therefore, a project may count
individuals who are not secondary
school graduates for the purposes of
these objectives.
In response to the comment about
extending the time period in
§ 644.22(a)(3), the Department has
decided to change the wording in
§ 644.22(d)(2) by adding after the word
‘‘equivalent’’ the words ‘‘within the time
period specified in the approved
objective’’ and, in § 644.22(d)(3), by
removing the words ‘‘by the fall term
immediately following the school year’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘within the time period specified in the
approved objective.’’ The Secretary
plans, subject to meeting the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, to establish
standard objectives for completion of
secondary school and postsecondary
enrollment that will include the time
frame for measurement.
Recipients of regular secondary
school diplomas or other equivalent
degrees or certificates, including GEDs,
are considered secondary school
graduates for purposes of § 644.22(a)(3).
We agree with the commenters’
recommendation to redistribute the
weights for the PE criteria by reducing
the number of points assigned to
postsecondary enrollment and
increasing the points assigned to
financial aid assistance and college
admission assistance. However, we do
not agree that the points assigned to the
financial aid assistance and college
admission assistance criteria should be
equal to or greater than the points
assigned to the postsecondary
enrollment criterion. As we mentioned
earlier in this preamble, while assisting
participants in completing financial aid
and college admission applications is a
valuable service of the program, it is not
the ultimate goal of EOC. We believe
that educational attainment is the
mission of the program and therefore we
believe secondary school completion
and postsecondary enrollment are the
most important performance measures
for the program and should be rewarded
accordingly. We have reduced the
number of points for the postsecondary
enrollment criterion in § 644.22(d)(3) to
five points and increased the points
assigned to the financial aid assistance
and college admission assistance criteria
in § 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) to two points
each.
Further, to be consistent with the
changes we made to the objectives in
§§ 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4), we have
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65738
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
revised the PE criteria related to
financial aid and college admission
assistance in § 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5).
Because EOC projects will report on
program outcomes annually, in
§ 644.22(d)(2) and (d)(3), we have
clarified that the objective applies only
to ‘‘participants served during the
project year.’’ In § 644.22(d)(2) we have
revised the wording of the criterion to
clarify that we will be measuring the
extent to which participants receive a
secondary school diploma.
Changes: We have modified
§ 644.22(d)(2) to provide that we will
consider whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project year who do not have a
secondary school diploma or its
equivalent who will receive a secondary
school diploma or its equivalent within
the time period specified in the
approved objective.
In § 644.22(d)(3), we have changed the
weight from 6 points to 5 points. We
also have changed this section to
provide that we will consider whether
the applicant met or exceeded its
approved objective with regard to the
secondary school graduates served
during the project year who enroll in
programs of postsecondary education
within the time period specified in the
approved objective.
In § 644.22(d)(4), we have changed the
weight from 1.5 points to 2 points. We
also have revised this section to provide
that we will consider whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objective
regarding participants applying for
financial aid.
Finally, in § 644.22(d)(5), we have
changed the weight from 1.5 points to
2 points. We also have amended
§ 644.22(d)(5) to provide that we will
consider whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective regarding
participants applying for college
admission.
What are allowable costs? (§ 644.30)
Comment: One commenter suggested
adding admissions fees to the allowable
costs in § 644.30(a) and removing the
requirement that a grantee obtain
specific prior approval from the
Secretary from this provision. The
commenter argued that EOC project
directors, like project directors in other
TRIO programs, should have the
authority to use EOC funds to pay for
transportation, meals, admissions fees,
and lodging when they determine these
expenses are necessary and appropriate.
One commenter suggested that we add
service agreements as an allowable cost
in § 644.30(f) because many technology
systems may require service agreement
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
to cover repairs and software packages.
Several commenters argued that testing
fees and the cost of tutoring for the
general education development (GED)
exam should be allowable costs for the
program.
Discussion: Because EOC is a very low
cost per participant program, the
Secretary does not agree with the
commenter’s suggestion to include
admissions fees as an allowable cost.
The other allowable costs in
§ 644.30(a)—transportation, meals, and,
with specific prior approval of the
Secretary, lodging—are only allowable
under the specific circumstances listed
in the regulation. Furthermore, we do
not agree with the commenter’s
recommendation to remove the
provision that requires grantees to
receive prior approval from the
Secretary to use project funds to pay for
lodging. Because payments for lodging
divert scarce resources from direct
college access services to participants,
we believe that the expense is only
justified in exceptional circumstances.
Section 644.30(c) establishes the
conditions upon which an EOC project
may pay for college applications or
entrance examinations. In response to
public comments, we have revised
§ 643.30(c) to include examination fees
for alternative education programs. We
also agree with the suggestion to include
a service agreement as an allowable cost
in § 644.30(f).
Changes: We have revised § 644.30(c)
to include examination fees for
alternative education programs as an
allowable cost if a waiver of the fee is
unavailable. We have also revised
§ 644.30(f) to include a service
agreement as an allowable cost.
What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
Number of Participants
Comment: None.
Discussion: As discussed in the
preamble discussion regarding number
of participants for the TS program, we
believe it is appropriate for the
Secretary to identify the minimum and
maximum grant award amounts and the
minimum number of participants a
project must serve each year of the grant
cycle in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications for a competition.
We believe this is true for EOC projects
(along with UB, SSS and McNair
projects) as well. This practice will give
the Department the flexibility to
establish the minimum number of
participants to be served based on the
available resources and other priorities
for each competition and to adjust these
numbers for subsequent competitions
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
based on our experience, changing
priorities, and cost analyses.
Changes: We have revised § 644.32(b)
to clarify that a grantee must serve at
least the number of participants that the
Secretary identifies in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications for
the competition, and to state that
through this notice, the Secretary
provides the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts for the
competition.
Coordination Among Outreach
Programs Serving Similar Populations
(new § 644.32(c)(4))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the
Talent Search program, we have added
a provision regarding the coordination
of efforts necessary for students served
by more than one TRIO or other
federally funded program to the
additional requirements a grantee must
meet under § 644.32(c)(4). Accordingly,
§ 644.32(c)(4) now requires an EOC
grantee, to the extent practicable, to
maintain a record of any services an
EOC participant receives during the
project year from another Federal TRIO
program or other federally funded
program serving similar populations.
This change will help ensure that the
limited funds available under TRIO and
other programs for disadvantaged
populations are used effectively and
efficiently by minimizing the
duplication of services through
coordination of activities.
Change: A new § 644.32(c)(4) has
been added to require grantees to
maintain a record of any services EOC
participants receive during the project
year from another Federal TRIO
program or other federally supported
program serving similar populations.
Project Director (final § 644.32(d)(3))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed
in the preamble section on Project
Director under the TS program
(proposed § 643.32(c)(3), final
§ 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised
proposed § 644.32(c)(3) (final
§ 644.32(d)(3)).
Changes: We have revised proposed
§ 644.32(c)(3) (final § 644.32(db)(3)) to
clarify the standard the Secretary will
use to consider requests for a waiver of
the restriction on the number of
programs a project director may
administer.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Upward Bound (UB) Program (34 CFR
Part 645)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Who is eligible for a grant? (§ 645.2)
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns about the eligibility
of secondary schools to apply for UB
funding and the impact this change
would have on the UB program.
Specifically, commenters were
concerned with how secondary schools
might use UB funding. For example,
some commenters questioned whether
secondary schools would be able to
fully implement an UB project for the
intended population of students and
expressed concern that secondary
schools would try to use the UB funds
to support activities and services for
students not eligible for UB or to fund
programs or initiatives previously
supported with State or local funding.
One commenter recommended making a
secondary school eligible only if there is
no institution of higher education that is
interested in and capable of conducting
a UB program in the target area. The
commenter argued that this proposal
would allow some secondary schools to
be eligible for grants but would retain
the current program structure in which
UB grants are awarded primarily to
postsecondary institutions.
Discussion: The Department does not
have the authority to make the changes
recommended by the commenters
because the HEOA amended section
402A(b)(1) of the HEA to eliminate the
restriction on the eligibility of a
secondary school to receive UB grants.
The commenters’ suggestions are
inconsistent with the HEA.
Changes: None.
Who is eligible to participate in an
Upward Bound Project? (§ 645.3)
Comment: One commenter noted that,
to reflect the HEA, § 645.3 should be
amended to include as eligible
participants individuals who are at
high-risk of academic failure. One
commenter also noted that although
section 402C(e)(5) of the HEA states that
no student will be denied participation
in an UB project because he or she will
enter the project after the ninth grade,
§ 645.3(d) still includes the requirement
that a participant, at the time of initial
selection, must not have entered the
twelfth grade. In addition, one
commenter suggested adding ‘‘not
currently enrolled in postsecondary
education’’ to the participant eligibility
criteria for VUB participants to clarify
that veterans currently enrolled in
postsecondary education are not eligible
project participants.
Discussion: We agree that § 645.3(b)
needs to be amended to include an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
individual who has a high risk for
academic failure as an eligible UB
participant (see definitions in § 645.6 for
individual who has a high risk for
academic failure and a veteran who has
a high risk for academic failure). We
also agree with the commenter that we
need to amend § 645.3(d); therefore, we
have removed the words ‘‘but has not
entered the twelfth grade.’’ Therefore, if
a senior is otherwise eligible, he or she
could participate in an UB program
during his or her last year of high
school.
Nonetheless, the Secretary encourages
regular UB and UBMS projects to select
students before their senior year. A
recent report entitled Upward Bound
and Upward Bound Math-Science
Program Outcomes for Participants
Expected to Graduate High School in
2004–05 4 concluded that one consistent
predictor of postsecondary enrollment
among regular UB and UBMS
participants is the length of their
participation in the UB program. Those
students who participated in the
program longer were more likely to
continue on to postsecondary education.
For example, 55.3 percent of those who
participated in the program for less than
one year went on to college compared
with 91.2 percent of those who
participated for three years or more.
With regard to the commenter’s
recommendation regarding veterans in
postsecondary education, we have not
made any changes to this section of the
final regulations because this issue was
not addressed in the NPRM. However, it
is the Department’s view that VUB
projects should not serve individuals
enrolled in postsecondary education as
the statutory goal of the UB program is
to ‘‘generate the skills and motivation
necessary for success in education
beyond secondary school.’’ Veterans
served by VUB who enroll in
postsecondary education can be served
by the SSS program or other programs
designed to provide academic support
services for individuals enrolled in
programs of postsecondary education.
Changes: We have added a new
paragraph (b)(3) to § 645.3 to include as
eligible participants individuals who
have a high risk for academic failure,
and we have removed § 645.3(d) which
required that participants be initially
selected to participate in the UB
program prior to entering the twelfth
grade.
4 Report available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ope/trio/ub-ubms-outcomes-2004.doc.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65739
What definitions apply to the Upward
Bound Program? (§ 645.6)
Comment: Comments were received
concerning several definitions. Some
commenters requested that the
Department add definitions for the
terms ‘‘postsecondary completion,’’
‘‘postsecondary,’’ ‘‘postsecondary
institution,’’ and ‘‘postsecondary
degree.’’ Several comments were
received regarding the definition of the
term individual who has a high risk for
academic failure. A few commenters
requested clarification on whether one
or all four of the ‘‘high risk’’ criteria in
the definition had to be met for an
individual to meet the definition. Other
commenters expressed concern that the
proposed criteria for high risk include
using grade point averages (GPAs) (see
paragraph (4) of the definition) and the
State assessments in reading, language
arts, and math (see paragraphs (1) and
(2) of the definition) because these
measures are not standard across the
country.
Some commenters also questioned the
proposed criteria related to the math
courses completed by the ninth grade
(see paragraph (3) of the definition).
These commenters stated that most
incoming ninth graders have not taken
geometry and thus, almost all ninth
graders could qualify for UB based on
this definition. A few commenters
suggested that qualifiers are needed in
this paragraph to take into account the
wide variety of math course sequences
utilized by high schools and because
situations can occur that may cause a
participant to be deemed high risk even
if he or she is on track to graduate. For
instance, one commenter argued that,
based on the proposed definition, a
tenth grade student could be selected to
participate in the UB project because he
or she had not completed geometry until
the end of the tenth grade, even though
the student was making normal progress
in completing the sequence of math
courses needed for high school
graduation and postsecondary
enrollment.
A few commenters stated that the
definition of individual who has a highrisk for academic failure should be
removed because UB already requires
that two-thirds of all participants be
both low income and first generation.
These commenters suggested that this
definition would create an additional
burden on grantees to monitor and
select an additional student subgroup,
and might compromise the program
mission by opening eligibility to
students who are not low income or first
generation and moving the program
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65740
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
from college preparation to drop-out
prevention.
We also received many comments on
the definition of a rigorous secondary
school program of study. We address
these comments in detail in the
summary of comments, discussion, and
changes sections for § 643.7 (TS
program) earlier in this preamble.
Discussion: The Department believes
the terms ‘‘postsecondary completion,’’
‘‘postsecondary,’’ ‘‘postsecondary
institution,’’ and ‘‘postsecondary degree’’
are commonly understood and therefore
do not need to be defined in these
regulations. However, when these terms
are used in the standard PE objective,
the Department will provide additional
guidance in the published application
materials as to how these terms apply to
the PE outcome criteria.
With regard to the definition of the
term individual who has a high risk for
academic failure (regular UB
participant), we use the word ‘‘or’’
between paragraphs (3) and (4) of the
definition to convey that an individual
only needs to meet one of the criteria to
be considered an individual who has a
high risk for academic failure.
We do not view the fact that State
assessments are not standardized across
the country to be a problem because
individuals who do not meet
proficiency levels on their State’s tests
or who have low GPAs are at risk of not
completing high school or not being
prepared for postsecondary education.
We acknowledge that the traditional
sequence of high school math courses
includes taking algebra in ninth grade
and geometry in tenth grade; therefore,
a student should not be considered an
individual who has a high risk for
academic failure if he or she does not
complete geometry until the end of
tenth grade.
Changes: We have revised paragraph
(3) of the definition of individual who
has a high risk for academic failure to
clarify that a student is at high risk for
academic failure if he or she has not
successfully completed pre-algebra or
algebra by the beginning of the tenth
grade.
What services do all Upward Bound
projects provide? (§ 645.11)
Comment: A large number of
commenters recommended that, under
proposed § 645.11(a)(1) and (a)(2), the
term ‘‘postsecondary’’ be deleted. In the
case of proposed § 645.11(a)(1), the
commenters believed that academic
tutoring provided in high school seldom
has a direct impact on student success
in postsecondary level coursework.
Commenters also stated that the
regulations are unclear as to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
timeframe in which the tutoring must be
provided; they asked whether it would
be while the student is enrolled in high
school or in a postsecondary program,
or both. In the case of proposed
§ 645.11(a)(2), the commenters
expressed concern that there are so
many postsecondary institutions that
UB participants attend, it would be hard
to provide advice and assistance for
specific course selection and that it
would be best for participants to receive
this service from the postsecondary
institution. Commenters also stated that
it was unclear whether UB staff would
be required to continue to advise a
student on postsecondary course
selection after the student graduates
from the UB program, whether there
would be additional funding to provide
the services, and whether served
students who graduated would be
counted in the number of students
served each year.
Several commenters expressed
concerns about proposed § 645.11(a)(5),
which would require that UB projects
provide high school dropouts guidance
and assistance in secondary school
reentry, alternative education and GED
programs, and entry into postsecondary
education. Some asked that the section
be eliminated because UB projects do
not usually serve dropouts. Other
commenters asked for further guidance
on how the services would be provided
and whether individuals receiving these
services would be considered UB
participants. In regard to proposed
§ 645.11(b)(4) and (b)(5), one commenter
indicated that it is too difficult to
provide instruction in composition and
literature in the summer and it should
be left up to the program to decide
which instruction to do. Another
commenter suggested replacing the term
‘‘foreign language’’ with ‘‘world
language’’ or ‘‘second language.’’
Under proposed § 645.11(a)(6),
commenters requested clarification on
the financial and economic literacy
services that grantees must provide to
students’ parents.
Discussion: This section of the
regulations includes the statutory list of
‘‘Required Services’’ a UB project must
provide under section 402C(b) of the
HEA. We cannot include in these
regulations changes that would alter the
statutory requirements. The Department,
however, plans to provide applicants
with additional written guidance on
how to respond to the new program
requirements and the evaluation criteria
in the published application materials.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
What services may regular Upward
Bound and Upward Bound MathScience projects provide? (§ 645.12)
Comment: One commenter suggested
including language to state that a project
may provide other activities designed to
meet the purposes of the legislation
because this could encourage new and
innovative approaches. A few
commenters lauded on-campus
residential programs as being the most
important UB activity and
recommended that the applications that
propose a summer on-campus
residential program be given additional
points in the application process. One
commenter also suggested that oncampus residential programs be
designated as a required service.
Discussion: Section 645.12 includes
the statutory list of ‘‘Permissible
Services’’ an UB project may provide.
The regulations do not prohibit grantees
from offering additional services to meet
the goals of the program, and grantees
may offer additional services not
explicitly mentioned as required or
permissible. We have revised § 645.12 to
reflect that intent more clearly.
Changes: We have revised § 645.12 by
adding a new paragraph (g) to state that
grantees may provide other services that
are consistent with the purposes and
goals of the UB program.
What additional services may Veterans
Upward Bound projects provide?
(§ 645.15(d))
Comment: Several commenters asked
whether the additional services that
Veterans Upward Bound projects
provide are mandatory or permissible.
In addition, one commenter suggested
eliminating § 645.15(d) because it
appeared to be redundant with the
requirements in § 645.11(b), which
requires that all UB grantees, including
VUB grantees, provide instruction in
mathematics through pre-calculus and
in laboratory science. The commenter
also recommended adding to the list of
additional services for VUB grantees in
§ 645.15: exposure to cultural events,
academic programs, and other activities
not usually available to disadvantaged
veterans because these services are
permissible for the low-income, firstgeneration students served by UB and
UBMS projects. The commenter argued
that providing these opportunities and
experiences would positively influence
a veteran’s postsecondary and career
decisions.
Discussion: We agree that the section
heading of § 645.15 incorrectly suggests
that the services in the regulations are
required services. We have revised the
section heading to clarify that the
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services are voluntary. Because section
402C(c) of the HEA requires all UB
projects to provide math and science
instruction and section 402C(d) of the
HEA further permits math and science
preparation for veterans, we understand
why some commenters viewed the new
language in § 645.15(d) as being
redundant with § 645.11(b). However,
§ 645.15(d) refers to special services that
could supplement the project’s
instructional program in math and
science. Accordingly and to be
consistent with the statutory language,
we are not changing § 645.15(d).
The Secretary does not agree with the
request to include in § 645.15 exposure
to cultural events, academic programs,
and other activities. The list of
permissible services in section 402C(d)
of the HEA only identifies one of the
permissible services as applicable
specifically to veterans (see section
402C(d)(6) of the HEA) and that service
is the one reflected in § 645.15(d).
Further, section 402C(d)(1) of the HEA
is clear that services, such as exposure
to cultural events, are meant specifically
for disadvantaged youth.
Changes: We have revised the section
heading for § 645.15 by replacing the
word ‘‘do’’ with the word ‘‘may’’ to
clarify that the listed services are
voluntary.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
How many applications for an Upward
Bound award may an eligible applicant
submit? (§ 645.20)
Comment: One commenter requested
that § 645.20 clarify what qualifies as
‘‘another designated different
population.’’
Discussion: As provided in
§ 645.20(b), the Secretary will designate,
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications, the different populations
for which an applicant may submit a
separate application. This provision
gives the Department the flexibility to
designate the different populations for
each competition based upon changing
national needs.
Changes: None.
What assurances must an applicant
include in an application? Participant
Eligibility (§ 645.21)
Comment: Several commenters stated
that allowing one-third of participants
to be eligible based upon a high risk for
academic failure would change the
fundamental purpose of the UB program
with regard to participant eligibility for
services. Many commenters stated that
adding the high risk for academic failure
assurance in § 645.21(a)(2) would open
the door for children of affluent families
to receive services over more needy
students.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Discussion: Section 402C(e)(1) of the
HEA states that not less than two-thirds
of youth participating in the project
must be low-income individuals who
are first generation college students and
that the remaining participants must be
low-income individuals, first generation
college students, or students who have
a high risk for academic failure. Section
645.21 reflects this statutory
requirement. We note, however, that
students who have a high risk for
academic failure are just one of the
groups that can be included in the onethird calculation. Therefore, a UB
project is not required to serve students
who have high risk of academic failure
and may choose to serve only lowincome and potential first-generation
college students.
Changes: None.
What assurances must an applicant
include in an application? Coordination
Among Outreach Programs Serving
Similar Populations (§§ 645.21(a)(4),
(b)(4), and (c)(3))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the
Talent Search program—(Coordination
Among Outreach Programs Serving
Similar Populations), we have revised
§ 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3),
regarding the coordination of efforts
necessary to minimize the duplication
of services and promote collaborations
so that more students can be served. We
believe that these changes, which we
have made across the TRIO programs,
will help ensure that the limited funds
available under TRIO and other
programs for disadvantaged students are
used effectively and efficiently by
minimizing the duplication of services
through coordination of activities.
Changes: We have revised
§ 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4) and (c)(3) to clarify
that UB projects must collaborate with
other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP
projects, or programs serving similar
populations that are serving the same
target schools or target area to minimize
the duplication of services and promote
collaborations so that more students can
be served.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Objectives (Academic
Performance) (§ 645.31(b)(1)(i) and
(b)(1)(ii))
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns regarding the
selection criteria in § 645.31(b)(1)(i)
(Academic performance, as measured by
grade point average (GPA)) and
§ 645.31(b)(1)(ii) (Academic
performance, as measured by
standardized test scores). The
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65741
commenters argued that the points
assigned for the GPA objective should
be reduced. The commenters stated that
it is difficult to increase GPAs of highrisk students by even a small
percentage. Also, as students undertake
a more rigorous curriculum their GPAs
may increase or decrease over time.
Commenters also asked if the projects
could use a weighted GPA for those
students taking rigorous courses. One
commenter expressed concern over
using State assessments, on a national
level, as a measurement of performance
because of the differences in State
assessments throughout the country.
The commenter recommended that the
Department disseminate a list of
approved standardized tests to promote
consistency among projects reporting
from one year to the next.
Discussion: We do not agree with the
commenters’ suggestion to reduce the
points assigned to the academic
performance as measured by GPA
criterion. The 1.5 points for this
criterion represents only 10 percent of
the total PE points a project could earn;
reducing the points further would go
against the goals of the HEA.
The cumulative GPA for this selection
criteria should be calculated on all
courses taken based on a four-point
scale. The GPA may be weighted for
students completing honors or
Advanced Placement courses. If the
target schools use other scales, the GPA
should be converted to the extent
possible to a four-point scale.
In regard to the commenter’s
suggestion regarding § 645.31(b)(1)(ii)
the Department does not believe it is
appropriate to provide a list of approved
standardized tests because we do not
have the authority to regulate State
assessments.
Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Objectives (Secondary
school graduation and completion of
rigorous secondary school program of
study) (§ 645.31(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv))
Comment: In § 645.31(b)(1)(iii)
(Secondary school graduation), one
commenter recommended inserting the
words ‘‘retention and’’ after the words
‘‘Secondary school’’ and before
‘‘graduation’’ to more accurately reflect
the language in the statute. Another
commenter suggested adding ‘‘or a GED
diploma’’ after ‘‘regular secondary
school diploma’’, to mirror
§ 645.11(a)(5)(iii), which includes entry
into general educational development
(GED) programs as a required service.
In regard to § 645.31(b)(1)(iv)
(Completion of rigorous secondary
school program of study), several
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65742
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
commenters stated that assisting
students to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study
might not be realistic for all
participants, given that some UB
grantees work with English Language
Learners (ELL) and high-risk students.
The commenters stated that the distinct
needs of these populations were not
adequately considered when imposing
completion of a rigorous secondary
school program of study as one of the
program’s outcome criteria. One
commenter argued that this criterion
may have the unintended consequence
of limiting a project’s ability to enroll
these groups of students. Another
commenter noted that some students do
not complete a rigorous program
because their educational goals include
a technical or associate’s degree, and
their school system places them on a
non-rigorous graduation track. Another
commenter stated that the goal of
completing a rigorous secondary school
program of study is for participants to
be eligible for the Academic
Competitiveness Grants (ACG);
however, this grant program is being
phased-out. The commenter asked
whether the criteria for the rigorous
secondary school program of study will
remain, even if the participants will no
longer be eligible for ACG.
Discussion: We agree with the
recommendation to add the words
‘‘retention and’’ to the secondary school
graduation criterion in § 645.31(b)(1)(iii)
to be consistent with the outcome
criterion in the statute and the PE
criterion in § 645.32(e)(1)(iii). However,
to remain consistent with the statutory
language regarding the UB program
outcomes in section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the
HEA, we do not agree with the
recommendation to add the words ‘‘or a
GED diploma’’.
Under § 645.31(b)(1)(iv) (Completion
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study), we are not requiring projects
to serve only participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study. The
Department agrees that some English
Language Learners, high-risk students,
or students in a vocational program of
study might not be ready to undertake
a rigorous secondary school program of
study or may not find such a rigorous
program of study relevant to their
educational goals. However, to be
consistent with statutory intent, the UB
project should encourage all UB
students to undertake a rigorous
curriculum. In addition, section
402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA states that
the participants who complete a
rigorous secondary school program of
study should be eligible for programs
such as ACG. Therefore, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
discontinuation of ACG does not impact
the requirement related to a rigorous
secondary school program of study as
defined in § 645.6.
Changes: We have amended
§ 645.31(b)(1)(iii) to refer to secondary
school retention and graduation.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Objectives
(Postsecondary completion)
(§ 645.31(b)(1)(vi))
Comments: In regard to the criterion
in § 645.31(b)(1)(vi) (Postsecondary
completion), several commenters
suggested that postsecondary
completion should include a
baccalaureate degree, associate’s degree,
or a certificate of completion of a
postsecondary program. Other
commenters asked if the definition of
postsecondary completion, as used in
this criterion, included the attainment
of a four-year or two-year degree. If
either degree is satisfactory, one
commenter stated that a project that sent
students to a two-year institution versus
a four-year institution would be able to
establish a more ambitious objective due
to the fact that it is easier to track
participants for two years rather than for
four years. Many commenters argued
that UB is not authorized or funded to
continue working with students once
they complete the project. In addition,
some commenters stated that a program
geared toward high school students
should not be held responsible for a
participant’s completion of a
postsecondary education. The
commenters suggested that persistence
in postsecondary education was a better
measurement of project success.
Commenters also stated that there are no
selection criteria for the Plan of
Operation or Budget sections of the
application to address on-going followup support of graduates. One
commenter requested that the
Department clarify how it will
determine the parameters and number
or percentages for tracking participants.
Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi)
of the HEA requires the Department to
use the postsecondary completion
criterion, to the extent practicable, in
evaluating the quality and effectiveness
of a UB project. Due to the UB program’s
intensive, college-preparatory nature,
we do not agree with the commenters
who suggest that any postsecondary
credential, including a certificate,
should be included in postsecondary
completion measurements. For the
purpose of awarding PE points for
projects’ success under the
postsecondary completion outcome
criterion, the Department considers a
program of postsecondary education to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
be a combination of courses and related
activities whose curriculum is designed
primarily for students who are beyond
the compulsory age for high school and
which leads to the attainment of an
associate’s or bachelor’s degree, and
which excludes postsecondary
certificates and vocational and adult
basic education programs.
The Secretary plans, subject to
meeting the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to
establish a standard objective related to
postsecondary completion in the
application package for the UB program.
Further, each applicant will establish in
its application the project’s target with
regard to postsecondary completion.
The baseline data the applicant provides
in the Need section of the application
will provide the peer reviewers with the
information needed to assess the extent
to which the applicant’s target for the
objective is both ambitious and
attainable.
We understand the commenters’
concerns about not having the authority
or resources to provide follow-up
support for UB graduates as they
progress through postsecondary
education; however, the new statutory
outcome criteria effectively requires that
UB projects track the academic progress
of participants through postsecondary
completion. Section 645.31(c)(10) (Plan
of Operation) requires applicants to
have a follow-up plan for tracking
graduates of UB projects as they enter
and continue in postsecondary
education. Further, § 645.31(f) (Budget
and cost effectiveness) requires
applicants to be evaluated on the extent
to which the budget for the project is
adequate to support planned project
services and activities. Therefore, an
applicant may include in the proposed
budget for the project costs related to
tracking the academic progress of former
participants through postsecondary
education.
Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? Applicant and
Community Support: Resources secured
through written commitments
(§ 645.31(d)(2))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received on proposed § 643.21(d)(2)
(Applicant and community support) for
the TS program, we have revised
§ 645.31(d)(2) to ensure consistency
across programs. A detailed discussion
of the comments and rationale for the
changes is included earlier in this
preamble, in the summary of comments,
discussion, and changes related to
§ 643.21(d)(2).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Changes: We have revised
§ 645.31(d)(2) to provide that the
Secretary will evaluate the applicant
and community support for the
proposed project on the basis on the
extent to which the applicant can show
that it has resources secured through
written commitments from community
partners. This section also requires that:
(i) An applicant that is an institution of
higher education must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and community
organizations; (ii) an applicant that is a
secondary school must include in its
commitments from institutions of higher
education, community organizations,
and, as appropriate, other secondary
schools and the school district; and (iii)
an applicant that is a community
organization must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and institutions of higher
education.
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? Regular Upward Bound
and Upward Bound Math and Science
Centers (§ 645.32(e)(1))
Comment: In regard to proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(A) (Academic
Performance, as measured by grade
point average (GPA)), one commenter
suggested that the GPA of 2.5 be
changed to 2.0 to be consistent with the
Federal Pell Grant’s requirement that
students who receive financial aid
maintain a 2.0 GPA. Several
commenters requested clarification on
whether the GPA standard was
weighted or not weighted.
In regard to proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(B) (Academic
Performance, as measured by
standardized test scores), one
commenter requested that the
Department publish an approved list of
standardized tests to provide for
consistency in reporting among
grantees. The commenter stated that the
differences in the various State
assessments do not allow for consistent
measurements of performance of UB
projects.
In regard to proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(iii), which defines PE
points for secondary school retention
and graduation, one commenter
suggested that we add the phrase ‘‘or a
general educational development (GED)
diploma’’ after the phrase ‘‘regular
secondary school diploma’’.
In regard to proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(iv), which defines PE
points for a rigorous secondary school
program of study, one commenter stated
that it is impossible for grantees to
ensure that students complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
given that some school districts do not
offer rigorous courses. Another
commenter emphasized that this PE
criterion would limit the ability of
projects to work with a high-risk
population, as this population may not
have the ability to undertake a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Several commenters asked that
§ 645.32(e)(1)(v) be changed to permit
participants’ postsecondary enrollment
to take place by the fall or spring term
immediately following the school year,
instead of by the fall term. Commenters
stated that some participants need to
delay enrollment in postsecondary
education for several reasons, including
the need to work to support their efforts
to enroll, family responsibilities,
changes in the economy, and the fact
that institutions may be granting
acceptance for the spring semester
instead of the fall semester due to
budget cuts and the large number of
applicants. These commenters argued
that their recommended change would
allow grantees to count summer
graduates and GED recipients who
matriculate in the spring in the relevant
calculations for PE points.
In regard to proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(vi), which discusses the
PE criteria based on postsecondary
completion, several commenters stated
that tracking participants through
postsecondary completion is
impractical. These commenters stated
that postsecondary completion should
not be assessed as part of PE, due to the
fact that UB grantees do not provide
services during the participant’s
postsecondary tenure and also because
it is difficult to accurately track
participants who may drop out, enroll
in several different institutions
consecutively or simultaneously, or use
different names to enroll. Commenters
suggested using postsecondary
persistence instead of postsecondary
completion as the PE criterion. If the
criterion remains, the commenters
recommended changing the point value
to 0.5.
Discussion: In response to the
commenters’ recommendation that we
permit participants’ postsecondary
enrollment to take place by the fall or
spring term immediately following the
school year, instead of by the fall term,
we have decided to remove from the
proposed regulations the point of
measurement (e.g., fall term). Further,
we also have decided to remove from
§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(A) and (e)(1)(ii)(B)
(e.g., State assessments) the GPA
standard (e.g., 2.5). Instead, the
Department will establish the point of
measurement and the standards for
measuring academic performance when
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65743
establishing the standard PE objectives
for each grant competition. These
changes will give the Department the
flexibility to adjust the standards of
measurement and period of
measurement for UB PE objectives based
on changing conditions. The Secretary
plans, subject to meeting the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, to establish
standard objectives for each of the PE
criteria in the application package for
the UB program.
With regard to the requests for
clarification regarding the cumulative
GPA, as discussed in the response to
comments regarding § 645.31(b)(1)(i)
(Objectives), the GPA should be
calculated on all courses taken based on
a four-point scale. The GPA may be
weighted for students completing
honors or Advanced Placement courses.
If the target schools use other scales, the
GPA should be converted to the extent
possible to a four-point scale.
With regard to proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(iv), regarding completion
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study, we acknowledge that not all
UB participants may be ready to
undertake a rigorous secondary school
program of study; however, UB
participants should be encouraged to
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study because research
suggests that students who take rigorous
classes in high school are more likely to
enroll in and complete postsecondary
education which are the goals of the UB
program. 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 who took a basic high school
curriculum.5
With regard to the postsecondary
completion criterion in proposed
§ 645.32(e)(1)(vi), section
402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA requires
the Department to use this criterion, to
the extent practicable, in evaluating the
quality and effectiveness of an UB
project for the purpose of assessing PE.
The Secretary does not agree with the
commenters’ suggestion to lower the
points allocated to the postsecondary
completion criterion. The 1.5 points
represent only 10 percent of the total PE
points a project can earn and is an
appropriate value to place on this
criterion.
We have made a number of clarifying
changes to § 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi).
First, we have clarified that when we
5 GAO, ‘‘Additional Efforts Could Help Education
With its Education Goals,’’ May 2003, available at
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65744
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
refer to ‘‘project participants’’ or ‘‘current
participants’’, we mean those
participants served during the project
year. For consistency with the
regulatory language used for the PE
criteria in § 643.22 (TS) and § 644.22
(EOC), we have deleted the words ‘‘the
percentage of’’ where it appeared in
proposed § 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi).
Changes: The Secretary has amended
§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi) to provide
that for purposes of the PE evaluation of
Regular Upward Bound and Upward
Bound Math and Science Centers grants
awarded after January 1, 2009, the
Secretary evaluates the applicant’s PE
on the basis of the following outcome
criteria:
Academic Performance
(§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii))
(A) Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project year who had a cumulative GPA
at the end of the school year that was
not less than the GPA specified in the
approved objective. (1.5 points)
(B) Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project period who met the academic
performance levels on standardized
tests as specified in the approved
objectives. (1.5 points)
Secondary School Retention and
Graduation (645.32(e)(1)(iii))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project year who returned the next
school year to secondary school or
graduated from secondary school with a
regular secondary school diploma. (3
points)
Rigorous Secondary School Program of
Study (§ 645.32(e)(1)(iv))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to current and prior participants
with an expected high school
graduation date in the school year who
completed a rigorous secondary school
program of study. (1.5 points)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Postsecondary Enrollment
(§ 645.32(e)(1)(v))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to current and prior participants
with an expected high school
graduation date in the school year who
enrolled in a program of postsecondary
education within the time period
specified in the approved objective. (3
points)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Postsecondary Completion
(§ 645.32(e)(1)(vi))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to postsecondary enrollees who
attained a postsecondary degree within
the number of years specified in the
approved objective. (1.5 points)
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? Veterans Upward Bound
(VUB) (§ 645.32(d)(2) and (e)(2))
Comment: Several commenters
requested that the Department use the
number of VUB participants that
completed the project during the project
year, instead of 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 the
academic improvement on a
standardized test criterion for PE points
in § 645.32(e)(2)(ii). One commenter
argued that VUB is an open-entry, openexit program and that veterans who
enroll may not be able to complete all
needed academic services during a
single reporting period, for a variety of
reasons. Requiring veterans to take a
post-test prior to receiving all
appropriate academic services would
not yield an accurate assessment of the
grantee’s success. The commenter
contended that because all participants
will not be able to take a pre-test,
receive all necessary services, and take
a post-test during a single project year,
this criterion should only measure those
participants that completed the project
during the reporting period.
With regard to the postsecondary
enrollment criterion for PE points,
several commenters requested that
§ 645.32(e)(2)(iv) be changed to permit
participants’ postsecondary enrollment
by the fall or spring term immediately
following program completion. The
change would allow projects to count
program graduates who matriculate to
postsecondary education on a nontraditional timeline.
Discussion: For the reasons set forth
in the preceding section, we have made
a number of clarifying changes to
§ 645.32(e)(2) to mirror the changes we
made in § 645.32(e)(1). These changes
clarify that the criteria relate to
participants served during the project
year and that the Department will
establish the point of measurement for
the postsecondary enrollment and
postsecondary completion criteria when
establishing the standard PE objectives
for each grant competition. Further, the
changes clarify that for § 645.32(e)(2)(ii)
(Academic improvement on
standardized tests) will be assessed only
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for those participants who completed
the VUB program during the project
year.
Changes: The Secretary has amended
§ 645.32(e)(2) to provide that, for
purposes of the PE evaluation of
Veterans Upward Bound grants awarded
after January 1, 2009, the Secretary
evaluates the applicant’s PE on the basis
of the following outcome criteria:
Academic Improvement on
Standardized Test (§ 645.32(e)(2)(ii))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project year who completed their
Veterans Upward Bound educational
program during the project year and
who improved their academic
performance as measured by a
standardized test taken by participants
before and after receiving services from
the project. (3 points)
Education Program Retention and
Completion (§ 645.32(e)(2)(iii))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants who were served
during the project year who remained in
or completed their Veterans Upward
Bound educational program. (3 points)
Postsecondary enrollment
(§ 645.32(e)(2)(iv))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the participants who
completed their Veterans Upward
Bound educational program and
enrolled in an institution of higher
education within the time period
specified in the approved objective. (3
points)
Postsecondary completion
(§ 645.32(e)(2)(v))
Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to postsecondary enrollees who
completed a program of postsecondary
education within the number of years
specified in the approved objective. (3
points)
What are allowable costs? (§ 645.40)
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that § 645.40(i) be changed to
permit a grantee to pay tuition costs for
up to six credit hours of postsecondary
courses in an academic year or summer
session for a student if tuition waivers
are unavailable. These commenters
argued that such a change would
encourage dual enrollment for UB
students still in high school. Current
regulations permit the payment of
tuition for postsecondary credit only for
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
participants of the UB summer bridge
component. The commenters noted that
this change is especially necessary if the
target schools served by the UB program
do not provide a rigorous course of
study. Commenters suggested that
because UB projects, like TS projects,
will be evaluated on the extent to which
participants complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study, UB
projects should be allowed to pay for
tuition, when needed, for secondary
students taking a rigorous curriculum.
In addition, commenters suggested
adding the phrase ‘‘service agreement’’
after the word ‘‘lease’’ in proposed
§ 645.40(n) and (o) because many
technology systems may require repairs
and software packages that are provided
pursuant to service agreements.
Finally, one commenter
recommended revising § 645.40(i) that
permits UB projects to pay tuition costs
for postsecondary credit courses for
participants in the summer bridge
program by striking the phrase ‘‘at the
host institution’’ and adding
‘‘educational supplies for participants’’
to this provision.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that UB projects should be permitted to
pay tuition costs, in certain situations,
for participants taking a rigorous
secondary school program of study, but
does not agree that all dual enrollment
courses should be considered part of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study. In addition, the Department
agrees to add payment for a service
agreement to the allowable costs.
We do not agree with the commenter’s
recommendations to remove the phrase
‘‘at the host institution’’ from
§ 645.40(i)). Students participating in
the summer bridge program are still UB
participants; therefore, we believe the
UB project will continue to provide
services to these students while they are
taking postsecondary courses during the
summer bridge program. Therefore, we
believe these UB bridge participants
should take courses at the host
institution where the project can
provide additional support services. The
costs for required textbooks and lab fees
for bridge students taking postsecondary
courses are allowable.
Changes: We have amended proposed
§ 645.40(n) and (o) to add the cost of an
equipment service agreement as an
allowable cost. We also have amended
§ 643.40 by adding a new paragraph (q)
to allow UB projects to pay, under
certain conditions, the tuition for
courses that will allow project
participants to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
What are Upward Bound stipends?
(§ 645.42)
Comment: Several commenters
requested that the $40 stipend that may
be paid to participants be increased to
$60. One commenter suggested
increasing the $60 stipend, which is
available during the summer school
recess, to $80. The commenter also
recommended that work-study positions
be made available year-round and that
a participant should be able to get the
$300 stipend for any three months
during the year. The commenter argued
that these changes would increase
participation in the work-study
component and thereby increase
program retention and persistence.
Discussion: Section 402C(f) of the
HEA provides that youth participating
in a UB project may be paid stipends
not in excess of $60 per month during
the summer school recess, for a period
not to exceed three months. During the
remaining months, youth participating
in the project may receive stipends not
in excess of $40. The HEA does not
limit work-study to the summer school
recess; it only stipulates that the stipend
of $300 per month for youth
participating in a work-study position
may only be provided during the
months of June, July, and August. We
cannot include in these regulations
changes that would alter the stipend
dollar amount or timing of payment as
provided in the HEA.
Changes: None.
What other requirements must a
grantee meet? (§ 645.43)
Number of Participants (§ 645.43(a))
Comment: None.
Discussion: As discussed in the
preamble discussion on the number of
participants under the TS program, we
believe it is appropriate for the
Secretary to identify the minimum and
maximum grant award amounts and the
minimum number of participants a
project must serve each year of the grant
cycle in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications for a competition.
We believe this is true for UB projects
(along with EOC, SSS and McNair
projects) as well. This practice will give
the Department the flexibility to
establish the minimum number of
participants to be served based on the
available resources and other priorities
for each competition and to adjust these
numbers for subsequent competitions
based on our experience, changing
priorities, and cost analyses.
Changes: We have revised § 645.43(a)
to clarify that a grantee must serve at
least the number of participants that the
Secretary identifies in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65745
Register notice inviting applications for
the competition, and to state that
through this notice, the Secretary
provides the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts for the
competition.
Project Director (Final § 645.43(b)(3))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed
in the section of this preamble on
Project Director under the TS program
(proposed § 643.32(c)(3), final
§ 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised
proposed § 645.43(a)(3) (final
§ 645.43(b)(3)).
Changes: We have revised proposed
§ 645.43(a)(3) (final § 645.43(b)(3)) to
clarify the standard the Secretary will
use to consider requests for a waiver of
the restriction on the number of
programs a project director may
administer.
Coordination Among Outreach
Programs Serving Similar Populations
(New § 645.43(c)(5))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed
under Coordination Among Outreach
Programs Serving Similar Populations
(§§ 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3)), we
have added language to § 645.43 (What
other requirements must a grantee
meet?) to require UB grantees to
maintain, to the extent practicable, a
record of the services UB participants
received during the project period from
another TRIO program or other program
serving the same populations as the UB
program. We believe that these changes,
which we have made across the TRIO
programs, will help ensure that the
limited funds available under TRIO and
other programs for disadvantaged
students are used effectively and
efficiently by minimizing the
duplication of services through
coordination of activities.
Changes: We have added new
§ 645.43(c)(5) to require UB grantees to
maintain, to the extent practicable, a
record of any services UB participants
receive during the project year from
other Federal TRIO or federally funded
programs serving the same populations
as the UB program.
Student Support Services (SSS) (34 CFR
Part 646)
What is the Student Support Services
program? (§ 646.1)
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the proposed
reference to ‘‘college’’ in paragraph (a) be
replaced by a reference to
‘‘postsecondary educational institution.’’
In addition, multiple commenters asked
that the Department retain the current
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65746
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
references to low-income and firstgeneration students to highlight the
target population of the SSS Program.
These commenters asked that we not
include the reference to ‘‘groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education,’’ as reflected
in proposed § 646.1(c) as this reference
could dilute the focus of the program.
Discussion: The language in § 646.1
has been changed to more closely track
the language in section 402D(a) of the
HEA. This statutory language
appropriately reflects the focus of this
program; for this reason, we do not
believe any changes to this regulatory
provision are necessary.
Changes: None.
What activities and services does a
project provide? Required Services
(§ 646.4(a))
Comment: Six commenters requested
minor changes to the SSS list of
required services in § 646.4(a) to specify
who should provide the services. For
example, one commenter noted that
assistance in completing financial aid
applications could be provided by SSS
advisors directly or in collaboration
with staff in the financial aid office.
Several commenters requested
additional language specifying that
graduate and professional school
enrollment is an activity specific to
four-year institutions. Two commenters
requested that we change the language
in proposed § 646.4(a)(5) and (a)(6) from
‘‘obtaining financial assistance for
enrollment in’’ to ‘‘applying for financial
aid.’’ Two other commenters asked that
we add specific language to this section
to clarify that support for financial aid
assistance and postsecondary course
counseling could be given directly by
TRIO professionals or through other
services with the assistance of other
offices as part of other services they
provide.
Discussion: We recognize that SSS
projects may work with other offices
and programs at the institution to
provide the required services. However,
we do not think it is necessary to
regulate who specifically must provide
the services or how those services must
be provided. An applicant for a SSS
grant must include its plan to provide
services that address the goals and
objectives of the project in the Plan of
Operation section of its application (see
§ 646.21(c)(4)).
To clarify that graduate and
professional school enrollment is an
activity specific to four-year
institutions, we have added language to
§ 646.4(a)(5) that refers to participants
enrolled in four-year institutions of
higher education. This language will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
parallel the structure in paragraph (a)(6),
which refers specifically to students
enrolled in two-year institutions of
higher education.
We decline to revise this section to
focus only on helping students with
‘‘applying for financial aid,’’ as
requested by some commenters. The
language in this section mirrors section
402D(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the HEA. In
addition, although applying for
financial aid may be the most important
step in assisting a student in obtaining
financial aid, the student may require
assistance after the student submits his
or her financial aid application; such
assistance could include helping the
student understand or accept a financial
aid award. Therefore, we think it is
important to retain the proposed
regulatory language, which is broader
and covers helping students in
obtaining financial aid, because it
encourages SSS grantees to continue
assisting students throughout the entire
financial aid process.
Changes: We have revised
§ 646.4(a)(5) to refer to activities
designed to assist participants enrolled
in four-year institutions of higher
education in applying for admission to,
and obtaining financial assistance for
enrollment in, graduate and professional
programs.
Permissible Services (§ 646.4(b))
Comment: Many commenters
requested that we revise § 646.4(b) to
clarify that grantees may provide
additional activities that are not
included in the list of permissible
services in the HEA, provided that such
activities assist grantees to meet the
goals of the SSS program. These
commenters expressed concern that,
without such regulatory language, SSS
projects could not offer these additional
activities.
Discussion: Section 646.4(b)
incorporates language from section
402D(c) of the HEA, which lists
permissible services a SSS project may
provide. The regulations do not prohibit
grantees from offering additional
services to meet the goals of the
program, and grantees may offer
additional services not explicitly listed
as required or permissible. We have
revised § 646.4(b) to reflect that intent
more clearly.
Changes: We have revised § 646.4 by
adding a new paragraph (b)(7) to
specifically state that SSS projects
provide other services that are
consistent with the purposes and goals
of the SSS program.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
What definitions apply? First
Generation College Student (§ 646.7(b))
Comment: Commenters asked
whether a student whose parent has a
baccalaureate degree from a country
other than the United States meets the
definition of first generation college
student in § 646.7(b). The commenters
noted that other countries may have
different requirements for a
baccalaureate degree that may not be
equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate
degree. In addition, these commenters
expressed concern that individuals who
received their degrees in another
country may be unable to assist their
children with college entry and
financial aid requirements for U.S.
institutions of higher education, and
that the SSS project could address this
problem.
Discussion: Under the TRIO Programs,
the definition of first-generation college
student is used to determine if an
individual is eligible to participate in a
TRIO project, the purpose of which is to
identify individuals from families in
which there is no family history of
successfully pursuing a bachelor’s
degree. For individuals whose parents
earned a bachelor’s degree in another
country, there is a family history of
success in higher education, regardless
of whether the requirements to receive
the baccalaureate degree were different
than those in the United States. For this
reason, we do not believe that a student
who has a parent with a baccalaureate
degree from outside the United States
should be eligible to participate in the
SSS program.
Changes: None.
What definitions apply? Low-Income
Individual (§ 646.7(b))
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification as to what years’ tax
documents should be used to determine
whether a student meets the definition
of the term low-income individual under
§ 646.7(b). The commenter suggested
that the Department provide a chart to
assist grantees in finding the
information needed for them to
determine an individual’s low-income
status. The commenter stated that doing
so would help avoid confusion that
occurs when the tax and calendar years
do not match up with the academic
year.
Discussion: To document low-income
status, tax documents from the calendar
year preceding the academic year in
which the student will begin to receive
services should be used. For example,
students who initially participate in a
SSS project in the 2009–2010 academic
year will have their low-income status
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
determined by using tax documents
submitted to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) for calendar year 2008.
Also, the Department annually posts, on
the TRIO Web site, a chart on Annual
Income Levels for use by grantees in
determining student eligibility. A
grantee is only required to verify a
student’s low-income status prior to
providing the first service to that
student.
Changes: None.
student will not be served by more than
one SSS project at any one time and that
the SSS project will collaborate with
other SSS and McNair projects and
other State and institutional programs at
the grantee-institution so that more
students can be served.
What assurances and other information
must an applicant include in an
application? SSS coordination with
other projects (§ 646.11)
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that the SSS regulations
require an applicant to provide an
assurance that individuals receiving
services from another SSS project will
not receive the same services under the
applicant’s proposed project. The
commenters argued that such an
assurance would allow projects to serve
more participants and, especially in
light of the addition of new types of SSS
projects, would prevent SSS projects on
the same campus from serving the same
students, and, therefore, fewer students
overall. Furthermore, the commenters
noted that the assurance would mirror
a similar assurance required under the
regulations for the TS, EOC, and UB
programs.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters. Current TRIO regulations
that establish age and academic level
criteria for participation in each
program ensure that there is no overlap
in services between SSS and the precollege TRIO programs, such as regular
UB. However, it is now possible that a
single institution could have multiple
SSS projects and a McNair project. We
are, therefore, adding language, in
§ 646.11(c), to address the commenters’
concern. This new language, clarifies
that a student receiving benefits from
one SSS project is not eligible to receive
services from another SSS project at any
one time. Further, under § 646.11(c), the
SSS project must collaborate with other
SSS and McNair projects and other State
and institutional programs at the
grantee-institution so that more students
can be served. Under this provision, a
student may leave one SSS project and
join another at the same institution, as
long as the student’s participation in
each project is only counted for the
performance period during the time he
or she is actually receiving services from
that particular project.
Changes: We have amended § 646.11
to include a new paragraph (c) that
requires an applicant to assure the
Secretary in the application that a
Comment: A number of commenters
requested that the Secretary change
§ 646.11(b)(1) to eliminate the
requirement that applicant describe
their efforts and past history in meeting
the full financial need of each student
in the project to requiring an applicant
to offer each student sufficient financial
assistance to meet their full financial
need. The commenters stated that it is
unreasonable to expect SSS projects to
have sufficient funding to meet the full
financial need of each student in the
project. One commenter recommended
adding a selection criterion that would
evaluate the extent to which an
institution has made efforts to meet the
financial need of participants and to
reduce the loan burden on participants.
Discussion: The language in
§ 646.11(b) referenced by the
commenters is from section 402D(e)(6)
of the HEA and cannot be changed as
the commenters requested. With respect
to the second comment, section 402D(e)
of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider the institution’s effort and,
where applicable, past history in
providing sufficient financial assistance
to meet the full financial need of each
student in the project and in
maintaining the loan burden of each
student at a manageable level. Because
Federal grant aid is often insufficient to
meet a student’s full financial need, SSS
students may be offered large amounts
of loans to meet their financial needs for
attendance at the grantee institution.
Under current § 646.21(d)(3)
(Institutional commitment), the
Secretary evaluates the extent to which
the applicant has demonstrated a
commitment to minimize the
dependence on student loans in
developing financial aid packages for
project participants by committing
institutional resources, to the extent
possible. We believe the regulation
adequately addresses the commenter’s
concern and that no further changes are
necessary.
Changes: None.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
What assurances and other information
must an applicant include in an
application? Providing Financial
Assistance to Participants (§ 646.11(b))
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65747
What assurances and other information
must an applicant include in an
application? Consultations between SSS
project and financial aid office in
awarding of grant aid.
Comments: Several commenters
recommended that § 646.30(i)
(Allowable cost—grant aid) be revised to
incorporate the statutory language
regarding the required consultation
between the SSS project and their
institution’s financial aid office to
determine the students who are eligible
for grant aid and the amount of grant aid
to be awarded (see section 402D(d)(1) of
the HEA). The commenters noted that,
while awarding financial aid is the
responsibility of the financial aid office,
the grant aid can only be awarded to
SSS participants and, therefore, the SSS
Director should be consulted with
respect to which students should
receive the grant aid and the amount of
the grant aid awards.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters’ concern that the
regulations should require consultation
between the SSS project and the
financial aid office in the awarding of
grant aid, but believe it would be better
to include this requirement as an
assurance in § 646.11, rather than as an
allowable cost under § 646.30(i).
Changes: We have amended § 646.11
to include a new paragraph (d) that
requires an applicant to assure the
Secretary in the application that the
institution’s financial aid office will
consult with the SSS project with
respect to which SSS participants
should receive grant aid and the amount
of the grant aid awards.
Certificate or Degree Completion and
Transfer to a Four-Year Institution
(§§ 646.21(b)(3)(ii) and 646.22(e)(5))
Comment: A number of commenters
requested that the Department revise the
evaluation criterion in § 646.21(b)(3)(ii),
related to the applicant’s proposed
objectives, that would award up to 2
points for certificate or degree
completion and transfer to a four-year
institution so that the criterion only
evaluated whether participants transfer
to four-year institutions. The
commenters indicated that, in many
cases, it is in the student’s best interest
to transfer to a four-year institution
prior to receiving a certificate or degree
from the two-year institution.
One commenter stated that it would
not be feasible for an applicant to collect
data on transfers to four-year
institutions or graduate and professional
school enrollment because by the time
this data can be collected, the student
has left the institution and may have
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65748
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
severed ties with the school. One
commenter asked for clarification on
whether retention in postsecondary
education for purposes of the selection
criteria means retention at the grantee
institution or in any institution of
higher education.
Discussion: Sections 646.21(b)(3)(ii)
and 646.22(e)(5) are based on statutory
language from section
402A(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II) of the HEA. Section
402A(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II) of the HEA
specifically includes, as outcome
criteria, both certificate or degree
completion and transfer to a four-year
institution prior to receiving a certificate
or degree from the two-year institution.
For this reason, we cannot make the
change requested by the commenters.
With regard to the retention objective
(see § 646.22(e)(2) and (e)(3)), a grantee
is only required to report on
participants served during the project
year who: (1) Graduate from the grantee
institution during the project year; (2)
transfer from a two-year to a four-year
institution during the project year; or
persist at the grantee institution into the
fall term of the next academic year.
With regard to the good standing
objective (see § 646.22(e)(3)), a grantee is
only required to report on participants
served during the project year.
Changes: We have revised
§ 646.22(e)(2) to clarify that the
Secretary evaluates the applicant’s
retention and good standing objectives
based on participants served during the
project year. We have also revised
§ 646.22(e)(4) and (e)(5) (degree
completion) to clarify that the objectives
include current and prior year
participants who are still enrolled at the
grantee institution. In addition, for
consistency with the regulatory
language used for the PE criteria in the
other TRIO programs, we have removed
the words ‘‘the percentage of’’ from
§ 646.22(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5).
What are allowable costs? (§ 646.30)
Comment: Six commenters requested
that we specify that a SSS project may
pay for lodging and meals for
participants and staff participating in
project-sponsored educational and
cultural activities. One commenter
noted that adding this language to
§ 646.30(e), for example, would allow
SSS participants to participate in State
and regional leadership conferences,
which are held over the weekend and
require overnight lodging. The
commenter also noted that for projects
in rural or remote locations many
educational and cultural activities
require overnight lodging.
Discussion: The Secretary
acknowledges that participation in some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
educational and cultural activities may
require overnight travel (e.g., State or
regional leadership conferences).
However, we also believe that the use of
project funds for these activities must be
limited to ensure that sufficient project
funds are available to provide academic
support services. Therefore, the
Secretary will require a project to obtain
prior approval for educational and
cultural trips that require overnight
travel.
Changes: We have revised § 646.30(e)
to include, as an allowable cost,
transportation and, with prior approval
of the Secretary, meals and lodging for
participants and staff during approved
educational and cultural activities
sponsored by the project.
Comment: Many commenters
requested the removal of the four
percent cap on the amount a project
may spend on professional development
travel under § 646.30(g). The
commenters stated that this cap is
inconsistent with other TRIO programs,
which do not have a professional
development cap.
Discussion: The Secretary does not
agree with the commenter’s suggestion.
This provision provides grantees with
clear parameters regarding the
percentage of project funds we believe
are sufficient for professional
development travel for staff. In addition,
in unusual situations, a grantee may ask
the Secretary to approve a higher
percentage to address unique
circumstances (e.g., high cost of travel
in some areas, new staff that could
benefit from more professional
development). We acknowledge that
this limitation is not included in the
regulations for the other TRIO programs.
However, we do not believe it is
appropriate to add this provision to the
other program regulations at this time
because the NPRM did not suggest we
were considering applying this
restriction to all of the programs.
Nonetheless, we encourage all TRIO
projects to limit the amount of funds
spent on professional development
travel to no more than four percent of
staff salaries and may consider
proposing a provision like this for the
regulations for the other TRIO programs
at a later date.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
adding the phrase ‘‘service agreement’’
after the word ‘‘lease’’ in § 646.30(f),
because many technology systems may
require repairs and software packages
and those repairs and software packages
may be made available through service
agreements.
Discussion: We agree with the
suggestion to include service
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agreements as an allowable cost in
§ 646.30(f).
Changes: We have revised § 646.30(f)
to include service agreements for
equipment.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we add a new paragraph (k) to
§ 646.30 to include as an allowable cost
admission application fees for project
participants who complete a certificate
or degree before continuing to another
higher education institution if the
certain conditions exist. The commenter
noted that such language would be
consistent with the regulations for the
TS program, which, like SSS, aims to
assist students in securing admission to
the next level of academic study.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenter’s recommendation. Unlike
the participants in the TS program, SSS
participants are enrolled in
postsecondary programs and are eligible
to receive financial aid to cover their
cost of attendance at the institution.
Further, this recommendation is
inconsistent with § 646.31(b)
(Unallowable costs), which prohibits the
use of grant funds for tuition, fees,
stipends, and other forms of direct
financial support, except for grant aid
under § 646.30(i), for staff or
participants.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that the Department clarify the use of
funds allowed under § 646.30(i). In
particular, the commenters asked
whether awarding rant aid to students
who are in their first two years of
postsecondary education means
students who are in their first two
academic years, or students in their
freshman and sophomore years, based
on credits hours earned.
Discussion: The reference to the first
two years of postsecondary education in
section 402D(d)(2) of the HEA refers to
the student’s first two years of
postsecondary education attendance,
not the student’s grade level
classification (e.g., freshman or
sophomore).
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
requested that we define the term
‘‘breaks,’’ used in § 646.30(j). Under that
section, paying for temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year, for
students who are homeless children and
youths or were formerly homeless
children and youths and students who
are foster care youth, is considered an
allowable cost. Some commenters were
confused as to whether the term
‘‘breaks’’ includes only holiday breaks
between semesters, or if the term also
includes the entire summer semester.
One individual requested that
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
disconnected youth be included in this
paragraph as well. The commenters also
asked that the Department clarify that
homeless adult SSS participants, who
are not formerly homeless youth, are
eligible for temporary housing support.
Specifically, these commenters
recommended that § 646.30(j) be revised
to include, in addition to students who
are homeless children and youth or
were formally homeless children and
youth and students who are foster care
youth, any SSS participant who is
considered homeless.
Discussion: Section 402D(c)(5) of the
HEA allows SSS projects to use grant
funds to secure temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year. The
term ‘‘breaks’’ in the academic year
means any period of time between
semesters or quarters within the same
academic year but does not typically
include the normal summer break
between academic years. However, if
the participant is enrolled for the
summer term, ‘‘breaks’’ would include
the period of time between the spring
and summer terms and between the
summer and fall terms.
The Secretary does not agree with the
recommendation to add disconnected
youth or homeless adult SSS
participants, who are not formerly
homeless youth to § 646.30(j), as this
would go beyond the statutory intent,
which specifically references the
definitions in the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act. Further, the
Secretary does not believe that SSS
projects will have sufficient funds to
provide temporary housing assistance
for many participants and provide the
academic support services required
under § 646.4. Therefore, the Secretary
does not believe it is in the best interest
of the program to expand the
populations eligible for temporary
housing assistance; instead the
Secretary encourages SSS project to
collaborate with other programs at the
institution or within the community to
meet the housing needs of eligible
participants.
Changes: None.
What other requirements must a
grantee meet? (§ 646.32)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Number of Participants (new
§ 646.32(a))
Comment: None.
Discussion: As discussed in the
preamble discussion regarding the
number of participants under the TS
program, we believe it is appropriate for
the Secretary to identify the minimum
and maximum grant award amounts and
the minimum number of participants
that TRIO projects, including SSS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
projects, must serve each year of the
grant cycle in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for a
competition. This practice will give the
Department the flexibility to establish
the minimum number of participants to
be served based on the available
resources and other priorities for each
competition and to adjust these
numbers for subsequent competitions
based on our experience, changing
priorities, and cost analyses.
Changes: We have revised § 646.32 by
redesignating current paragraphs (a)
through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (e)
and adding a new paragraph (a). New
paragraph (a) clarifies that a grantee
must serve at least the number of
participants that the Secretary identifies
in the application notice for the
competition, and states that through this
notice, the Secretary provides the
minimum and maximum grant award
amounts for the competition.
Coordination of Services (new
paragraph § 646.32(c)(5)).
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the
Talent Search program—(Coordination
Among Outreach Programs Serving
Similar Populations), we have added a
provision regarding the coordination of
efforts necessary for students served by
more than one Federal TRIO or other
federally funded program to the
additional requirements a grantee must
meet under § 646.32(c)(5). Accordingly,
§ 646.32(c)(5) now requires the SSS
grantee to maintain, to the extent
practicable, a record of any services SSS
participants receive during the project
year from another Federal TRIO
program or other federally funded
programs serving similar populations.
This change will help ensure that the
limited funds available under TRIO and
other programs for disadvantaged
students are used effectively and
efficiently by minimizing the
duplication of services through
coordination of activities.
Change: A new § 646.32(c)(5) has
been added to require grantees to
maintain, to the extent practicable, a
record of any services SSS participants
receive during the project year by other
Federal TRIO or federally funded
programs that serve similar populations.
Project Director (proposed § 646.32(c);
final § 646.32(d))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed
in the preamble section on Project
Director under the TS program
(proposed § 643.32(c)(3), final
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65749
§ 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised
proposed § 646.32(c) (final § 646.32(d)).
Changes: We have revised proposed
§ 646.32(c) (final § 646.32(d)) to clarify
the standard the Secretary will use to
consider requests for a waiver of the
restriction on the number of programs a
project director may administer.
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate
Achievement (McNair) Program (34
CFR part 647)
What activities and services does a
project provide? (§ 647.4)
Comment: Several commenters
suggested a variety of changes to
§ 647.4. First, commenters
recommended that the Department
explicitly permit grantees to use grant
funds for other activities or services that
meet the goals of the program, to make
it clear that grantees may go beyond the
scope of the activities listed in the
regulations. In addition, a number of
commenters contended that tutoring
should be moved from a required
activity under § 647.4(a) to a permissible
activity under § 647.4(b); these
commenters argued that most McNair
Scholars will not require tutoring. The
commenters further suggested that the
regulations should specify that tutoring
may be offered directly or by referral, as
needed, and also that tutoring may
include peer tutoring, in addition to
tutoring by a graduate student or other
professional.
Finally, a few commenters requested
clarification of the requirement that a
McNair grantee provide summer
internships for students. The
commenters asked whether the
internship must specifically be a
research internship, be distinct from any
other internship required for the
completion of a degree or certificate,
and whether the internship must be
distinct from the research or other
scholarly activities required under
§ 647.4(a).
Discussion: Section 647.4(b)
incorporates section 402E(c) of the HEA,
which lists permissible services a
McNair project may provide. The
regulations do not prohibit grantees
from offering additional services to meet
the goals of the program, and grantees
may offer additional services not
explicitly mentioned as required or
permissible. We have revised § 647.4(b)
to reflect that intent more clearly.
With regard to the comments
concerning tutoring, we note that, under
section 402E(b)(4) of the HEA, tutoring
is a required service in the McNair
program. However, a grantee may offer
tutoring itself, or through linkages with
other offices at an institution or another
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65750
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
entity. While grantees must make
tutoring available, individual
participants may choose whether or not
to take advantage of this service.
Finally, one of the required services
that a McNair grantee must provide are
summer internships that advance the
purpose of the McNair program, to
prepare disadvantaged college students
for doctoral study (see section
402E(b)(2) of the HEA). Internships do
not necessarily have to involve research,
but must assist students in preparing for
doctoral work. There is no requirement
that the summer internships be in
addition to internships that may be
required to complete a degree. However,
internships are a separate and unique
activity (see section 402E(b)(2) of the
HEA) offered by a McNair grantee and
may not also be counted as an
opportunity for research or other
scholarly activities (see section
402E(b)(1) of the HEA). The HEA clearly
separates these two required activities
and McNair programs must offer both.
Changes: We have revised § 647.4(b)
by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) that
would allow a McNair grantee to
provide other services that are
consistent with the purposes and goals
of the McNair program.
What Definitions Apply? (§ 647.7)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Definition of Low-income
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification of the definition of the term
low-income individuals in § 647.7. The
commenter recommended that the
Department provide a chart or other
language that clarifies the income levels
that should be used in making this
determination, and also that a project
should use the same chart throughout
an entire grant cycle.
Discussion: We did not propose any
changes to the definition of low-income
individual in the NPRM. However, the
commenter does not appear to be
requesting a change to this definition.
Rather, the commenter seems to be
seeking additional information on how
to determine whether an individual
meets this definition. To document lowincome status, tax documents for the
calendar year preceding the academic
year in which the student will begin to
receive services should be used. For
example, students who initially
participate in a McNair project in 2009–
2010 academic year will have their lowincome status determined by using tax
documents submitted to the IRS for
calendar year 2008. Also, the
Department annually posts, on the TRIO
Web site, a chart on Annual Income
Levels for use by grantees in
determining student eligibility. A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
grantee is only required to verify a
student’s low-income status prior to
providing the first service to that
student.
Changes: None.
Definition of Research or Scholarly
Activity
Comment: Many commenters stated
that the definition of research or
scholarly activity in § 647.7 should be
expanded to include examples such as
developing a research proposal,
implementing reporting, presenting and
publishing research, and attendance at
professional conferences. They argued
that adding these activities as examples
in the definition would clarify that
‘‘research’’ encompasses a range of
scholarly activities that are more
rigorous than typically available to
undergraduates in a classroom setting.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenters that ‘‘research’’
may include a wide variety of scholarly
activities, and we intend for the defined
term research or scholarly activity to
include activities such as those
mentioned by the commenter. These
examples are appropriate parts of a
doctoral program and accordingly,
could satisfy the requirement for
research or scholarly activity under the
McNair program. However, because
there are so many examples of activities
that could be covered in this definition,
we are not including any examples in
the regulations, but may include them
in non-regulatory guidance.
Changes: None.
What assurances must an applicant
submit? McNair coordination with
other projects (newly redesignated
§ 647.11)
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received regarding coordination of
services for other TRIO Programs (see
the TS, EOC, UB, and SSS discussions
in this preamble), we believe it is also
necessary to add a new paragraph (d) to
the McNair assurances in newly
redesignated § 647.11 to clarify that a
student receiving benefits from a
McNair project is not eligible to receive
services from another McNair project at
any one time. Further, we believe that
it is appropriate to require each McNair
project to provide an assurance it will
collaborate with other McNair and SSS
projects and other State and
institutional programs at the granteeinstitution, including those supporting
undergraduate research, so that more
students can be served. This change will
allow McNair projects to serve more
participants and reduce duplication of
services, and it mirrors a similar
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assurance under the regulations for the
TS, EOC, UB, and SSS programs.
Furthermore, it is consistent with
current TRIO regulations that establish
age and academic level criteria for
participation in each program to
minimize overlap in services among
programs.
Changes: We have amended newly
redesignated § 647.11 to include a new
paragraph (d) that requires an applicant
to submit as part of its application,
assurances that a student will not be
served by more than one McNair project
at any one time and that the McNair
project will collaborate with other
McNair and SSS projects and other State
and institutional programs at the
grantee-institution, including those
supporting undergraduate research, so
that more students can be served.
What selection criteria does the
Secretary use? (§ 647.21(b))
Comment: We received a number of
comments on the selection criteria
proposed for the McNair program. First,
many commenters suggested that we
add ‘‘or scholarly activity’’ after the word
‘‘research’’ in proposed § 647.21 to
maintain consistency with the activities
and services a McNair project must
provide.
Second, multiple commenters stated
that the emphasis on Bachelor of Arts/
Bachelor of Sciences degree attainment
should not be lost with the added focus
on graduate degree enrollment and
attainment. These commenters
recommended that the regulations for
this program retain attainment of
undergraduate degrees in the selection
criteria; they suggested that we alter the
point distribution to show that both this
goal and the newly added criteria of
success in helping students to enroll in
and continue enrollment in graduate
study are critical elements to the
program.
Third, many commenters expressed
concern about the new selection criteria
that relate to continued enrollment in
graduate study and doctoral degree
attainment. These commenters
suggested removing one or both of these
criteria for a variety of reasons. Some
expressed concern that the criteria were
unclear, while others argued that these
criteria should be removed from the
regulations because, rather than
applying to current scholars, these
criteria apply to program alumni, on
whom programs may not spend funds
and over whom they have no control.
Discussion: First, with respect to the
suggestion that we add the words ‘‘or
scholarly activity’’ after the word
‘‘research’’ in § 647.21, we agree that this
change is appropriate to ensure
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
consistency across the regulations for
this program. For this reason, we are
making this change.
Second, with regard to the comments
concerning the appropriateness of
focusing on Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of
Science degrees, we note that the HEOA
made changes to the McNair program to
better align the outcome criteria with
the explicit goal of preparing students
for success in graduate programs leading
to doctoral degrees, including continued
enrollment in graduate school and
doctoral degree attainment. In doing so,
Congress did not use the same criteria
as in the current regulations (e.g.,
attainment of a baccalaureate degree);
therefore, we have used the statutory
criteria. We have also decided not to
change the point distribution related to
these selection criteria, as we have
determined that the proposed points
correctly reflect the statutory goals of
the program.
Third, the regulations that include the
new selection criteria that relate to
continued enrollment in graduate study
and doctoral degree attainment
appropriately reflect the statute. Section
402A(f)(3)(D)(iv) of the HEA, as
amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, requires the Department to use
the attainment of doctoral degrees by
former participants in evaluating the
quality and effectiveness of a McNair
project.
Changes: We have amended
§ 647.21(b)(1) to add the words ‘‘or
scholarly activity’’ after the word
‘‘research’’.
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? (§ 647.22)
Comment: Numerous commenters
expressed concern about the proposed
point distribution for evaluating prior
experience in making awards for the
McNair program. Multiple commenters
expressed concern that the points are
weighted too heavily on graduate school
enrollment and continued enrollment in
graduate school through doctoral degree
attainment. These commenters argued
that it does not make sense to give so
many points and emphasis to areas over
which a grantee has little control, as the
points would be based on alumni
participants instead of current scholars.
Further, the commenters stated that the
difficulties and costs in tracking
students for these criteria merit
awarding a lower point value for them.
One commenter requested that the
language in § 647.22(e)(3) through (e)(5)
be clarified to ensure that current
McNair participants are not counted in
the calculation of prior experience
because those individuals would not
have been able to participate in graduate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
educational opportunities at that point
in their academic careers. Multiple
commenters requested that the
regulations reflect a reapportionment of
the PE points to focus more on the
direct contact, activities, and time that
the project spends with current
applicants, rather than focusing on the
success of students who are no longer
current McNair participants. The
commenters contended that it was
unfair to place so much emphasis on the
graduate success of a student, when
grantees are not allowed to provide
services to those students.
Other commenters requested that the
Department clarify what is meant by the
term ‘‘doctoral level degree’’ for
purposes of calculating PE points. They
urged the Department to consider other
degrees besides a doctor of philosophy
(Ph.D.) as a doctoral level degree; for
instance, they argued that a doctor of
education (ED.D), doctor of psychology
(Psy.D), or doctor of social work
(D.S.W.) should be considered a
doctoral level degree. Further, one
commenter suggested that, instead of
requiring a doctoral level degree, the
regulations should use the terminal
degree in the field in which the degree
is sought, arguing, for example, that a
master of fine arts degree is the highest
degree available for that particular field.
Finally, a few commenters suggested
some changes to the regulatory language
to clarify various provisions.
Specifically, commenters recommended
changing ‘‘research and scholarly
activities’’ in proposed § 647.22(e)(2) to
‘‘research or scholarly activities’’ to
maintain consistency with other
sections in these regulations. Further,
one commenter recommended adding
the word ‘‘current’’ before the word
‘‘participants’’ in § 647.22(e)(1) through
(e)(5).
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters’ suggestions about
redistributing the PE points among the
criteria. Most (sixty percent) of the PE
points are awarded based on the
expected outcomes for participants
served during the project year (see
§ 647.22(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3)). The
remaining points (6 out of a possible 15
points) are awarded based on the extent
to which prior participants are moving
toward achieving the main goal of the
McNair program, which is attainment of
doctoral degrees (see the program
outcome criteria in section 402A(f)(3)(D)
of the HEA).
With regard to the comments
requesting clarification of what is
considered a doctoral level degree, the
Department agrees that this term is not
limited to a doctor of philosophy. Other
research intensive doctoral degrees,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65751
such as a doctor of education (Ed.D.), a
doctor of psychology (Psy.D.), and a
doctor of social work (D.S.W.) are
appropriate to the goals of the program.
However, the purpose of the McNair
program is to encourage research at the
doctoral level, and we, therefore,
disagree with the suggestion that using
the terminal degree in the field is
sufficient.
Because the Department agrees with
the commenters that changing the
reference to ‘‘research and scholarly
activities’’ in § 647.22(e)(2) to ‘‘research
or scholarly activities’’ will ensure
greater consistency across sections, we
will make this change. Finally, we agree
that we should clarify that the criteria
in § 647.22(e)(2) and (e)(3) apply to
‘‘current participants’’; however, instead
of using the phrase ‘‘current year’’ we
have decided to add the words ‘‘served
during the project year’’ after the word
‘‘participants.’’ However, § 647.22(e)(4)
and (e)(5) relates to prior participants,
and we will not be making any change
to these paragraphs.
Changes: We have amended
§ 647.22(e)(2) to change the reference
from ‘‘research and scholarly activities’’
to ‘‘research or scholarly activities’’. We
have also amended § 647.22(e)(2) and
(e)(3) by adding ‘‘served during the
project year’’ after the word
‘‘participants.’’
What are allowable costs? (§ 647.30)
Comments: Two commenters
suggested adding the phrase ‘‘service
agreement’’ after the word ‘‘lease’’ in
§ 647.30(d), because many technology
systems may require repairs and
software packages that are made
pursuant to service agreements.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters who recommended that we
include service agreements as an
allowable cost in § 647.30(d) and have
revised the regulations accordingly.
Changes: We have revised § 647.30(d)
to include to include service agreements
for equipment.
What other requirements must a
grantee meet? (§ 647.32)
Number of Participants (new
§ 647.32(a))
Comment: None.
Discussion: As discussed in the
preamble discussion regarding number
of participants under the TS program,
we believe it is appropriate for the
Secretary to identify the minimum and
maximum grant award amounts and the
minimum number of participants TRIO
projects, including McNair projects,
must serve each year of the grant cycle
in the Federal Register notice inviting
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65752
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
applications for a competition. This
practice will give the Department the
flexibility to establish the number of
participants to be served based on the
available resources and other priorities
for each competition and to adjust these
numbers for subsequent competitions
based on our experience, changing
priorities, and cost analyses.
Change: We have revised § 647.32 by
redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
and (d) as paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and
(e), respectively and adding a new
paragraph (a). New paragraph (a)
clarifies that a grantee must serve at
least the number of participants that the
Secretary identifies in the application
notice for the competition, and states
that through this notice, the Secretary
provides the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts for the
competition.
Coordination of Services (new
§ 647.32(c)(5))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we
received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the
Talent Search program—(Coordination
Among Outreach Programs Serving
Similar Populations), we have added a
provision regarding the coordination of
efforts necessary for students served by
more than one Federal TRIO or other
federally funded program to the
additional requirements a grantee must
meet under § 647.32(c)(5). We have also
added a new McNair assurance
requiring the coordination of efforts for
students served by more than one
Federal TRIO Program or other state or
institutional program (see discussion
regarding newly redesignated
§ 647.11(d)). Accordingly, § 647.32(c)(5)
now requires the McNair grantee to
maintain, to the extent practicable, a
record of any services McNair
participants receive during the project
year from another Federal TRIO
program or another federally funded
program that serves populations similar
to those served under the McNair
program. This change will help ensure
that the limited funds available under
TRIO and other programs for
disadvantaged students are used
effectively and efficiently by
minimizing the duplication of services
through coordination of activities.
Change: We have added a new
§ 647.32(c)(5) to require grantees to
maintain, to the extent practicable,
records documenting any services the
participant receives during the project
year from another Federal TRIO
program or another federally funded
program that serves populations similar
to those served under the McNair
program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Project Director (proposed § 647.32(d);
final § 647.32(e))
Comments: We received a few
comments requesting that we remove
the requirement that a project employ a
full-time project director.
Discussion: The McNair program
regulations do not require McNair
projects to employ a full-time project
director. While we did make changes to
parallel sections of the regulations for
other TRIO programs, we did not
propose any changes to § 647.32(e) of
these regulations. Accordingly, no
changes are necessary in response to
these comments.
Changes: None.
Part 694—Gaining Early Awareness
and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR UP)
Changes in the Cohort (§ 694.4)
Comment: One commenter asked how
GEAR UP services would be provided to
cohort students who move to nonparticipating schools after they
complete the last grade level offered in
a school.
Discussion: Section 694.4 addresses
which students a State or Partnership
must serve under GEAR UP when there
are changes in the cohort. Specifically,
this section of the regulations requires
that a GEAR UP grantee continue to
provide services to at least those
students in the cohort who, after
completing the last grade level offered
by the school at which the cohort began
to receive GEAR UP services, attend one
or more participating schools that
together enroll a substantial majority of
the students in the cohort.
In response to the comment, we
intend the term ‘‘participating schools’’
in § 694.4(b)(2) to refer to schools that
students in a cohort attend after
completing the last grade level offered
by the school at which the cohort began
to receive GEAR UP services.
Based on the language in § 694.4,
including our use of the term
‘‘participating schools,’’ we assume that
when the commenter uses the term
‘‘non-participating schools’’ it does so to
refer to schools that enroll no (or very
few) students who have left the school
at which their cohort began to receive
GEAR UP services. Thus, we interpret
the comment to be asking whether
services must be provided to students in
a cohort who, after completing the last
grade level offered by the school at
which the cohort began to receive GEAR
UP services, move to a school that
enrolls no (or very few) students from
the cohort. While a GEAR UP grantee
certainly could provide these students
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with GEAR UP services, nothing in this
section requires it to do so.
We appreciate that the commenter
may be concerned that GEAR UP
students be able to continue to receive
services regardless of what school they
attend. However, we believe that an
LEA would likely encounter both
logistical and financial challenges that
would be difficult to overcome if the
LEA were required to continue to
provide GEAR UP services to each
student in a cohort regardless of where
the student may later enroll and how
many other GEAR UP students also
attend that school. We believe that the
language of proposed § 694.4, which we
adopt in this final notice, creates the
right balance for when an LEA must
continue to provide GEAR UP services
to these students.
Changes: None.
Waiver of Matching Requirements
(§§ 694.8 and 694.9)
Comment: One commenter suggested
that proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9 may
not be consistent with section
404C(b)(2) of the HEA, which was
amended by section 404c(3)(C) of the
HEOA. The commenter interprets this
statutory section as authorizing either a
State or a Partnership to apply for match
relief either at the time of application or
subsequent to receiving the grant award.
The commenter observed that the
proposed regulations do not authorize a
State to seek such relief, and requested
that we revise the final regulations to
explain how a State may do so.
Discussion: The Secretary believes
that the best statutory interpretation of
the language in section 404C(b)(2) of the
HEA is that the Department’s authority
to grant relief from the program’s
matching requirement to GEAR UP
applicants and grantees extends to
Partnerships but not to States. While
section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA
authorizes approval of ‘‘an eligible
entity’s request for a reduced match
percentage,’’ this language follows the
lead sentence of the paragraph, which
authorizes the Secretary, by regulation,
to modify the minimum 50 percent
match requirement only ‘‘for eligible
entities described in section 404A(c)(2)’’
(i.e., Partnerships). Based on this
language, we do not interpret the HEA
to allow States to apply for match relief
either at the time of application or
subsequent to the grant award.
Moreover, we believe that granting
permission only to Partnerships to seek
this reduced match percentage
represents a reasonable approach given
the greater capacity States have to
provide matching contributions. We
also note that during negotiated
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
GEAR UP grant need to continue to
receive services under a new grant–-not
to specify what services grantees should
provide to meet these students’ needs.
Changes: None.
What priorities does the Secretary
establish for a GEAR UP grant?
(§ 694.19)
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the proposed criteria for awarding
competitive preference priority points
for State applicants also be used for
awarding competitive preference
priority points to Partnership
applicants.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s request that the proposed
criteria for awarding competitive
preference priority points to State
applicants also be applied to
Partnership applicants. Section
404A(b)(3) of the HEA mandates that, in
making awards to State grant applicants,
the Secretary must give priority to
eligible applicants that carried out
successful GEAR UP projects
immediately before enactment of the
HEOA and have a prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention
leading to college access. Because this
provision only references applicability
to State applicants, we believe that
Congress intended it only to apply those
entities and not to Partnership
applicants. Therefore, the Department
does not have the authority to make the
change requested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
rulemaking none of the non-Federal
negotiators expressed a contrary view,
or urged that the language of our
proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9 be
modified to reflect the availability of
waiver relief for State applicants or
grantees.
Changes: None.
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
‘‘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 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 regulatory action, we
have determined that the benefits of the
regulations justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Services to students who were served
under a previous GEAR UP grant
(§ 694.25)
Comment: One commenter noted that
summer enrichment programs would
help those students who were served
under a prior GEAR UP grant, but who
had not yet graduated, to better prepare
for postsecondary education. The
commenter seemed to suggest that we
revise § 694.25 to acknowledge the
importance of these programs.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with
the commenter on the importance of
summer programs, particularly for those
students who did not graduate from
high school with members of their
cohort. However, such programs are
already specifically authorized in
§ 694.22(i), and this is only one of many
GEAR UP activities and strategies for
helping these particular GEAR UP
students to succeed. Moreover, the
purpose of § 694.25 is to clarify when
students who are still in secondary
schools who were served under a prior
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Executive Order 12866
Regulatory Impact Analysis
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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65753
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 Federal TRIO program
regulations are needed to implement
provisions of the HEOA, which changed
certain features of the TRIO program. In
developing these regulations, the
Secretary has endeavored to regulate
only where necessary: 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
the terms ‘‘different population’’ and
‘‘different campus.’’
• Section 643.22(d): 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 has
decided to eliminate the current
regulatory requirement that TS projects
serve a minimum number of
individuals.
• Sections 643.30 (TS), 644.30 (EOC),
645.40 (UB), 646.30 (SSS), 647.30
(McNair): Changes to Allowable Costs
(Computer Hardware and Software):
The requirement that grantees must seek
prior approval for purchases of
computer equipment was not addressed
in the statute. However, based on
comments received during negotiated
rulemaking and the public comment
period, the Department has decided to
change its allowable cost regulations
with respect to the purchase of
computer equipment.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65754
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
Sections 643.7 and 643.10 (TS); 644.7
and 644.10 (EOC); 645.6 and 645.20
(UB); 646.7 and 646.10 (SSS); and 647.7
and 647.10 (McNair): Number of
Applications: Different 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
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
to serve; 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 regulations 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.
These final regulations establish a
definition of ‘‘different campus’’ that is
different from the definition of
‘‘different campus’’ currently in the SSS
regulations. Current SSS regulations
require a ‘‘different campus’’ to have
separate budget and hiring authority to
be an eligible applicant. However, the
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. These
regulations, therefore, use the definition
from the HEA.
With respect to the implementation of
the HEA’s definition of ‘‘different
population,’’ initially, the Department
proposed to implement this definitional
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,
during the negotiated rulemaking
sessions, 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. The Secretary has adopted this
latter view. Under these final
regulations, therefore, an applicant
planning to serve a separate population
will be permitted under certain
circumstances to apply for a separate
grant to serve the 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 has amended
the regulations for each of the TRIO
programs to provide that the
Department will define, for each
competition, the different populations
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 gives the Department
the flexibility to designate the different
populations for each competition based
on changing national needs. It also
permits the Department to more
effectively manage the program
competitions within the available
resources.
For these reasons, under the final
regulations, an entity applying for more
than one grant under the TS, EOC, and
UB programs may submit separate
applications to serve different target
areas and different target schools, and
may also submit separate applications to
serve one or more of the different
populations designated in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications.
Entities applying for grants under the
SSS and McNair programs will now be
able to submit separate applications to
serve different campuses and may also
submit separate applications to serve
one or more of the different populations
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
estimates that the amount of money
spent on applications by applicants will
increase by $742,950. (Note, however,
that the cost to individual applicants is
not expected to increase).
INCREASE IN AGGREGATE APPLICANT COSTS
Estimated
increase
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Burden
Calculations
Professional Staff .......................................
Clerical Staff ...............................................
Use of Computer Equipment .....................
Operation Cost ...........................................
(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
56,700
94,500
45,000
Total ....................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
742,950
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.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
while application processing costs
should increase from approximately
$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
workshops, field reading, and slate
In addition, the cost of administering
the SSS grant competition will likely
increase. In particular, the Department
estimates that variable costs of
processing and reviewing applications
will increase by 37.5 percent. The cost
of retaining outside reviewers should
increase to $555,000 from $404,000
65755
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 or staff 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
should increase the delivery of the right
kinds of services to students. SSS
projects geared specifically towards ESL
students, for instance, should be able to
provide highly specialized services to
these students in a more efficient and
effective manner than would a general
SSS project.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary
School Program of Study Adding
Tuition as an Allowable Cost in the TS
program:
The HEOA modified the 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 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. In addition, under the ACG
program, there are other options for
meeting the rigorous course of study
requirement, including taking
International Baccalaureate or
Advanced Placement courses.)
A number of commenters on the
proposed regulations contended some
schools served by TS grantees do not
provide the type of curriculum
necessary for students to meet the ACG
program’s requirements for a ‘‘rigorous
secondary school program of study.’’
Consequently, they argued, grantees
serving students in these schools would
be 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.
The Department has decided 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
school district provided that several
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conditions are met. The Department also
has decided to allow TS grantees to pay
for a student’s transportation to a school
not regularly attended by that student
for that student to take a course that is
part of a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
To determine the impact of these
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 (through payment of tuition
and transportation costs to locations at
which the participants will receive
instruction). We also need to estimate
the extent to which grantees that are
serving schools with these participants
will elect to incur these costs.
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 asked 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. The
only data we received from the public
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65756
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with respect to the availability of
rigorous curricula at TS schools
described the availability of such course
offerings at the Portland Public Schools
and the Hillsboro School District.
According to the commenter providing
these data, the secondary schools in
these districts now provide a
curriculum that meets the third
definition of a rigorous secondary
school program in these regulations and,
by the 2011–2012 academic year, all
these schools will be required to
provide such a curriculum. Although
we do not have national 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 colleges range 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 will elect to use funds for this
purpose or the actual costs of providing
access to this coursework, we asked
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. A few grantees responded
to this request, but their comments were
based on an expectation that the new
regulations would introduce a twotiered system of service-provision in
which grantees would concentrate on
providing a rigorous secondary school
program of study to only 10 percent of
its participants. In these final
regulations, the Department is clarifying
that TS grantees will collaborate and
coordinate with their target schools to
provide access to and assistance in
completing a rigorous secondary school
program of study for all participants (see
§ 643.21(c)(4)). With respect to the
benefits of this regulatory change, the
Secretary believes that students enrolled
in schools with curricula that do not
meet the State’s definition of a rigorous
secondary school program of study will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
be the primary beneficiaries. TS
participants in schools that do not offer
all of the coursework needed to meet the
requirements of a rigorous secondary
school program of study (e.g., they do
not offer a physics or chemistry course)
may be afforded the opportunity to take
such coursework through an 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 who
took a basic high school curriculum.6
However, grantees will need to balance
the costs of providing these
opportunities to individual students
with the expected educational benefits
to avoid an unnecessary increase in the
cost of successful outcomes under this
program.
promote adoption of cost-effective
practices.
In accordance with § 643.32(b) of the
final regulations, the Secretary will
specify 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 a competition. Through
this notice, the Secretary will also
provide the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts for the project
period.
Section 643.32: Changes to the
Minimum Number of Participants
Served in TS
Current TS regulations require that
any grantee receiving an award of
$180,000 or more must serve a
minimum of 600 individuals. In these
final regulations, the Department
removes this requirement that TS
projects serve a minimum number of
individuals.
The Department has decided to take
this action to provide it flexibility in
each competition to establish the
minimum number of participants that
must be served, 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
to help disadvantaged youth 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. 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 will include
setting a minimum number of program
participants for each competition to
The final GEAR UP regulations are
needed to implement provisions of the
HEOA, which changed certain features
of the GEAR UP program. 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. The
statutory changes that have prompted us
to make changes in these regulations
follows:
• 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 the
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 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
6 GAO, ‘‘Additional Efforts Could Help Education
With its Education Goals,’’ May 2003, available at
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sections 643.30 (TS), 644.30 (EOC),
645.40 (UB), 646.30 (SSS), 647.30
(McNair): Changes to Allowable Costs
(Computer Hardware and Software)
Under the final regulations, TRIO
projects no longer are required to obtain
the Secretary’s approval before
purchasing computer and software
equipment. This regulatory change
eliminates administrative costs
associated with obtaining this approval.
GEAR UP
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
has exhausted all revenues for replacing
these matching funds.
• Sections §§ 694.12 and 694.14—
Scholarship Component: Section
404E(e)(1) of the HEA, as amended by
the 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 and enrollment at
an institution of higher education. 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 institution of
higher education receive at least the
minimum Federal Pell Grant award, to
require any GEAR UP grantee subject to
the section 404E requirements to
provide this minimum award to all
GEAR UP students enrolled in an
institution of higher education. 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
404E(e)(4)(A) of the HEA, as amended
by the 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.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Section 694.19: Priority
Final § 694.19 clarifies how the
Department will implement the statute’s
requirement that priority in making
awards be given to those States that
meet the following elements: (1) Prior to
enactment of the 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 statutory priority by having
applicants address in their applications
how they met of these elements, we
believe that imposing this kind of data
burden is unnecessary.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
Instead, we will rely, where possible,
on reports that applicants previously
submitted in implementing their prior
GEAR UP projects. Thus, to implement
this statutory priority, the Department
will 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 on this second element in
their applications, the Department
believes that the additional burden
would be very small, and that the costs
of this additional administrative burden
would be far outweighed by the benefits
of 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
new sections specify the circumstances
in which the Secretary will consider
requests from applicants for a waiver of
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)(2)(B) of the HEA. (Section
404C(b)(2)(A)(ii) 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 two-to-one
basis, but final § 694.8(c) simply repeats
this statutory provision.)
The final regulations governing
waiver requests by applicants (§ 694.8)
and by grantees (§ 694.9) provide
significant benefit to the public, and do
so in numerous ways. First, they
provide that the Secretary will 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 pre-existing and
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65757
on-going significant economic hardship
that precludes the applicant 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 final
regulations 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, § 694.8(b)(3) permits 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
regulatory provision both eliminates the
applicant’s need to prepare a nonFederal budget as part of its application,
and upon initial approval of the waiver
request, provides a basis for predicting
whether or not the Secretary will extend
the waiver in future years.
Thus, these regulatory provisions
provide a substantial benefit to grantees
meeting the new 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 §§ 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 funds 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
§§ 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65758
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
would not be able to continue operating
their GEAR UP projects without these
waivers, these regulations 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.
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 decision 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.
Sections 694.12 and 694.14: Scholarship
Component
Final § 694.14(g) makes the
requirement in prior § 694.10(d) 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 decision 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, this cost results from
the new statutory requirement that all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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(b)(4) of the HEA as 10 percent of the
maximum Pell Grant award, the benefit
to grantees as a result of final § 694.14(g)
is 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
determines will not receive
continuation awards. Importantly,
because removing the continuation
award requirement from the GEAR UP
regulations only applies to new awards,
no GEAR UP students in newly funded
projects will have the expectation of
receiving a GEAR UP continuation
scholarship.
Section 694.16: Return of Unused
Scholarship Funds
Section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of HEA, as
amended by the 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 has added § 694.16(c),
which requires 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 will 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 will be able to charge some of
these administrative costs to their award
of Federal GEAR UP grant funds
because some of these annual reports
will be prepared and submitted during
the project period. Other annual reports
will 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 may (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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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. However, based on all
available information, the Secretary
believes that the costs introduced by
this regulatory provision are justified by
the Department’s need to have the
necessary information to monitor the
millions of dollars of Federal funds
obligated to GEAR UP scholarship
accounts.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.Whitehouse.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 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 regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as
transfers to those entities.
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Category
Annual Monetized
Transfers.
From Whom to Whom
Transfers
(in millions)
$1,233
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
regulations will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulations affect
institutions of higher education, States,
LEAs, and nonprofit organizations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines
three types of ‘‘small entities.’’ They
include ‘‘small businesses,’’ which have
the same meaning as ‘‘small business
concern’’ under section 3 of the Small
Business Act and includes firms that are
‘‘independently owned and operated’’
and ‘‘not dominant in its field of
operation.’’ The U.S. Small Business
Administration further defines small
business by developing size standards
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
by industry. The definition of small
business includes for-profit schools
with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000. The definition of small
entity also includes ‘‘small
organizations,’’ which are defined as
‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
not dominant in its field,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions,’’ which
include schools districts under 50,000.
HEP and CAMP
The Secretary believes that the minor
changes reflected in the HEP and CAMP
regulations will not affect small entities.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal TRIO Programs
The Secretary believes that the
regulations for the Federal TRIO
Programs 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 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 final Federal
TRIO regulations will not negatively
impact these small entities and, in fact,
believes that small grantees will benefit
from these regulations. For example, the
removal of the minimum students
served requirement under the TS
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 will
benefit small grantees, in particular,
because administrative costs for these
grantees 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 final
GEAR UP 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
LEAs; 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
U.S. Small Business Administration size
standards. However, the Secretary
believes that these small entities will
not be adversely impacted by the
regulations. In accordance with
statutory changes, the 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 642.21, 642.22, and 642.25 of
the Training Program for Federal TRIO
Programs (Training) regulations;
§§ 643.21, 643.22, 643.24 and 643.32 of
the Talent Search (TS) regulations;
§§ 644.21, 644.22, 644.24, and 644.32 of
the Educational Opportunity Centers
(EOC) regulations; §§ 645.31; 645.32,
645.35, and 645.43 of the Upward
Bound (UB) regulations; §§ 646.11,
646.21, 646.22, 646.24, 646.32, 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 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 the regulatory changes
included in these final regulations. For
each new application, a separate 30-day
Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit comments on the
new application 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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65759
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 final regulations for the Training
program amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an
application for a new grant to conform
to current practice. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA established a
formal second review process for
unsuccessful TRIO applicants.
Therefore, the final regulations include
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.
Specifically, these regulations remove
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 now will 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
will establish the ‘‘need’’ for the
proposed training; thus, the Need
selection criterion is no longer
necessary. This regulatory change will
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 final regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding
band’’ will be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the
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 at least 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65760
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
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, is not
permitted to submit any additional data
or information related to the criteria
used to evaluate the quality of the
application that was not included in its
original application.
The regulatory change to the selection
criteria reduces the amount of
information an applicant must include
in its application, resulting in an
estimated burden reduction of 240
hours. In addition, we estimate that
approximately 10 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 regulatory
changes reflected in §§ 642.21 and
642.25 will result in a net total burden
reduction of 228 hours, reflected in
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW1.
Sections 643.21 and 643.24 (TS)—
Selection criteria the Secretary uses to
evaluate an application for a new grant
and the second review process for
unsuccessful applicants.
The final regulations 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, added
requirements for a formal second review
process for unsuccessful applicants.
Therefore, the final 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 the processes
and procedures for the second review of
unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA 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 revised the following
selection criteria: § 643.21(a) (Need for
the project); 643.21(b) (Objectives);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
643.21(c) (Plan of operation); and
643.21(d) (Applicant and community
support).
In addition, the application for TS
competitions will describe the
procedures an unsuccessful applicant
must follow to request a second review
of its application. Under the regulations,
only those applicants in the proposed
‘‘funding band’’ will be eligible to
request a second review. As described
in the final 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 PE scores, if
applicable. The applicant will be given
at least 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 will
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,
will not be able to submit any additional
data or information related to the
criteria used to evaluate the quality of
the application that was not included in
its original application.
The Department does not expect the
changes to the TS 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 will result in a total burden
increase of 60 hours for the revised
application, which will be reflected in
a new OMB Control Number 1840–
NEW2. The Department has already
solicited public comments in a separate
30-day Federal Register notice that was
published on August 5, 2010 (75 FR
37415) on the new application process
that will be used for the FY 2011
competition for new TS grants; the
estimated deadline date for receiving
applications for this competition is
December 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 final 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,
added requirements for a formal second
review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the final
regulations will establish processes and
procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
grant application for the EOC program
will 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
made changes to the outcome criteria.
To better align the selection criteria
with these statutory changes, we revised
the selection criteria in § 644.21(b)
(Objectives). The revised selection
criteria replace existing criteria.
In addition, the EOC grant application
will describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant would need to
follow to request a second review of its
application. Under these regulations,
only those applicants in the ‘‘funding
band’’ will be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the
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 PE scores, if
applicable. The applicant will be given
at least 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 will
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,
will not be able to submit any additional
data or information related to the
criteria used to evaluate the quality of
the application that was not included in
its original application.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
The Department does not expect these
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 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
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 winter 2011.
Sections 645.31 and 645.35 (UB)—
Selection criteria the Secretary uses to
evaluate an application for a new grant
and the second review process for
unsuccessful applicants.
The final UB regulations 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, added requirements for a
formal second review process for
unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the
final regulations establish processes and
procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new
application for UB grant competitions
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 applicant
eligibility and the outcome criteria. To
better align the selection criteria with
these statutory changes, we revised the
following selection criteria: §§ 645.31(b)
(Objectives) and 645.31(d)(2) (Applicant
and community support). The revised
selection criteria replace the criteria in
current §§ 645.31(b) and 645.31(d)(2).
In addition, the application will
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the regulations, only those applicants in
the ‘‘funding band’’ will be eligible to
request a second review. As described
in the final regulations, the Department
will notify an unsuccessful applicant in
writing as to the status of its application
and the ‘‘funding band’’ for the second
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
review and provide copies of the peer
reviewers’ evaluations of the application
and the applicant’s PE scores, if
applicable. The applicant will be given
at least 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 will
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,
will not be permitted to submit any
additional data or information related to
the criteria used to evaluate the quality
of the application that was not included
in its original application.
The Department does not expect these
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 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 will result in a total burden
increase of 80 hours for the revised
application, which will 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
fall 2011.
Sections 646.11, 646.21 and 646.24
(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 final 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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65761
by the HEOA, has added requirements
for a formal second review process for
unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the
final regulations include 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
changes and current practice, we
revised § 646.21(b) (Objectives). In
addition, we have revised § 646.11 to
include the requirement that the
applicant discuss in its application its
efforts to provide participants sufficient
financial assistance.
The application for SSS grants will
describe the procedures an unsuccessful
applicant must follow to request a
second review of its application. Under
the SSS regulations, only those
applicants in the ‘‘funding band’’ are
eligible to request a second review. As
described in the 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 PE
scores, if applicable. The applicant will
be given at least 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, will not be
permitted to submit any additional data
or information related to the criteria
used to evaluate the quality of the
application that was not included in its
original application.
The Department does not expect the
changes to the SSS selection criteria or
the assurances that an applicant must
provide in its application will 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65762
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
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 will result in a total burden
increase of 66 hours for the revised
application, which will 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 competition for
new SSS grants currently scheduled for
fall 2014.
Sections 647.21 and 647.24 (McNair)—
Selection criteria the Secretary uses to
evaluate an application for a new grant
and the second review process for
unsuccessful applicants.
The final McNair regulations 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, added
requirements for a formal second review
final for unsuccessful applicants.
Therefore, the final McNair regulations
establish processes and procedures for a
second review of unsuccessful
applications. The new application will
describe the changes to the selection
criteria and 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 for McNair with these
statutory changes and current practice,
we revised § 647.21(b) (Objectives).
In addition, the McNair grant
application will describe the procedures
an unsuccessful applicant must follow
to request a second review of its
application. Under the final regulations,
only those applicants in the ‘‘funding
band’’ will be eligible to request a
second review. As described in the final
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 PE scores, if
applicable. The applicant will be given
at least 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 will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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,
will not be permitted to submit any
additional data or information related to
the criteria used to evaluate the quality
of the application that was not included
in its original application.
The Department does not expect the
changes to the selection criteria for the
McNair program 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 will result in a total burden
increase of 16 hours for the revised
application, which will 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 winter 2012.
Section 642.22 (Training)—How does
the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
The HEA does not establish specific
outcome criteria for the Training
program; the program outcome criteria
for evaluating a grantee’s PE are
established in the regulations.
Under the final regulations for the
Training program, we will award PE
points for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded
applicable project objectives. This
determination will be based on the
information the grantee submits in its
APRs. The regulations amend the PE
criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points as follows.
For Training (Newly redesignated
§ 642.20 and 642.22), we clarified the PE
criteria and updated the regulations to
reflect the maximum number of PE
points a Training program grantee may
earn. The maximum number of points
changes 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 the changes
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reflected in this provision to increase
burden.
Sections 643.22 and 643.32 (TS)—How
does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? and New recordkeeping
requirement.
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 PE of high quality service
delivery and for the purpose of
reporting annually to Congress on the
performance of the TS program. Prior to
the enactment of the HEOA, the PE
criteria were established only in the
regulations.
Under the final TS regulations, we
will award PE points for each criterion
by determining whether the grantee met
or exceeded applicable project
objectives. This determination will be
based on the information the grantee
submits in its APRs. The regulations
amend the criteria the Secretary uses to
award PE points.
The final TS regulations 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 amended the recordkeeping
requirements in § 643.32(c) to require
that a TS grantee, to the extent
practicable, keep a record of any
services its participants receive during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or other federally funded
program serving similar populations.
Currently one APR form is used for
both the TS and EOC programs. Because
of the changes to TS, the Department
plans to develop a new APR for TS. The
Department expects the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for TS to
increase the reporting burden for this
new data collection to 16 hours for each
grantee. This will result in a total
burden increase of 7,520 hours for the
new APR, which will 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.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Sections 644.22 and 644.32 (EOC)—
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? and New recordkeeping
requirement.
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 PE of high quality service
delivery and for the purpose of
reporting annually to Congress on the
performance of the EOC program. Prior
to the HEOA, the PE criteria were
established only in the regulations.
Under the final EOC regulations, we
will award PE points for each criterion
by determining whether the grantee met
or exceeded applicable project
objectives. This determination will be
based on the information the grantee
submits in its APRs. The final
regulations amend the criteria the
Secretary uses to award PE points.
We also amended the recordkeeping
requirements in § 644.32(c) to require
that an EOC grantee, to the extent
practicable, keep a record of any
services its participants receive during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or other federally funded
program serving similar populations.
The new statutory PE criteria are
similar to the current regulatory PE
criteria for the EOC program (see current
§ 644.22); therefore, the Department
does not expect the changes in § 644.22
to increase the burden on an EOC
grantee. However, the Department
expects the new recordkeeping
requirements for EOC to increase the
reporting burden by 2 hours per grantee
(248 total hours). However, when a new
TS APR is developed, the current
TS/EOC form will not be used by TS
grantees; therefore, we expect a burden
decrease for this data collection of 2,820
hours; therefore, the net reduction in
burden hours will be 2,572, which will
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Sections 645.32 and 645.43 (UB)—
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? and New recordkeeping
requirement.
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 PE of high quality service
delivery and for the purpose of
reporting annually to Congress on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
performance of the UB program. Prior to
the enactment of the HEOA, the PE
criteria were established only in the
regulations.
Under the final regulations for the UB
program, we award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the
grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The final
regulations 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
require 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.
We also amended the recordkeeping
requirements in § 645.43(c) to require
that an UB grantee, to the extent
practicable, keep a record of any
services its participants receive during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or other federally funded
program serving similar populations.
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 and the new recordkeeping
requirements to increase the reporting
burden for this data collection by eight
hours for each grantee. This will result
in a total burden increase of 9,144 hours
for the revised APR, which will 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 fall 2013.
Sections 646.22, 646.32 and 646.33
(SSS)—How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience? New recordkeeping
requirement and Addition of 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
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65763
to the HEOA, the PE criteria were
established only in the regulations.
Under the final regulations for the
SSS program, we award PE points for
each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination
will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its APR. The final
regulations 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 have amended the recordkeeping
requirements in § 646.32(c) to require
that a SSS grantee, to the extent
practicable, keep a record of any
services its participants receive during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or other federally funded
program serving similar populations.
We estimated that this new
recordkeeping requirement will increase
the reporting burden by two hours per
grantee.
We also added 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 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 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 these regulations will increase the
burden by two hours per grantee.
The combined increase will result in
a total burden increase of 9,234 hours
for the revised APR, which will 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.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65764
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Sections 647.22 and 647.32 (McNair)—
How does the Secretary evaluate prior
experience? and New recordkeeping
requirement.
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 PE 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 only in the
regulations.
Under the final regulations for the
McNair program, we award PE points
for each criterion by determining
whether the grantee met or exceeded
applicable project objectives. This
determination will be based on the
information the grantee submits in its
APR. The regulations 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 four hours per
grantee. We have also amended the
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 647.32(c) to require that a McNair
grantee, to the extent practicable, keep
a record of any services its participants
receive during the project year from
another Federal TRIO program or other
federally funded program serving
similar populations. We estimated that
this new recordkeeping requirement
will increase the reporting burden by
two hours per grantee.
The combined increase will result in
a total burden increase of 1,200 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 2013.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Part 694—GEAR UP
Sections 694.7, 694.8 and 694.9—
Matching Requirements for GEAR UP
grants
The final 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 final 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 final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
The final regulations will 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 nonFederal funds. We estimate that this
requirement will 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 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 spring 2011.
The final regulations also will 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. If granted a waiver of the
matching requirement, GEAR UP
grantees will spend significantly less
time collecting and documenting
matching funds. We estimate that the
final changes will 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
comment on the revised APR and FPR
forms prior to their usage, currently
estimated to be spring 2012.
Section 694.16(c)—Scholarship
Reporting Requirements
The final 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 to make
scholarships pursuant to the HEOA
requirements, 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 will
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
be required until these funds are fully
expended or, if Federal funds, returned
to the Secretary.
We estimate that these final changes
will 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 2012.
Section 694.19—What priorities does
the Secretary establish for a GEAR UP
grant?
The final regulations will 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.
Applicants will respond to these
priorities as part of their applications in
OMB Control Number 1840–NEW12,
which will 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 spring 2011.
Section 694.20—When may a GEAR UP
grantee provide services to students
attending an institution of higher
education?
Under the final regulations, GEAR UP
applicants will 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 final changes
will 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 spring 2011.
Consistent with this discussion, the
following chart describes the sections of
the final regulations involving
information collections, the information
being collected, and the collections that
the Department will submit to OMB for
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
65765
approval and public comment under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Regulation
section
Information section
Collection OMB control number
Sections 642.21
and 642.25
(Training).
The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a Training grant.
The final regulations add a new section that establishes
processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
Sections 643.21
and 643.24
(TS).
The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a TS grant. The
final regulations also add a new section that establishes
processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
Sections 644.21
and 644.24
(EOC).
The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for an EOC grant.
The final regulations add a new section that establishes
processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
1840–NEW1 (Training This is a new collection. The final regulations will affect applicant burden in two ways. First, the
elimination of the Need selection criterion reduces the
amount of information an applicant must include in its application, resulting in an estimated burden reduction of 240
hours.
Additionally, the final regulatory processes and procedures for
a second review of unsuccessful applications will 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 will be an estimated decrease in burden of 228
hours.
1840–NEW2 (TS) This will be a new collection. The Department has already solicited public comments in a separate
30-day Federal Register notice that was published August
5, 2010 on the new application process that will be used
for the FY 2011 competition for new TS grants; the estimated deadline date for receiving applications is December
2010. The Department does not expect that changes to the
selection criteria will change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a
second review of unsuccessful applications will 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 will be an estimated burden increase of 60
hours.
1840–NEW3 (EOC) This will 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 winter 2011.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Sections 645.31
and 645.35
(UB).
Sections 646.11;
646.21 and
646.24 (SSS).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a UB grant. The
final regulations also add a new section that establishes
processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
The final regulations 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 final regulations also
add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Department does not expect that the final amendments
to the selection criteria will change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications will
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 will be an estimated burden increase of 20
hours.
1840–NEW4 (UB) This will 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 2011.
The Department does not expect that final amendments to
the selection criteria will change an applicant’s paperwork
burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for
a second review of unsuccessful applications will 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 will be an estimated burden increase of 80
hours.
1840–NEW5 (SSS) This will 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 2014.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65766
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Regulation
section
Information section
Collection OMB control number
Sections 647.21
and 647.24
(McNair).
The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a McNair grant.
The regulations also add a new section that establishes
processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.
Section 642.22
(Training).
The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary
uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations, we
award PE points for each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives.
This determination will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its annual performance report.
The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary
uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we
award PE points for each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives.
This determination will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its annual performance report.
The Department does not expect that amendments to the selection criteria or the assurance that an applicant must describe in its application regarding its efforts to provide participants with sufficient financial assistance will change an
applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful
applications will 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 will be an estimated burden increase of 66
hours.
1840–NEW6 (McNair) This will 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 winter 2012. The Department
does not expect that amendments to the selection criteria
will change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications will 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 will be an estimated burden increase of 16
hours.
1894–0003 (Training) The Department will continue to use
the Department’s generic performance report for the Training program. The final changes reflected in this provision
are editorial in nature. There will be no increase in estimated burden hours.
Sections 643.22
(TS) and
643.32.
The final regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for TS
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Sections 644.22
and 644.32
(EOC).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary
uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we
award PE points for each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives.
This determination will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its annual performance report.
The final regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for EOC.
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1840–NEW7 (TS) This will 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 final regulations will increase grantee
data collection and reporting requirements in two ways.
First, the final 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 final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping requirements will require that a TS grantee document the services a student, who is served by more than
one TRIO or other federally funded program, is receiving
from another program during the project year. This is a
new data collection that also will increase grantees’ burden
hours. The Department expects these two changes to result in an increase of 16 burden hours per grantee.
In total, for 470 grantees, there will be an estimated burden
increase of 7,520 hours.
1840–NEW8 (EOC) This will 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 changes to affect the burden on EOC grantees.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Regulation
section
Information section
Sections 645.32
and 645.43
(UB).
Collection OMB control number
The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary
uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we
award PE points for each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives.
This determination will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its annual performance report.
The final regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for UB.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Sections 646.22,
646.32 and
646.33 (SSS).
The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary
uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we
award PE points for each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives.
This determination will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its annual performance report.
The final regulations amend the recordkeeping requirements
for SSS and also add a new section on matching requirements for SSS.
Sections 647.22
and 647.32
(McNair).
The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary
uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we
award PE points for each criterion by determining whether
the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives.
This determination will be based on the information the
grantee submits in its annual performance report.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
65767
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
However, the final regulatory amendments to the recordkeeping requirements will require that an EOC grantee document the services a student, who is served by more than
one TRIO or other federally funded program, is receiving
from another program during the project year. This is a
new data collection that will increase grantee’s burden
hours by two hours per grantee (248 total hours for 124
grantees).
However, when a new TS APR is developed, the current TS/
EOC form will not be used by TS grantees; therefore, we
expect a burden decrease for this data collection of 2,820
hours; the net reduction in burden hours will be 2,572,
which will be reflected in a new OMB Control Number
1840–NEW8.
1840–NEW9 (UB) This will 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 2013
data collection.
The final 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 changes to result in an increase of six burden hours
per grantee.
The final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping requirements will require that a UB grantee document the services
a student, who is served by more than one TRIO or other
federally funded program, is receiving from another program during the project year. This is a new data collection
that also will increase a grantee’s burden by an estimated
two hours.
In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of eight
hours per grantee for a total increase of 9,144 hours for
1,143 grantees.
1840–NEW10 (SSS) This will 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 final regulations will increase grantee
data collection and reporting requirements in three ways.
First, the regulatory amendments to the PE criteria, which address statutory requirements for tracking the academic
progress of SSS participants through degree completion,
will increase the reporting burden by six hours for each
grantee.
Second, the final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping
requirements will require that a SSS grantee document the
services a student, who is served by more than one TRIO
or other federally funded program, is receiving from another
program during the project year. This is a new data collection that also will increase a grantee’s burden by an estimated two hours.
Additionally, for those grantees that are required to provide
matching funds for grant aid (estimated at 50 percent of
SSS grantees), the final regulations will increase burden by
an estimated two hours per grantee.
In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 9,234
hours for 1,026 grantees.
1840–NEW11 (McNair) This will 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
2013 data collection. The regulatory amendments to the PE
criteria, which address statutory requirements for long-term
tracking of the academic progress of McNair participants
through completion of the doctoral degree, will increase the
reporting burden by four hours for each grantee.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65768
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Regulation
section
Information section
694.7, 694.8,
and 694.9
GEAR UP.
The final regulations will 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 final regulations also will 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 final regulations will also provide the conditions that must
be met for the Secretary to approve a request to waive a
portion of the matching requirement.
694.16 ..............
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Collection OMB control number
The final regulations will 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 to use the § 694.14 requirements (rather than the § 694.13 requirements) 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.
Further, the final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping requirements will require that a McNair grantee document the
services a student, who is served by more than one TRIO
or other federally funded program, is receiving from another
program during the project year. This is a new data collection that also will increase a grantee’s burden by an estimated two hours.
In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of six
hours per grantee for a total of 1,200 hours for 200 grantees.
1840–NEW12 This will be a new collection. A separate 30day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
comments on this form prior to the next competition for
new grants scheduled for spring 2011.
In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 12.5
hours per applicant for an estimated 500 applicants. There
will be an estimated burden increase of 6,250 hours.
1840–NEW13 This will be a new collection. A separate 60day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
comments on this form following the next competition for
new GEAR UP grants. If granted a waiver of the matching
requirement, GEAR UP grantees will spend significantly
less time collecting and documenting matching funds. In
total, there will be an estimated burden decrease of 46.5
hours per grantee for an estimated 169 grantees. There will
be an estimated burden decrease of 7,860 hours.
1840–NEW14 This will be a new collection. A separate 60day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
comments on this form following the next competition for
new GEAR UP grants.
The final 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 final 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 final 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. In total, there will be an
estimated burden decrease of 56.25 per grantee for an estimated 100 grantees.There will be an estimated burden
decrease of 5,625 hours.
1840–NEW13 This will be a new collection. A separate 60day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
comments on this form following the next competition for
new GEAR UP grants. In total, there will be an estimated
burden increase of 87.6 hours per grantee for an estimated
100 grantees. There will be an estimated burden increase
of 8,760 hours.
1840–NEW14 This will be a new collection. A separate 60day 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Regulation
section
Information section
Collection OMB control number
694.19 ..............
The final 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.
694.20 ..............
The final regulations permit GEAR UP applicants 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.
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
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
In accordance with section 411 of the
General Education Provisions Act, 20
U.S.C. 1221e–4, and based on our own
review, we have determined that these
final regulations do not require
transmission of information that any
other agency or authority of the United
States gathers or makes available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You can 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/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
The final 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 nonFederal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship funds. Reporting will be required until these funds are fully expended
or, if Federal funds, returned to the Secretary.
1840–NEW12 This will be a new collection. A separate 30day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
comments on this form prior to the next competition for
new grants scheduled for spring 2011. In total, there will be
an estimated burden increase of 5 hours per applicant for
an estimated 43 applicants. There will be an estimated burden increase of 215 hours.
The final regulations will 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 will be a new collection. A separate 30day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
comments on this form prior to the next competition for
new grants scheduled for spring 2011. In total, there will be
an estimated burden increase of 300 hours for each applicant for an estimated 500 applicants. There will be an estimated burden increase of 150,000 hours.
news/fedregister. To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at this site.
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
Assessment of Educational Impact
Colleges and universities,
Disadvantaged students, Educational
programs, Discretionary grants,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Training.
Dated: September 23, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary amends parts
206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and
694 of title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00059
65769
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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).
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65770
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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:
■
■
§ 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?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
*
*
*
*
*
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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’’.
■ 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. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), removing
the word ‘‘student’’ and adding, in its
place, the word ‘‘students’’.
■ H. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi)
as paragraph (b)(2)(vii).
■ I. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi).
■ J. 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?
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00060
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
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–11(b))
15. Newly redesignated § 642.5 is
amended by:
■ A. Revising the section heading.
■ B. Revising paragraph (a).
The revisions read as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
■
§ 642.5
What regulations apply?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
§§ 75.215 through 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
order, new definitions for ‘‘Foster care
youth’’, ‘‘Homeless children and youth’’,
‘‘Individual with a disability’’, 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 a disability means a
person who has a disability, as that term
is defined in section 12102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
*
*
*
*
*
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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65771
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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 1070a–11,
1070(b), 1088, and 1141)
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 from § 642.24 that is
designated in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications.
(Authority: 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.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65772
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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
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]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§§ 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?
*
*
*
*
*
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
(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 after the last paragraph in
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)
*
*
*
*
*
23. Newly redesignated § 642.22 is
revised to read as follows:
■
§ 642.22 How does the Secretary evaluate
prior experience?
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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
at least 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 no less than 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.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1894–0003)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
24. Newly redesignated § 642.23 is
amended by revising the section
heading to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 642.23 How does the Secretary ensure
geographic distribution of awards?
*
*
*
*
25. Newly redesignated § 642.24 is
revised to read as follows:
(c) The Secretary designates one or
more of the training priorities from
paragraph (a) of this section in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition.
§ 642.24 What are the Secretary’s priorities
for funding?
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
17)
*
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
■
(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:
(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), (a)(18), (a)(19),
(a)(20), and (a)(21) of this section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
26. Section 642.25 is added to subpart
C of part 642 to read as follows:
■
§ 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65773
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
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65774
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
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 provided 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 at least 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
(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)
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
27. A new § 642.26 is added to subpart
C of part 642 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.
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 follow:
■
§ 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:
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 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’’.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 35. Section 643.4 is revised to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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—
(i) Secondary school reentry;
(ii) Alternative education programs
for secondary school dropouts that lead
to the receipt of a regular secondary
school diploma;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
(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 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.
(8) Other activities designed to meet
the purposes of the Talent Search
Program in § 643.1.
(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 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65775
§§ 75.215 through 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’’, ‘‘Individual with a
disability’’, ‘‘Regular secondary school
diploma’’, and ‘‘Rigorous secondary
school program of study’’.
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, which may
include but is 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 or
postbaccalaureate education (e.g.,
spending, saving, personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences
between private and government loans,
assistanceships); 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. 11434a).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65776
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Individual with a disability means a
person who has a disability, as that term
is defined in section 12102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
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 Academic
Competitiveness Grant (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.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
*
*
*
*
*
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
Subpart B 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. Revising paragraph (b).
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 643.11 What assurances must an
applicant submit?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The project will collaborate with
other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP
projects, or programs serving similar
populations that are serving the same
target schools or target area in order to
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
minimize the duplication of services
and promote collaborations so that more
students can be served.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 42. Section 643.20 is amended by:
■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same
populations’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in
delivering services’’ and adding, in their
place, the words ‘‘of high quality service
delivery; and adding the word
‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’.
■ 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\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
which the application contains clear
evidence of the following:
(1) (4 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 or schools who
graduate 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 or low success
by low-income or first generation
students in such courses.
(6) (6 points) Other indicators of need
for a TS project, including low academic
achievement and low standardized test
scores of students enrolled in the target
schools, 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) (2 points) Secondary school
graduation (regular secondary school
diploma).
(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.
(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) The plan to work in a
coordinated, collaborative, and costeffective manner as part of an
overarching college access strategy with
the target schools or school system and
other programs for disadvantaged
students to provide participants with
access to and assistance in completing
a rigorous secondary school program of
study.
(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; and financial, personnel,
and records management.
(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
community partners.
(i) An applicant that is an institution
of higher education must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and community
organizations;
(ii) An applicant that is a secondary
school must include in its commitments
from institutions of higher education,
community organizations, and, as
appropriate, other secondary schools
and the school district; and
(iii) An applicant that is a community
organization must include in its
application commitments from the
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65777
target schools and institutions of higher
education.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 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
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) The Secretary does not award any
PE points for the criterion specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number
of participants) if the applicant did not
serve at least 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 no less than 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 participants served during
the project year 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 graduation of participants
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65778
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
served during the project year who
completed a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
(5) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding the
participants expected to graduate from
high school in the school year who
enrolled in an institution of higher
education within the time period
specified in the approved objective.
(6) (1.5 points) Postsecondary
completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding
project participants who enrolled in and
completed a program of postsecondary
education within the 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:
■
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 § 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 provided 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 at least 15 calendar days
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
(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–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), 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 (c) introductory
text.
■ I. Revising paragraph (f).
■ J. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 643.30
*
PO 00000
*
What are allowable costs?
*
Frm 00069
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
65779
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Fees required for admission
applications for postsecondary
education, college entrance
examinations, or alternative education
examinations if—
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment, service agreements for such
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, service agreement,
or rental of computer equipment and
software needed for project
administration and recordkeeping.
(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 through an
accredited 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
regular secondary 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, in its
place, the word ‘‘Stipends’’.
■
49. Section 643.32 is amended by:
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65780
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. In paragraph (c) introductory text,
removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding,
in its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■ C. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the
word ‘‘and’’.
■ D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place,
the words ‘‘; and’’.
■ E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
■ F. Revising paragraph (d).
■ G. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (d),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0549’’ and
adding, in their place, the numbers
‘‘1840–NEW2’’.
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 643.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Number of Participants. For each
year of the project period, a grantee
must serve at least the number of
participants that the Secretary identifies
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. Through
this notice, the Secretary also provides
the minimum and maximum grant
award amounts for the competition.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) To the extent practicable, any
services the TS participant receives
during the project year from another
Federal TRIO program or another
federally funded program that serves
populations similar to those served
under the TS program.
(d) 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 (d)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the project director will be able to
effectively administer more than three
programs and that this arrangement
would promote effective coordination
between the TS program and other
Federal TRIO Programs (sections 402B
through 402F of the HEA) or similar
programs funded through other sources.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 644—EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY CENTERS
50. The authority citation for part 644
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) To improve the financial 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:
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’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 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)
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 a
disability’’.
■ 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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, which may
include but is 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
or postbaccalaureate education (e.g.,
spending, saving, personal budgeting);
(iv) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(v) Financial assistance (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences
between private and government loans,
assistanceships); 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
the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
Individual with a disability means a
person who has a disability, as that term
is defined in section 12102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
(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?
57. The heading for subpart B of part
644 is revised to read as set forth above.
■
§ 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:
■
§ 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:
■ 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?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The project will collaborate with
other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP
projects, or programs serving similar
populations that are serving the same
target schools or target area in order to
minimize the duplication of services
and promote collaborations so that more
students can be served.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 61. Section 644.20 is amended by:
■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same
populations’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in
delivering services’’ and adding, in their
place, the words ‘‘of high quality service
delivery; and adding the word
‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’.
■ 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65781
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:
■
■
§ 644.20 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 62. Section 644.21 is amended by:
■ A. Revising paragraph (b).
■ B. 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) Secondary school
diploma or equivalent.
(2) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment.
(3) (1.5 points) Financial aid
applications.
(4) (1.5 points) College admission
applications.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 63. Section 644.22 is revised to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65782
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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) The Secretary does not award PE
points for the criterion specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number
of participants) if the applicant did not
serve at least 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 no less than the approved number of
participants.
(2) (3 points) Secondary school
diploma. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project year who do not have a
secondary school diploma or its
equivalent who receive a secondary
school diploma or its equivalent within
the time period specified in the
approved objective.
(3) (5 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the secondary school graduates
served during the project year who
enroll in programs of postsecondary
education within the time period
specified in the approved objective.
(4) (2 points) Financial aid
applications. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding
participants applying for financial aid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
(5) (2 points) College admission
applications. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding
participants applying 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:
§ 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
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 provided 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 at least 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65783
(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 (c) introductory
text.
■ G. Revising paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 644.30
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Fees required for admission
applications for postsecondary
education, college entrance
examinations, or alternative education
examinations if—
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment, service agreements for such
equipment, and supplies for participant
development, project administration, or
project recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 67. Section 644.32 is amended by:
■ A. Revising paragraph (b).
■ B. In paragraph (c) introductory text,
removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding,
in its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■ C. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the
word ‘‘and’’.
■ D. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place,
the words ‘‘; and’’.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65784
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
F. Revising paragraph (d).
G. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (d),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0065’’ and
adding, in their place, the numbers
‘‘1840—NEW8’’.
The revisions and addition reads as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 644.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Number of Participants. For each
year of the project period, a grantee
must serve at least the number of
participants that the Secretary identifies
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. Through
this notice, the Secretary also provides
the minimum and maximum grant
award amounts for the competition.
(c) * * *
(4) To the extent practicable, any
services the participant receives during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or another federally
funded program that serves populations
similar to those served under the EOC
program.
(d) 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 (d)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that that the project director will be able
to effectively administer more than
three programs and that this
arrangement would promote effective
coordination between the program and
other Federal TRIO programs (sections
402B through 402F of the HEA) and
similar programs funded through other
sources.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 645—UPWARD BOUND
PROGRAM
68. The authority citation for part 645
continues to read as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
■
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).
■
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
The revisions read as follows:
§ 645.2
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 645.3 is amended by:
■ A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the
word ‘‘or’’ after the punctuation ‘‘;’’;
■ B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘; or’’;
■ C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).
■ D. In paragraph (d), removing the
words ‘‘but has not entered the twelfth
grade’’.
The addition reads as follows:
§ 645.3 Who is eligible to participate in an
Upward Bound project?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) An individual who has a high risk
for academic failure.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 71. 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?
*
*
*
*
*
72. 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 73. 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 a disability’’, ‘‘Regular secondary
school diploma’’, ‘‘Rigorous secondary
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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?
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
Financial and economic literacy
means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, which may
include but is 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 or
postbaccalaureate education (e.g.,
spending, saving, personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences
between private and government loans,
assistanceships); 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. 11434a).
*
*
*
*
*
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 successfully completed
pre-algebra or algebra by the beginning
of the tenth grade; or
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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 a disability means a
person who has a disability, as that term
is defined in section 12102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
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
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 Academic
Competitiveness Grant (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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
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 a disability as defined
in § 645.6(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 74. Section 645.11 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65785
(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 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)
§§ 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14
[Redesignated as §§ 645.13, 645.14, and
645.15]
75. 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.
■ 76. 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;
(f) Programs and activities as
described in § 645.11 that are specially
designed for participants who are
limited English proficient, participants
from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65786
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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; and
(g) Other activities designed to meet
the purposes of the Upward Bound
program in § 645.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13)
77. Newly redesignated § 645.15 is
amended by—
■ A. Revising the section heading.
■ B. 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’’.
■ C. In paragraph (b), removing the
word ‘‘and’’.
■ D. In paragraph (c), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘; and’’.
■ E. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
■
§ 645.15 What additional services may
Veterans Upward Bound projects provide?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Provide special services, including
mathematics and science preparation, to
enable veterans to make the transition to
postsecondary education.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 78. 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)
79. Section 645.21 is revised to read
as follows:
■
generation 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) The project will collaborate with
other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP
projects, or programs serving similar
populations that are serving the same
target schools or target area in order to
minimize the duplication of services
and promote collaborations so that more
students can be served.
(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;
(3) No student will be denied
participation in a project because the
student would enter the project after the
9th grade; and
(4) The project will collaborate with
other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP
projects, or programs serving similar
populations that are serving the same
target schools or target area in order to
minimize the duplication of services
and promote collaborations so that more
students can be served.
(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) The project will collaborate with
other Federal TRIO projects or programs
serving similar populations in the target
area in order to minimize the
duplication of services and promote
collaborations so that more students can
be served.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 645.21 What assurances must an
applicant include in an application?
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13)
(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 first-
■
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
80. Section 645.30 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same target
population’’ and adding, in its place, the
word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in
delivering services’’ and adding, in their
place, the words ‘‘of high quality service
delivery’’; and adding the word
‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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:
■
§ 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.
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 81. Section 645.31 is amended by:
■ A. Revising paragraph (b).
■ B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
The revisions read 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
retention and 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);
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) (3 points) Education program
retention and completion;
(iii) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment; and
(iv) (1 point) Postsecondary
completion.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Resources secured through written
commitments from community partners.
(i) An applicant that is an institution
of higher education must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and community
organizations;
(ii) An applicant that is a secondary
school must include in its commitments
from institutions of higher education,
community organizations, and, as
appropriate, other secondary schools
and the school district;
(iii) An applicant that is a community
organization must include in its
application commitments from the
target schools and institutions of higher
education.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 82. Section 645.32 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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
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) The Secretary does not award PE
points for the criteria specified in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i) of this
section (Number of participants) if the
applicant did not serve at least the
approved number of participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved
number of participants, or the actual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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)(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 no less than the approved number of
participants.
(ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5
points) Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants served during the
project year who had a cumulative GPA
at the end of the school year that was
not less than the GPA specified in the
approved objective.
(B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its approved objective
with regard to participants served
during the project period who met the
academic performance levels on
standardized tests as specified in the
approved objectives.
(iii) (3 points) Secondary school
retention and graduation. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its approved
objective with regard to participants
served during the project year 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 current and
prior participants with an expected high
school graduation date in the school
year who completed a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard current and prior participants
with an expected high school
graduation date in the school year who
enrolled in a program of postsecondary
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65787
education within the time period
specified in the approved objective.
(vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary
completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants who enrolled in a
program of postsecondary education
and 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 no less than 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 participants
who completed their Veterans Upward
Bound educational program during the
project year and who improved their
academic performance 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 participants
served during the project year who
remained in or completed their Veterans
Upward Bound educational program.
(iv) (3 points) Postsecondary
enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants who completed
their Veterans Upward Bound
educational program and enrolled in an
institution of higher education within
the time period specified in the
approved objective.
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary
completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to participants who enrolled in
and completed a program of
postsecondary education 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]
83. Section 645.33 is amended by, in
paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount
‘‘$190,000’’ and adding, in its place, the
amount ‘‘$200,000’’.
■ 84. 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)
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65788
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
85. A new § 645.35 is added to subpart
D of part 645 to read as follows:
■
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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 provided 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 at least 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
(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)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
86. 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).
■
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
65789
C. Redesignating paragraph (o) as
paragraph (p).
■ D. Adding new paragraph (o).
■ E. Adding new paragraph (q).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
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.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 645.40
88. Section 645.43 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (a).
■ B. Revising paragraph (b).
■ C. In paragraph (c) introductory text,
removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding,
in its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■ D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the
punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place,
the words ‘‘; and’’.
■ E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
■ F. Adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (c).
The additions read as follows:
■
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment, service agreements for such
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,
service agreements for such equipment,
and supplies needed for project
administration and recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) 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 through an
accredited 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 § 645.6(b);
(5) The secondary school accepts the
course as meeting one or more of the
course requirements for obtaining a
regular secondary school diploma;
(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is
unavailable;
(7) The tuition is paid with Upward
Bound grant funds to an institution of
higher education on behalf of a
participant; and
(8) The Upward Bound project pays
for no more than the equivalent of two
courses for a participant each school
year.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 87. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
■
■
§ 645.43 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
(a) Number of Participants. For each
year of the project period, a grantee
must serve at least the number of
participants that the Secretary identifies
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. Through
this notice, the Secretary also provides
the minimum and maximum grant
award amounts for the competition.
(b) 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 (b)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the project director will be able to
effectively administer more than three
programs and that this arrangement
would promote effective coordination
between the program and other Federal
TRIO programs (sections 402B through
402F of the HEA) and similar programs
funded through other sources.
(c) * * *
(5) To the extent practicable, any
services the participant receives during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or another federally
funded program that serves populations
similar to those served under the UB
program.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW9)
*
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
*
*
26OCR2
*
*
65790
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
PART 646—STUDENT SUPPORT
SERVICES
89. The authority citation for part 646
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
14, unless otherwise noted.
90. 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?
*
*
*
*
*
(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 and
economic literacy of students in areas
such as—
(1) Basic personal income, household
money management, and financial
planning skills; and
(2) Basic economic decision-making
skills.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 91. Section 646.4 is revised to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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 and
economic literacy of students, including
financial planning for postsecondary
education.
(5) Activities designed to assist
participants enrolled in four-year
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
institutions of higher education 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
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.
(7) Other activities designed to meet
the purposes of the Student Support
Services Program in § 646.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–14)
92. 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)
93. 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 through 75.221), 77, 79, 80,
82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
94. 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 a disability’’; 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—
(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, which may
include but is 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 or
postbaccalaureate education (e.g.,
spending, saving, personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches,
application processes, differences
between private and government loans,
assistanceships); and
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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;
(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; or
(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 a disability means a
person who has a disability, as that term
is defined in section 12102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
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
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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 95. Subpart B of part 646 is revised to
read as follows:
Subpart B—How Does One Apply for an
Award?
Sec.
646.10 How many applications may an
eligible applicant submit and for what
different populations may an eligible
application be submitted?
646.11 What assurances and other
information must an applicant include in
an application?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
(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.
(c) The applicant must assure the
Secretary in the application that a
student will not be served by more than
one SSS project at any one time and that
the SSS project will collaborate with
other SSS and McNair projects and
other State and institutional programs at
the grantee-institution so that more
students can be served.
(d) The applicant must assure the
Secretary in the application that the
institution’s financial aid office will
consult with the SSS project with
respect to which SSS participants
should receive grant aid and the amount
of the grant aid awards.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW5)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–14)
96. Section 646.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the
word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same
population’’ and adding, in its place, the
word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in
delivering services’’ and adding, in their
place, the words ‘‘of high quality service
delivery; and adding the word
‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’.
■ B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
■ C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
through (a)(2)(v).
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65791
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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 97. Section 646.21 is amended by:
■ A. Revising paragraph (b).
■ B. Revising the OMB control number
at the end of the section.
The revisions read 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\26OCR2.SGM
*
*
26OCR2
*
*
65792
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
98. Section 646.22 is revised to read
as follows:
■
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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) The Secretary does not award PE
points for the criterion specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number
of participants) if the applicant did not
serve at least 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 no less than the approved number of
participants.
(2) (4 points) Postsecondary retention.
Whether the applicant met or exceeded
its objective regarding the participants
served during the project year 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
academic year or transfer from a twoyear 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
participants served during the project
year 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 current and
prior 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 current and prior participants at the
grantee institution 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]
99. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended
by removing the amount ‘‘$170,000’’ and
adding, in its place, the amount
‘‘$200,000’’.
■ 100. 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—
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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 provided 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
section and whose application received
a score within the funding band as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section has at least 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65793
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–NEW5)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
101. 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 (e)
■ C. Revising paragraph (f).
■ D. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 646.30
What are allowable costs?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Transportation and, with the prior
approval of the Secretary, meals and
lodging for participants and staff during
approved educational and cultural
activities sponsored by the project.
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of
computer hardware, software, and other
equipment, service agreements for such
equipment, and supplies 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65794
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
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]
102. 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]
103. Section 646.32 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), and (d) as paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d), and (e) respectively.
■ B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
■ C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(2), removing the words ‘‘Higher
Education’’.
■ D. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b), removing paragraph (b)(3).
■ E. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)
introductory text, removing the word
‘‘shall’’ and adding, in its place, the
word ‘‘must’’.
■ F. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c)(3), removing the word ‘‘and’’.
■ G. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c)(4), removing the punctuation ‘‘.’’ and
adding, in its place, the words ‘‘; and’’.
■ H. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
■ I. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (d).
■ J. In the OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (e),
removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0017’’ and
adding, in their place, the numbers
‘‘1840–NEW5’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
■
■
§ 646.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
(a) Number of Participants. For each
year of the project period, a grantee
must serve at least the number of
participants that the Secretary identifies
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. Through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
this notice, the Secretary also provides
the minimum and maximum grant
award amounts for the competition.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) To the extent practicable, any
services the participant receives during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or another federally
funded program that serves populations
similar to those served under the SSS
program.
(d) 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 (d)(1) of this
section if the applicant demonstrates
that the project director will be able to
effectively administer more than three
programs and that this arrangement
would promote effective coordination
between the program and other Federal
TRIO programs (sections 402B through
402F of the HEA) or similar programs
funded through other sources.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 104. Section 646.33 is added to
subpart D of part 646 to read as follows:
§ 646.33 What are the matching
requirements for a grantee that uses
Student Support Services program funds
for student grant aid?
(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—
(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.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 1840–NEW10)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 647—RONALD E. MCNAIR
POSTBACCALAUREATE
ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM
105. The authority citation for part
647 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a–
15, unless otherwise noted.
106. 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 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.
(4) Other activities designed to meet
the purpose of the McNair Program in
§ 647.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–15)
107. 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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
108. 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 through 75.221), 77, 79, 80,
82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 109. Section 647.7(b) is amended by:
■ A. Removing the definition of
‘‘Summer internship’’.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
*
*
*
*
*
(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, which may
include but is 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 or
postbaccalaureate education (e.g.,
spending, saving, personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g.,
public vs. private, tuition vs. fees,
personal costs);
(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences
between private and government loans,
assistanceships); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA).
*
*
*
*
*
Graduate center means an institution
of higher education as defined in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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?
110. Subpart B of part 647 is amended
by revising the subpart heading to read
as set forth above.
■
§ 647.10
[Redesignated as § 647.11]
110a. Redesignate § 647.10 as
§ 647.11.
■
111. Section 647.10 is added to
subpart B of part 647 to read as follows:
■
§ 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
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))
112. Newly redesignated § 647.11 is
amended by adding paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65795
§ 647.11 What assurances must an
applicant submit?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A student will not be served by
more than one McNair project at any
one time and that the McNair project
will collaborate with other McNair and
SSS projects and other State and
institutional programs at the granteeinstitution, including those supporting
undergraduate research, so that more
students can be served.
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–15; 20 U.S.C.
1221e–3))
113. Section 647.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the
words ‘‘of high quality service delivery’’
after the words ‘‘prior experience’’ and
adding the word ‘‘outcome’’ before the
word ‘‘criteria’’.
■ 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 additions 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 114. 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?
*
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
*
*
26OCR2
*
*
65796
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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 or scholarly
activity.
(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)
*
*
*
*
*
115. Section 647.22 is revised to read
as follows:
■
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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) The Secretary does not award any
PE points for the criteria specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number
of participants) if the applicant did not
serve at least 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 no less than the approved number of
participants.
(2) (3 points) Research or scholarly
activities. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective for providing
participants served during the project
year 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
served during the project year 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]
116. 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’’.
■
■
117. Section 647.24 is added to
subpart C of part 647 to read as follows:
■
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
or scoring error as provided 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 at least 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.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65797
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–NEW6)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11)
118. 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, software, and other
equipment, service agreements for such
equipment, and supplies for participant
development, project administration, or
project recordkeeping.
119. Section 647.32 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), and (d) as (b), (c), (d), and (e),
respectively.
■ B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
■ C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c), adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
■ D. Adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following newlyredesignated paragraph (e).
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65798
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 647.32 What other requirements must a
grantee meet?
(a) Number of Participants. For each
year of the project period, a grantee
must serve at least the number of
participants that the Secretary identifies
in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for a competition. Through
this notice, the Secretary also provides
the minimum and maximum grant
award amounts for the competition.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) To the extent practicable, any
services the participant receives during
the project year from another Federal
TRIO program or another federally
funded program that serves populations
similar to those served under the
McNair program.
*
*
*
*
*
(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)
120. The authority citation for Part
694 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21 to 1070a–
28.
121. Section 694.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
■
§ 694.1 What is the maximum amount that
the Secretary may award each fiscal year to
a Partnership or a State under this
program?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
(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—
*
*
*
*
*
■ 122. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
a substantial majority of the students in
the cohort.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 123. 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)
124. Part 694 is amended by
redesignating §§ 694.8, 694.9, 694.10,
694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as
follows:
■
Old section
New section
§ 694.8 ..................................
§ 694.9 ..................................
§ 694.10 ................................
§ 694.11 ................................
§ 694.12 ................................
§ 694.13 ................................
§ 694.15 ................................
§ 694.10
§ 694.11
§ 694.13
§ 694.15
§ 694.17
§ 694.18
§ 694.19
125. New § 694.8 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–23)
126. New § 694.9 is added to read as
follows:
■
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 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
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
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
(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–23)
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
65799
§ 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?
127. 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25)
128. Newly redesignated § 694.13 is
revised to read as follows:
■
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
(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—
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
65800
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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
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)
129. Section 694.14 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
■
§ 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25)
130. Newly redesignated § 694.15 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?
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)
131. Section 694.16 is added to read
as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25(e))
132. Newly redesignated § 694.18 is
revised to read as follows:
■
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
§ 694.18 What requirements must be met
by a Partnership or State participating in
GEAR UP with respect to 21st Century
Scholarship Certificates?
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
applicable, that a student may be
eligible to receive.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–26)
133. 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))
134. 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)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65801
(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))
135. New § 694.21 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 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))
136. New § 694.22 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65802
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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))
137. 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.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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
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)
138. 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;
(g) Tutoring, mentoring, and
supplemental academic support;
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(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)
139. 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?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
If a Partnership or State is awarded a
GEAR UP grant on or after August 14,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
65803
(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. 2010–24324 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\26OCR2.SGM
26OCR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65712-65803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24324]
[[Page 65711]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65712]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations, and establishes 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 (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 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 programs, and GEAR UP program.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective December 27,
2010.
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 (TDD), 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: On March 23, 2010, the Secretary published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the HEP and CAMP, the Federal
TRIO programs, and the GEAR UP program in the Federal Register (75 FR
13814). In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages
13816 through 13859 the major changes proposed in that document to
strengthen and improve the administration of the HEP and CAMP, the
Federal TRIO programs, and the GEAR UP program authorized under the
HEA.
These final regulations implement changes made by the HEOA to
discretionary grant programs authorized by title IV of the HEA,
including:
HEP and CAMP:
Amending Sec. 206.3(a)(1) 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).
Amending Sec. 206.5(c) to define 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).
Amending Sec. 206.5(c) to revise 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 in Sec.
206.10(b) 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 CAMP services in Sec. 206.10(b)(2) 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 Sec. 206.11(b) to specify that follow-up CAMP
services 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 Sec. 206.20(b)(2) to specify that the Secretary
must not allocate an amount less than $180,000 for HEP and CAMP grants
(see section 418A(e) of the HEA).
[[Page 65713]]
Adding Sec. 206.31 to the HEP and CAMP program
regulations to specify the criteria the Department considers in
evaluating prior experience (see section 418A(f) of the HEA).
Federal TRIO Programs
Amending Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC),
645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair) to revise or add
definitions for different campus and different population, which change
the prior regulatory definitions of these terms for the SSS program and
the Department's administrative 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).
Adding new Sec. Sec. 642.11 and 642.12 (Training) and
amending Sec. 643.4 (TS), part 645 (UB, Upward Bound Math and Science
(UBMS), and Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)) Sec. 646.4 (SSS), and Sec.
647.4 (McNair) to specify the services or activities that projects
funded under the Federal TRIO programs must provide and the services or
activities that these projects may provide.
Amending Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC),
645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS) to add 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).
Amending newly redesignated Sec. 642.22 (Training) and
Sec. Sec. 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and
647.22 (McNair) to align prior experience determinations with
statutorily revised outcome criteria (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA (TS), section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (UB), section 402A(f)(3)(C)
of the HEA (SSS), section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA (McNair), and
section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA (EOC)).
Adding Sec. Sec. 642.25 (Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24
(EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24 (McNair) to provide a new
procedure to allow unsuccessful grant applicants to request a review of
alleged technical, administrative, or scoring errors that affected the
applicant's application.
Amending newly redesignated Sec. 642.6(b) (Training) and
Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b)
(SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair) to revise definitions for some terms and
to add new definitions to implement amendments to the HEA by the HEOA:
Financial and economic literacy (Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS),
644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair))
(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 (newly
redesignated Sec. 642.6(b) (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS),
644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)) (see sections
402A(e)(3) and 402B(c)(7) of the HEA (TS), section 402C(d)(7) of the
HEA (UB), section 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) of the HEA (SSS), section
402F(b)(11) of the HEA (EOC), and section 402G(b)(5) of the HEA
(Training)).
Graduate center; groups underrepresented in graduate
school; and research and scholarly activities (Sec. 647.7(b) (McNair))
(see sections 101 and 102 of the HEA and section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA
(McNair)).
Individual with a disability (newly redesignated Sec.
642.6(b) (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC),
645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)) (see section 402B(c)(7) of the HEA
(TS), section 402C(d)(7) of the HEA (UB), section 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6)
of the HEA (SSS), section 402F(b)(11) of the HEA (EOC), and section
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 (Sec. 645.6(b) (UB
and VUB)) (see sections 402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2) of
the HEA (UB)).
Institution of higher education (newly redesignated Sec.
642.6(b) (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC),
645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair)) (see sections 101
and 102 of the HEA).
Regular secondary school diploma and rigorous secondary
school program of study (Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS) and 645.6(b) (UB))
(see section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) of the HEA (TS) and section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (UB)).
Veteran (newly redesignated Sec. 642.6(b) (Training) and
Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), and 645.6 (b) (UB)) (see
section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS, EOC, and UB)).
Additionally, the regulations for the TRIO programs were 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 in newly
redesignated Sec. 642.4 (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.5 (TS), 644.5
(EOC), 645.34 (UB), 646.5 (SSS), and 647.5 (McNair) to define the
project period as two years for Training and five years for TS, EOC,
UB, SSS, and McNair (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: TS (Sec.
643.21(b)); EOC (Sec. 644.21(b)); UB (Sec. 645.31(b)(1), VUB (Sec.
645.31(b)(2)); SSS (Sec. 646.21(b)); and McNair (Sec. 647.21(b)) (see
section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA (TS), section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA
(UB), section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA (SSS), section 402A(f)(3)(D) of
the HEA (McNair), and section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA (EOC)).
Removing the minimum number of participants in the
regulations for TS, EOC, UB, UBMS, and VUB projects (see sections
402A(f), 402A(b)(3), 402B (TS), 402C (UB), 402F (EOC) of the HEA). For
each grant competition, the Department will establish the minimum
number of participants to be served by a grantee through the Federal
Register notice inviting applications.
Amending newly redesignated Sec. Sec. 642.22 and 642.24
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
Redesignating Sec. 694.15 as Sec. 694.19 to accommodate
the proposed addition of other regulatory provisions. Amending newly
redesignated Sec. 694.19 to provide 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 demonstrated a prior commitment
to early intervention leading to college access through collaboration
and replication of successful strategies; and to specify how the
Department determines whether a State GEAR UP grant has been
``successful'' (see section 404A(b)(3) of the HEA).
Adding Sec. 694.20 to explain 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).
Adding new Sec. 694.24 to require 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).
[[Page 65714]]
Amending Sec. 694.7(a)(2) 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 are no longer required to meet the matching
requirement each year of the project period (section 404C(b)(1) of the
HEA).
Adding new Sec. 694.8 to: (1) Provide authority for the
Secretary to approve a Partnership applicant's request for a waiver of
up to 50 or 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years
under certain circumstances; and (2) create a multiple-tiered system
for different types of waiver requests (see section 404C(b)(2) of the
HEA).
Adding new Sec. 694.8(b)(3) to specify that at the time
of application, the Secretary may provide 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 new Sec. Sec. 694.21 and 694.22 to specify
required and allowable activities and separate these required and
allowable activities into multiple regulatory sections (section 404D of
the HEA).
Adding new Sec. 694.22(e) to specify that GEAR UP
grantees may provide activities that support participating students to
develop graduation and career plans, including career awareness and
planning assistance as they relate to a rigorous academic curriculum
(see section 404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).
Adding newly redesignated Sec. Sec. 694.13 and new 694.14
to clarify 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).
Adding new Sec. 694.24 to describe 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).
Amending newly redesignated Sec. 694.13(a) to specify the
minimum amount of scholarship funding for an eligible student, and
provide 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).
Adding new Sec. 694.14(b) to incorporate the statutory
definition of the term eligible student (from section 404E(g) of the
HEA) in the program regulations.
Clarifying in new Sec. 694.14(c)(2) 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 in newly redesignated Sec. 694.13(c) that
scholarships must be made to all students who are eligible under the
definition in Sec. 694.13(d) 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).
Adding new 694.14(e) to specify that States awarding
scholarships must 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).
Adding new 694.14(f) to specify that States must provide
scholarship funds 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 (see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
Specifying in new Sec. 694.14(g) that a State or
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 (see section 404E of the HEA).
Amending newly redesignated Sec. 694.15 to specify 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, and those funds may be
used to comply with the program's matching requirement (see section
404C(b) of the HEA).
Adding new Sec. 694.16 to specify 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).
Adding new Sec. 694.25 to require grantees that receive
initial grant awards after the passage of the HEOA to continue to serve
students from a previous grant received by the grantee (see section
404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA).
Adding new Sec. 694.25(a) to clarify 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).
Amending newly redesignated Sec. 694.18 to specify 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 of any scholarship that a student may be
eligible to receive.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
The regulations in this document were developed through the use of
negotiated rulemaking. Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before
publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs under title
IV of the HEA, the Secretary must obtain public involvement in the
development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and
recommendations, the Secretary must conduct a negotiated rulemaking
process to develop the proposed regulations. The negotiated rulemaking
committee did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations that were
published on March 23, 2010. The Secretary invited comments on the
proposed regulations by April 22, 2010. In response to the Secretary's
invitation in the NPRM to the proposed
[[Page 65715]]
regulations, 455 parties submitted comments on the proposed
regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate
sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses. We discuss other
substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which they
pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes, suggested changes that the law does not authorize the
Secretary to make, or comments pertaining to issues that were not
within the scope of the NPRM.
Part 206--Special Educational Programs for Students Whose Families Are
Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmwork--High School Equivalency
Program (HEP) and College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
Who May Benefit From HEP and CAMP? (34 CFR Part 206)
Comment: One commenter inquired as to whether HEP would only
benefit farm workers and their families and stated that there were
others, not necessarily in that group, who could potentially be helped
by this program.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's view that HEP could
potentially help individuals who are not migrant and seasonal
farmworkers. However, section 418A of the HEA, which authorizes both
HEP and CAMP, requires that program activities focus on migrant and
seasonal farmworkers and their immediate family. The Department does
not have the authority to expand this statutorily prescribed
requirement.
Changes: None.
Types of Services for CAMP Projects (Sec. 206.10(b)(2))
Comment: None.
Discussion: In our review of Sec. 206.10(b)(2), we realized that
Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(iv) contained a typographical error and we have
corrected it.
Changes: In Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(iv), we have removed the word
``student'' and added, in its place, the word ``students'' to correct a
typographical error.
Prior Experience in HEP and CAMP (Sec. 206.31(a))
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise the
wording of a note that was included in the NPRM's preamble discussion
of prior experience under HEP and CAMP. Specifically, the commenter
suggested deleting the phrase ``for the priority'' from the following
note, which appeared on page 13820 of the NPRM (75 FR 13814, 13820):
``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.''
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern for clarifying
this language from the preamble of the NPRM. In this notice of final
regulations, we make changes, if appropriate, to the regulations
themselves, not language from the preamble of the NPRM. Moreover, we do
not believe that any change to the regulations themselves is necessary
because Sec. 206.31(a) refers only to the Secretary considering the
applicant's experience in implementing an expiring HEP project; it does
not use the phrase ``for the priority''.
Changes: None.
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 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.
We have organized the discussion of comments received on and
responses to the proposed changes to the specific Federal TRIO program
regulations by first addressing crosscutting issues by subject matter
and then discussing program-specific issues on a program-by-program
basis.
Our discussion of comments 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
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that an applicant that
submitted a TRIO Program grant application to provide services to one
of the different populations identified by the Secretary in the Federal
Register notice inviting applications for one fiscal year competition
would be ineligible to submit an application for a new grant award to
continue the existing project if the population served by the existing
project was not designated as an eligible population in the notice
inviting applications for the next competition. The commenter suggested
that the Department include language in the regulations to ensure that
an applicant with an expiring grant will be eligible to apply for a new
grant in a subsequent competition to serve the same population of
students.
Discussion: As part of the HEOA, Congress significantly revised the
definition of ``eligible population'' in section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA.
To implement this statutory change, the regulations specify that, for
each competition, the Department will designate in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for the competition, the different
populations for which an entity may submit a separate application (see
Sec. Sec. 642.7 (Training) \1\, 643.10(b) (TS), 644.10(b) (EOC),
645.20(b) (UB), 646.10(b) (SSS), and 647.10(b) (McNair).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the Training Program, the Federal Register notice
inviting applications will include the statutory and other
priorities that applicants must address for the competition.
Training program grantees will provide training on the topics
identified in the published priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under these regulations, therefore, an entity that previously
received a grant to serve a particular population would be eligible to
submit an application for a new grant to continue serving the same
population if that population is included as a designated population in
the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the new
competition. If the population served by the grantee is not designated
for the new competition, the entity would not be eligible to apply for
a grant to continue to serve the same population it served under the
expiring grant. While an entity with an expiring grant serving another
population could apply for a grant to serve one of the populations
designated in the notice inviting applications for the new competition,
the entity would not be eligible for PE points based on its expiring
grant.
Changes: None.
[[Page 65716]]
Designating Different Populations in the Federal Register Notice
Inviting Applications
Comment: One commenter questioned whether designating different
populations for each competition was consistent with the TRIO programs'
goals. The commenter believed that this approach would politicize the
application process because it would force applicants to constantly
change the focus of their projects to meet the changing requirements of
the times. Ultimately, the commenter expressed concern that the
proposed approach would destabilize the programs because it would
reduce the effectiveness of the grantees.
Discussion: We do not agree that the designation of different
populations to be served for each competition will politicize the
application process or reduce the effectiveness of the TRIO programs
because most of the projects funded under any competition will be for
traditional TRIO projects (i.e., projects that provide services to
eligible participants--low-income, first-generation college students,
and students with disabilities--but that do not focus services on a
specific population). For example, during the FY 2010 SSS grant
competition only a small percentage of the applicants proposed projects
to serve different populations that had distinct needs for specialized
services that could not be addressed through a regular SSS project. As
discussed in the NPRM, 75 FR at 13821-22, the designation of different
populations for each competition will give the Department the
flexibility to address changing national needs and to ensure that
Federal funds are targeted to areas or populations most in need. The
Secretary believes that it is appropriate to change the focus of the
TRIO programs if the national needs change. That said, this does not
mean that the Department will change the designated populations for
each new competition.
Changes: None.
Clarification of the Term ``Designated Different Population''
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification regarding what
qualifies as a designated different population.
Discussion: 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. Section 402A(h)(2)
of the HEA defines ``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 that, while sharing some of the same needs as
another population, has distinct needs for specialized services. The
definition sections of each of the TRIO program regulations will
include the new statutory definition for ``different population'' for
each program to which the term applies. In addition, each of the TRIO
program regulations provide that the Secretary will designate, in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published
application materials for each competition, the different populations
for which an eligible entity can submit separate applications.
Therefore, what qualifies as a designated different population for each
grant competition will be determined by the Department and described in
the Federal Register notice inviting applications for that competition.
For example, under the FY 2010 SSS grant competition, the Secretary
designated projects that serve five different populations: Individuals
with disabilities, individuals for whom English is a second language,
individuals pursing science, technology, engineering and math
disciplines, individuals pursuing teacher preparation, and individuals
pursuing health sciences.
Changes: None.
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program Definition
of Financial and Economic Literacy (Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, 645.6,
646.7, 647.7)
Comment: One commenter suggested that providing education or
counseling services designed to improve financial and economic literacy
should be a required service for all TRIO programs. Multiple commenters
noted that EOC projects do not have enough time or resources to provide
education or counseling services to improve participants' knowledge
about all of the examples of personal financial decision-making listed
in the definition of financial and economic literacy.
Discussion: Under these regulations, all Federal TRIO programs--
other than the Training program--include as a mandatory or permissible
activity providing education or counseling services designed to improve
the financial and economic literacy of participants (see Sec. Sec.
643.4(a)(6) TS),\2\ 644.4(e) (EOC), 645.11(a)(6) (UB), 646.4(a)(4)
(SSS), and 647.4(b)(1) (McNair)). The definition of financial and
economic literacy is consistent across programs. We intended the
proposed definition to include a non-exhaustive list of examples of the
types of knowledge that comprise knowledge about personal financial
decision-making. We have made minor changes to this definition to make
clear that the list of examples is not exhaustive and is not a list of
mandatory activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the case of the TS program, projects must provide
connections for participants to education or counseling services
designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of the
participants or the participants' parents, including financial
planning for postsecondary education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: For clarity we have changed the phrase ``including but not
limited to'' to ``which may include but is not limited to'' in order to
emphasize that the list of types of knowledge that may constitute
knowledge about personal financial decision-making is not exhaustive
and is not a list of mandatory activities.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended changes to the language
used for some of the examples included in the definition of the term
financial and economic literacy. One commenter suggested changing the
reference to ``secondary education'' in Sec. 646.7 (SSS) to
``postsecondary education''. Other commenters suggested that we add the
term ``postbaccalaureate'' after the reference to ``postsecondary'',
that we change the words ``scholarship, grant and loan education'' to
``financial assistance education,'' and that we include the word
``assistanceships'' in the definition of financial and economic
literacy.
Discussion: We generally agree with these requested changes because
we believe that they help to clarify the types of knowledge one should
have to be financially and economically literate. Therefore, we have
revised Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, 647.7 to make these
changes. With respect to the request to add the words ``financial
assistance education,'' we agree with the concept behind the comment
but believe it is more appropriate to refer to ``financial assistance''
because it is knowledge about financial assistance, not financial
assistance education, that is relevant.
Changes: In the definition of financial and economic literacy in
Sec. 646.7 (SSS), we have changed the reference to ``secondary
education'' to ``postsecondary education''. In addition, in the
definition of financial and economic literacy included in the
regulations for the TS, EOC, UB, and McNair programs, we have added the
term ``postbaccalaureate'' after the reference to ``postsecondary'',
replaced the words ``scholarship, grant and loan education'' with the
words ``financial
[[Page 65717]]
assistance,'' and included ``assistanceships'' as an example.
Definition of Homeless Children and Youth (Sec. Sec. 642.6, 643.7,
644.7, 645.6, 646.7)
Comment: Multiple commenters asked for clarification of the
definition of ``youth''. These commenters stated that the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act defines the age of children and youth as
ending prior to being college aged. The commenters expressed concern
that this definition would limit the services that TRIO programs could
offer to these students. One commenter asked if homeless children and
youth will be a separate group of eligible participants like first-
generation or low-income students.
Discussion: The McKinney-Vento Act defines ``homeless children and
youths'' in terms of what qualifies the individual as homeless, not by
age.\3\ Therefore, there is no cut-off age for the definition of
``youth'' in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Subtitle B of Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act defines ``homeless'' as follows:
The term ``homeless children and youths''--
(A) Means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and
(B) includes--
(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other
persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar
reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping
grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are
living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in
hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;
(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence
that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily
used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within
the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));
(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public
spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train
stations, or similar settings; and
(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify
as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children
are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those TRIO programs that provide pre-college programs assist
students who are individuals covered by the definition of homeless
children and youth in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. In
the SSS program, however, assistance for securing temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year may be provided to students who are
homeless children and youths or formerly homeless children or youths
(see Sec. 646.30(j)).
Finally, while section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires TRIO
projects, as appropriate, to make services available to homeless
children and youths, homeless children and youths are not a separate
group of eligible participants. Therefore, homeless children and youths
are only eligible if they also meet the program's participant
eligibility criteria (e.g., low-income, first-generation).
Changes: None
Definition of Individual With a Disability (Sec. Sec. 642.6, 643.7,
644.7, 645.6, and 646.7)
Comment: Multiple commenters requested that we broaden the
definition of the term individuals with disabilities to mirror the
language used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Another
commenter requested clarification on whether the inclusion of the term
``individual with disabilities'' means that a student with a documented
disability or individualized education plan could participate in a TRIO
project even if he or she does not meet one of the other eligibility
criteria.
Discussion: The ADA, as revised by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
defines the term ``disability'' to mean, with respect to an individual,
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities of such an individual, (B) a record of such
an impairment or (C) being regarded as having such an ``impairment.''
This definition also applies under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (Section 504). We agree that it is appropriate
to use a definition of an individual with a disability that
incorporates the ADA's definition of ``disability.'' Accordingly, we
have changed the definition of individual with disabilities to be a
definition of the term individual with a disability and we define
individual with a disability to mean a person with a disability, as
that term is defined in section 12102 of the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.).
With respect to the comment seeking clarification on whether the
inclusion of the term individual with disabilities in these regulations
means that a student with a documented disability or individualized
education program could participate in a TRIO project even if he or she
does not meet one of the other eligibility criteria, we note that--
except under the SSS program--being an individual with a disability is
not a separate and additional eligibility criterion, such as being a
first-generation or low-income student. Therefore, under all but SSS,
being an individual with a disability does not, on its own, make an
individual eligible to participate in a TRIO project. It is important
to note that adopting the ADA's definition of an individual with a
disability does not mean that grant funds under these programs may be
used to pay for services required by the ADA that are not directly
related to the goals of the TRIO programs. However, this prohibition
would not relieve the institution of their obligations under the ADA or
Section 504. For example, it would not be appropriate to use SSS
program funds to pay for a sign language interpreter for a student who
is hard of hearing to participate in his or her Calculus class as
required by the ADA or Section 504.
Changes: In Sec. Sec. 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, and 646.7 of the
final regulations, we define individual with a disability to mean a
person with a disability, as that term is defined in section 12102 of
the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
Definition of Veteran (Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, and 645.6)
Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed definition of
veteran be modified to include National Guard veterans who served on
active duty in Iraq and/or Afghanistan given that a large number of
these individuals were called to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and
served for long tours of duty.
Discussion: National Guard veterans who served on active duty in
Iraq and/or Afghanistan are included in the definition of veteran.
These individuals qualify as veterans under the last two paragraphs of
that definition (i.e., the individual 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 the individual 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 on or
after September 11, 2011).
Changes: None.
Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria Definition of ``High
Quality Service Delivery'' (Sec. Sec. 642.20(b), 643.20(a)(2)(i),
644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), 647.20(a)(2)(i))
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the proposed
regulations that would provide that the Secretary would consider an
applicant's prior experience of ``high quality service delivery'' in
deciding which new grants to make. Some commenters recommended that the
phrase ``high quality service delivery'' be defined to provide projects
with clear expectations and performance standards. Other commenters
stated that, because the phrase ``high quality service delivery'' is
[[Page 65718]]
not defined, it should not be included in the regulations. One
commenter argued that because project performance data is strictly
quantitative in nature, a determination of a grantee's quality of
service cannot be made.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters' suggestion that the
term ``high quality service delivery'' needs to be defined in the
regulations. We also disagree that a grantee's quality of service
cannot be determined based on project performance. As stated in section
402A(f)(1) of the HEA and in these regulations, the determination of an
applicant's prior experience of ``high quality service delivery'' will
be based on the outcome criteria for the specific program. Therefore, a
grantee that met or exceeded its approved project objectives for its
expiring grant would be considered to have delivered high quality
services. The Department will use data provided by the grantee in the
APR, as well as audit findings, site visit reports, and any other
information received by the Department to determine if the grantee met
or exceeded these objectives.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing proposed Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i),
644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), 647.20(a)(2)(i)), we
determined that it would be clearer to have these sections refer to
``outcome criteria'' rather than to ``criteria'' only. This change
aligns the regulatory language more closely with section 402A(f) of the
HEA, which refers to the specific outcome criteria to be used to
determine an entity's prior experience (PE) points under the TS, UB,
SSS, McNair, and EOC programs.
Changes: We have amended Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i),
644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), 647.20(a)(2)(i)) by
adding the word ``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i),
644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), we determined that
technical changes were needed in these sections. Because the HEA now
permits entities to submit multiple applications to serve different
populations, campuses, or both, it is important that the regulations
clarify the conditions under which an entity may receive PE points for
applications for new grants (depending on whether the new grant will
serve the different populations, campuses, or both served under an
expiring grant). The Department has revised these regulations to
clarify that PE points are awarded only to the application for a new
grant that proposes to continue to serve substantially the same
populations and campuses that the applicant is serving under an
expiring grant. Therefore, an entity will not receive PE points for (a)
applications to serve different populations, even if the different
populations are on the same campus as the population or populations
served by the existing grant, or (b) applications to serve a different
campus altogether.
Changes: We have amended Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i),
644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), and 646.20(a)(2)(i) by replacing the
word ``or'' after the words ``same populations'' with the word ``and.''
Incorrect Annual Performance Report (APR) Data (Sec. Sec.
642.22(a)(3), 643.22(a)(3), 644.22(a)(3), 645.32(a)(3), 646.22(a)(3),
647.22(a)(3))
Comment: The Department received numerous comments on the proposed
regulatory language that would permit the Secretary to adjust a PE
score or decide not to award PE points if other information indicates
that the APR data used to calculate the applicant's PE are incorrect.
Several commenters requested that the regulations be revised to take
into consideration projects that knowingly provide fraudulent
information and those that act in good faith but inadvertently provide
data containing errors, so that the Department does not penalize
projects for honest mistakes. Several commenters stated that Department
officials have acknowledged that numerous projects have made data
errors in their APRs, and these commenters believe that it is in the
best interest of the Department and the projects to work to correct
these errors, rather than not to award PE points to these projects.
Discussion: We understand the commenters' concern about data
reporting errors potentially resulting in the loss of PE points for an
applicant. The Department does not intend to use this authority to
penalize applicants that make reporting errors despite their ``good
faith'' efforts. However, because the Department cannot always tell
whether an applicant intentionally provides false data or if the
applicant made a mistake in data reporting, we believe it is
appropriate for the Department to have the flexibility to address
issues of concern in audit findings, site visits, or other information
that identifies problems in a grantee's efforts to meet the established
objectives on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, we decline to make
any changes to the regulations to distinguish between projects that
knowingly provide fraudulent information and those that act in good
faith but inadvertently provide data containing errors.
Changes: None.
Notification of PE Points Awarded (Sec. Sec. 642.22, 643.22, 644.22,
645.32, 646.22, 647.22)
Comment: Many commenters requested that the Department notify
grantees of their PE points earned each project year within a certain
amount of time (e.g., 60 to 90 days) after the end of the grant period.
They also recommended that the Department provide relevant comments to
grantees that score less than the maximum 15 PE points, to assist the
grantees in improving their projects in future years.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions on how to
improve communication about project performance between the Department
and grantees. The Department provides applicants with standardized
objectives for the relevant TRIO program in the application materials
for each TRIO competition. Applicants then must specify their
performance targets, and grantees report on their progress in achieving
approved objectives in their APR. At the conclusion of each
competition, grantees receive a summary of the PE scoring by
standardized objective for each of the three years assessed. Moreover,
the APR for each program is designed so that grantees should be able to
calculate their own annual PE scores. However, the Department will
continue to perfect its assessment of PE and find ways to provide
timely feedback to grantees on their projects' performance.
Changes: None.
PE Points for Financial and Economic Literacy (Sec. Sec. 642.22,
643.22, 644.22, 645.32, 646.22, 647.22)
Comment: The Department received several comments recommending that
PE points be granted for experience providing services to improve
participants' financial and economic literacy as well as financial aid
application support. Some commenters offered this recommendation for
only a specific TRIO program. These commenters argued that services
related to financial and economic literacy and financial aid support
are required by the HEA, have been incorporated into certain of the
TRIO programs' purposes, and are pivotal to helping participants
prepare for college. Some commenters also noted that it makes sense to
provide PE points for these services, because project staff spend a
substantial amount of time engaged in these services.
[[Page 65719]]
Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges that the HEA emphasizes the
importance of providing or connecting participants to services related
to improving a participant's financial and economic literacy. However,
the HEA does not list this activity as one of the outcome criteria to
be used for PE points. To remain consistent with the statute, which
requires that the Secretary determine an entity's prior experience
based on the statutory outcome criteria, the Secretary is not adding PE
criteria not included in section 402A(f) of the HEA.
Changes: None.
Timeline for Earning PE Points--Postsecondary Completion (Sec. Sec.
643.22(d)(6) (TS), 645.32(e)(1)(vi) and (e)(2)(v) (UB))
Comment: Several commenters sought clarification on the timeframe
in which UB and TS grantees will be eligible to earn the PE points
associated with meeting their approved objectives for postsecondary
degree completion, particularly if the criterion is evaluated after the
second, third, and fourth program years, given the length of time it
typically takes a student to complete a postsecondary degree. Some
commenters requested an explanation of whether participants under an
entity's expired or expiring grant may be counted toward meeting
approved objectives for this criterion. One commenter recommended that
grantees earn PE points for this criterion based on either
postsecondary academic progress (persistence) or completion.
Discussion: We understand the commenters' concern that applicants
may not be eligible for all the PE points available for each
competition, due to the amount of time it takes to track enrollment in
and completion of postsecondary education of the participants served in
the applicants' expired or expiring grants. Under the UB program, some
applicants would be eligible to earn PE points for participants they
served under earlier grants who attain a postsecondary degree within
the number of years specified in the approved objective. Because the
Department has been collecting individual participant data through the
UB APRs for several years, the Department will be able to match
participant data from prior years to determine the extent to which UB
participants completed programs of postsecondary education.
However, under the TS program, we have not been collecting data on
the academic progress of TS participants through postsecondary
completion as this is a new outcome criterion for this program.
Therefore, the Department will not be able to match participant data
from prior years to assess the extent to which TS participants
completed programs of postsecondary education. Going forward, the
Department will work with grantees to develop a new APR for the TS
program that will capture the data needed to award PE points for
postsecondary completion. The Department acknowledges that TS projects
will not be eligible for the PE points for postsecondary completion for
several years.
Finally, we have not accepted the commenter's suggestion that we
award PE points under the postsecondary completion criteria based on
the extent to which project participants were either still persisting
in or had completed a program of postsecondary education because the
requirement of the HEA is postsecondary completion, not progress or
completion.
Changes: None.
Years Considered in PE Assessment (Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(iii),
644.20(a)(2)(iii), 645.30(a)(2)(iii), 646.20(a)(2)(iii)
647.20(a)(2)(iv))
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern regarding the
proposed regulation that would provide that the Secretary will
designate in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and
other published application materials for a competition which three
years of the expiring five year grant period will be considered in the
PE assessments for new awards. Several commenters stated that the
regulations should specify which three years will be used, while a few
others suggested clarifying that the middle three years (i.e., years
two through four) of the grant cycle would be considered. These
commenters contended that including this information in the regulations
would reduce confusion among grantees as to the timeframe evaluated for
purposes of determining PE points. One commenter recommended using data
for the four years preceding the date of application for the new
competition. This commenter noted that such an approach would be
consistent with the Department's current system in which the average
rates of achievement for the preceding three years are used. Similarly,
other commenters had concerns that the proposed use of three years of
project data will fail to take into consideration two project years'
worth of a project's performance.
Discussion: The HEA now provides that all TRIO grants will be
awarded for five years, but the Secretary has determined that PE points
should be assessed for only three of the five year project period. In
making this determination, the Secretary took several factors into
consideration. First, the Department's experience has demonstrated
that, for a number of reasons, many first-time or new grantees do not
meet their approved objectives for the first year of funding. Not using
the first year of the grant cycle for PE points, therefore, will give
new grantees time to effectively implement the project prior to having
its performance evaluated for purposes of assessing PE. Second,
evaluating performance from the last year of a project period to
determine PE points for new awards presents a number of challenges.
Applications for new grants are due about a year prior to the end of
the current grant period and new awards are announced several months
prior to the end of the grant period. Thus, it is not possible to
consider a project's performance in the fifth year of an expiring grant
prior to making funding decisions for the new grant competition because
the APR data for the last year of the expiring grant would not be
available for calculating PE points until several months after the new
grant period begins.
For these reasons, we do not think it is appropriate or possible to
use the first and fifth years of the expiring grant cycle to assess PE
points for new competitions. Generally, we expect that the published
application materials will designate the three middle years of the
expiring grant (i.e., project years two through four). However,
designating the specific years to be considered in the application
materials, rather than in the regulations, will give the Secretary
flexibility to address unique situations on a competition-by-
competition basis. For example, there may be situations when some
grantees started their expiring grant period a year or more later than
other grantees. In such a situation, the applicant's performance during
the first three years, instead of the middle three years, of the
expiring grant would be used to award PE points. The published
application materials would designate the project years that would be
used for PE (e.g., 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10) for all applicants in
the competition.
Changes: None.
Use of Approved Versus Actual Number of Participants Served (Sec. Sec.
645.32(d), 646.22(d), 647.22(d))
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the proposal that
the Secretary will use the approved number of participants, or the
actual number of participants served in a given
[[Page 65720]]
year if that number of participants is greater than the approved
number, as the denominator in calculating whether the applicant has met
its approved objectives under its expiring grant to earn PE points for
the new grant application. A few commenters argued that a grantee who
does not serve the approved number of participants is penalized in two
ways: First, by not receiving PE points for the criterion measuring
whether the approved number was served, and, second, by not receiving
any PE points at all if at least 90 percent of the approved number was
not served. These commenters stated that using the approved number
instead of actual number as the denominator in PE calculations is
unnecessarily punitive. Furthermore, one commenter recommended that
either the actual number of participants should be used as the
denominator or the number of PE points associated with serving the
approved number of participants should be reduced. This commenter
argued that the number of points assigned to this criterion, combined
with the proposed use of the approved number as the denominator, makes
the penalty for projects that do not serve their approved number too
severe. The commenter stated that this concern particularly applies to
small projects, for which the commenter notes that one or two students
can affect an objective by two or more percentage points.
Discussion: Grant award amounts and performance targets are based
largely on the number of participants a project is funded to serve each
year of the grant period. Therefore, we believe that, for those PE
criteria applicable to all participants served in the project year, the
denominator should be the greater of the approved number of
participants to be served or the actual number of participants served.
PE points are rewards, and give projects a competitive advantage in a
subsequent grant competition. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a
grantee to meet the performance targets it proposed and that were
approved through the grant process to earn the maximum number of PE
points. Therefore, we do not accept the commenters' suggestion not to
use the approved number as the denominator for calculating PE points
for some objectives or to reduce the PE points a project can earn for
serving its approved number of participants.
Changes: None.
PE Criterion Related to Number of Participants (Sec. Sec. 642.22(d)
and (e)(1); 643.22(c) and (d)(1); 644.22(c) and (d)(1); 645.32(c),
(e)(1)(i), and (e)(2)(i)); 646.22(c) and (e)(1); 647.22(c) and (e)(1))
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the phrase
``approved number of participants'' in the proposed regulations means
that a grantee would not receive PE points if the project served more
than their approved number of participants. These commenters argued
that it is difficult to ensure that a project only serves the exact
number of participants that were proposed, as projects often accept
more participants than they are funded to serve to ensure that at least
the minimum number is met throughout the year. Two commenters further
noted that the phrase ``met or exceeded the entity's objectives'' is
used in several areas of the HEOA, suggesting that the spirit of the
law is for projects to serve at least the funded number. Several
commenters requested that the criterion be revised to reflect that the
Department will examine whether the applicant provided services to ``at
least the approved number of participants