[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65712-65803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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:
[email protected].
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'' 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 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 Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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
(Sec. Sec. 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
[[Page 65721]]
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 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 Sec. Sec. 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
rank-order 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.
Number of Days To Prepare and Submit a Written Request for a Second
Review (Sec. Sec. 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
[[Page 65722]]
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 Sec. Sec. 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.
Technical or Administrative Errors (Sec. Sec. 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.
Criteria for Scoring Errors on Applications That Were Reviewed
(Sec. Sec. 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, first-generation 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.
Timely Notification of Applications Determined To Be Ineligible Because
of a Technical or Administrative Error (Sec. Sec. 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 (Sec. Sec. 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 (Sec. Sec. 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
[[Page 65723]]
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.
Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs (34 CFR part 642) What is
the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs? (Sec. 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.
What activities does the Secretary assist? (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Math-Science (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? (Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
642.11. The required topics provide the appropriate diversity and
opportunities for training.
Changes: None.
What are the Secretary's priorities for funding? (Sec. Sec. 642.7 and
642.24)
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further departmental review of Sec. 642.7 and
newly redesignated Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 642.24. We
have made a change to Sec. 642.24 to make this clearer. In addition,
while Sec. 642.7 states that the Secretary designates the absolute
priorities in the Federal Register notice inviting applications, newly
redesignated Sec. 642.24, as proposed, did not include corresponding
language. For the sake of clarity, therefore, we have added language to
Sec. 642.24 that states that the Secretary designates one or more of
the priorities in Sec. 642.24 in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition.
Changes: We have added language to Sec. 642.7 to clarify that the
absolute priorities designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications are from the list of training priorities in Sec. 642.24.
We also have added paragraph (c) to newly redesignated Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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
[[Page 65724]]
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 two-tiered 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 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: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html.
What is the Talent Search program? (Sec. 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? (Sec. 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 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? (Sec. 643.3)
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the regulations retain
the requirement, reflected in current Sec. 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 Sec.
643.3(b). A majority of the comments on Sec. 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 Sec. 643.3(a)(3)(ii) because we amended this
provision to comply with the changes made by
[[Page 65725]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
643.3(b). As a result, current Sec. 643.3(b), which would have been
redesignated as Sec. 643.3(c), remains unchanged as Sec. 643.3(b) in
these final regulations.
What services does a project provide? (Sec. 643.4)
Comment: The majority of individuals who commented on Sec. 643.4
suggested that the required services listed in Sec. 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 Sec. 643.4(b) to clarify that grantees 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 643.4(b) to reflect that
intent more clearly.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 643.4(b) by adding paragraph (b)(8),
which clarifies that a TS project may provide services other than those
specified in Sec. 643.4(b)(1) through (b)(7) that are designed to meet
the purposes of the TS program.
What definitions apply? (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 643.21(a)(3) (selection
criteria) and 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).
[[Page 65726]]
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 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 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 Sec. 643.7(b).
What assurances must an applicant submit? (Sec. 643.11(a))
Comment: Some commenters objected to the proposed change, reflected
in proposed Sec. 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
first-generation 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
Sec. 643.11(a).
[[Page 65727]]
Changes: In these final regulations, Sec. 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, Sec. 643.11(a) will
remain substantively unchanged from current Sec. 643.10(a).
Coordination Among Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations (Sec.
643.11(b))
Comment: The Department received many comments regarding the
language in proposed Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 non-Federal 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Need for the project.
(Sec. 643.21(a))
Comment: We received a number of comments on the requirement that,
for certain criteria in Sec. 643.21(a), the applicant provide data for
``the most recent year for which data is available.'' These commenters
suggested that the Department revise Sec. 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 Sec. 643.21(a)(2)), graduation (see Sec.
643.21(a)(3)), and postsecondary enrollment (see Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65728]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.21(b)) and the quality of
the applicant's plan of operation for addressing the identified needs
(see Sec. 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
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65729]]
adequately consider students' achievement and performance in their
target schools. The commenter stated that proposed Sec. 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 low-income 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.21(a)(6) from four points to six points.
What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Objectives. (Sec.
643.21(b))
Comment: Several commenters suggested that proposed Sec.
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 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 Sec.
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.
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. (Sec.
643.21(c)(2))
Comment: Some commenters requested that Sec. 643.21(c)(2),
regarding the applicant's plan for identifying and selecting eligible
participants, be revised to track current Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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. (Sec.
643.21(c)(2) and (4)) and Number of Participants (Sec. 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
[[Page 65730]]
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
(Sec. 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 Sec.
643.21(c)(4) and the new requirement to follow participants through
postsecondary education in Sec. 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 Sec.
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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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.
[[Page 65731]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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.
In Sec. 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 Sec.
643.21(c)(4).
Finally, we have revised Sec. 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.
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. (Sec. 643.21(c)(6))
Comment: Some commenters objected to the proposed criteria in Sec.
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, Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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. (Sec.
643.21(d)(2))
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the
selection 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.21(d)(2)
may be unclear. For this reason, we have made clarifying changes to
this provision.
Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 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.
[[Page 65732]]
How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience? (Sec. 643.22)
Comment: Some commenters asked that we revise Sec. 643.22 to
clarify the meaning of the term ``prior participants'' for purposes of
the PE evaluation in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) by removing the
requirement to track prior participants and clarifying, in Sec.
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 Sec.
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
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
643.22(d)(2), (d)(3) and (d)(6), we have deleted the words ``the
percentage of'' in Sec. 643.22(d)(4) and (d)(5). In addition, we have
revised Sec. 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 Sec. Sec.
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 Sec. 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and
(d)(5) by removing the reference to prior participants in each of these
three provisions. In Sec. 643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4), we have clarified
that current participants are ``participants served during the project
year.'' In addition, in Sec. 643.22(d)(4) and (d)(5), we have removed
the words ``the percentage of'' and in Sec. 643.22(d)(4) we have also
removed the words ``enrolled in and.''
Further, we have changed proposed Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 one point
is a negligible amount, which goes against the spirit of the HEA. The
1.5 points for this criterion in Sec. 643.22(d)(6) represents only 10
percent of the total PE points a project could earn.
Changes: None.
What are allowable costs? (Sec. 643.30)
Comment: A number of commenters suggested including several
additional costs to the list of allowable costs for the TS program in
Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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.
[[Page 65733]]
Section 643.30(c) establishes the conditions upon which a TS
project may pay for college applications or entrance examinations. We
have revised Sec. 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
college-access 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 643.30(f) and (g) to include service
agreements as an allowable cost.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that we revise Sec.
643.30(h)(3) to allow TS funds to be 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.30(h)(3)
to allow TS grantees to pay for courses taken through an accredited
institution
[[Page 65734]]
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
643.30(h) have been met.
Changes: We have amended proposed Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 competitions based on our experience, changing priorities,
and cost analyses.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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 Sec. 643.32(b)(5))
Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about proposed Sec.
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 Sec. 643.32(b)(5).
Changes: The Secretary is not including proposed Sec. 643.32(b)(5)
in these final regulations.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we received regarding proposed Sec.
643.11(b), we have revised the required assurance in Sec. 643.11(b).
Because of the change to Sec. 643.11(b), we believe it is necessary to
add a new Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.32(c))
Comment: Many commenters suggested that proposed Sec. 643.32(c),
which restricts a grant program director from administering more than
three programs, was confusing. One commenter also suggested that the
[[Page 65735]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 643.32(c)(3) (final Sec.
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 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: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html.
Educational Opportunity Centers (34 CFR Part 644)
What is the Educational Opportunity Centers program? (Sec. 644.1)
Comment: Several commenters stated that Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 644.1, we
decline to make the changes requested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Who is eligible for a grant? (Sec. 644.2)
Comment: Several commenters questioned the fact that Sec. 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.
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? (Sec. 644.4)
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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? (Sec. 644.21)
Objectives (Sec. 644.21(b))
Comment: A number of commenters stated that they believed that the
point value assigned to the first two objectives in proposed Sec.
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.
[[Page 65736]]
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 Sec. 644.21(b)(2) and the related PE criterion
in Sec. 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
Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 644.21(b)
and the related PE criterion in Sec. 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 Sec. 644.21(b)(2)
and the related PE criterion in Sec. 644.22(d)(2), the language
referenced is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of 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 Sec. 644.21(b) and the
related PE criterion in Sec. 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 Sec.
644.21(b)(2) and the related PE criterion in Sec. 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 Sec. 644.22(d)(2) through (d)(5) later in this preamble.
Finally, the Secretary agrees with the suggestion to change Sec.
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 Sec. 644.21(b)(1) through (b)(5) to refer to: (1)
Secondary school diploma or equivalent, (2) Postsecondary enrollment,
(3) Financial aid applications, and (4) College admission applications.
The Secretary has also revised Sec. 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 Sec. 644.21(d)
Comment: All of the comments regarding our proposed changes to
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 (Sec. 644.22(d)(2) through (d)(5))
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that awarding PE
points for the number of participants
[[Page 65737]]
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 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 low-income, 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
644.22(d)(3) to four points and increase the point value for financial
aid and college admissions assistance in Sec. 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 Sec. 644.21(b), should be changed to align with the PE
outcome measures. (See the discussion and changes for Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec.
644.22(a)(3), the Department has decided to change the wording in Sec.
644.22(d)(2) by adding after the word ``equivalent'' the words ``within
the time period specified in the approved objective'' and, in Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 644.22(d)(3)
to five points and increased the points assigned to the financial aid
assistance and college admission assistance criteria in Sec.
644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) to two points each.
Further, to be consistent with the changes we made to the
objectives in Sec. Sec. 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4), we have
[[Page 65738]]
revised the PE criteria related to financial aid and college admission
assistance in Sec. 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5). Because EOC projects will
report on program outcomes annually, in Sec. 644.22(d)(2) and (d)(3),
we have clarified that the objective applies only to ``participants
served during the project year.'' In Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 644.22(d)(5), we have changed the weight from 1.5
points to 2 points. We also have amended Sec. 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? (Sec. 644.30)
Comment: One commenter suggested adding admissions fees to the
allowable costs in Sec. 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 Sec. 644.30(f) because many technology systems
may require service agreement 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 644.30(f).
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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 Sec. 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 based on our experience, changing
priorities, and cost analyses.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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
Sec. 644.32(c)(4))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec.
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 Sec. 644.32(c)(4). Accordingly,
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 644.32(d)(3))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed in the preamble section on
Project Director under the TS program (proposed Sec. 643.32(c)(3),
final Sec. 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised proposed Sec. 644.32(c)(3)
(final Sec. 644.32(d)(3)).
Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 644.32(c)(3) (final Sec.
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.
[[Page 65739]]
Upward Bound (UB) Program (34 CFR Part 645)
Who is eligible for a grant? (Sec. 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? (Sec.
645.3)
Comment: One commenter noted that, to reflect the HEA, Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 645.3(b) needs to be amended to
include an individual who has a high risk for academic failure as an
eligible UB participant (see definitions in Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Report available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/ub-ubms-outcomes-2004.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 645.3 to
include as eligible participants individuals who have a high risk for
academic failure, and we have removed Sec. 645.3(d) which required
that participants be initially selected to participate in the UB
program prior to entering the twelfth grade.
What definitions apply to the Upward Bound Program? (Sec. 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
high-risk 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
[[Page 65740]]
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 Sec.
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? (Sec. 645.11)
Comment: A large number of commenters recommended that, under
proposed Sec. 645.11(a)(1) and (a)(2), the term ``postsecondary'' be
deleted. In the case of proposed Sec. 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
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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
What services may regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science
projects provide? (Sec. 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 on-campus 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 Sec.
645.12 to reflect that intent more clearly.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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?
(Sec. 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 Sec. 645.15(d)
because it appeared to be redundant with the requirements in Sec.
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 Sec. 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, first-generation 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 Sec. 645.15
incorrectly suggests that the services in the regulations are required
services. We have revised the section heading to clarify that the
[[Page 65741]]
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 Sec.
645.15(d) as being redundant with Sec. 645.11(b). However, Sec.
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 Sec.
645.15(d).
The Secretary does not agree with the request to include in Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 645.15 by
replacing the word ``do'' with the word ``may'' to clarify that the
listed services are voluntary.
How many applications for an Upward Bound award may an eligible
applicant submit? (Sec. 645.20)
Comment: One commenter requested that Sec. 645.20 clarify what
qualifies as ``another designated different population.''
Discussion: As provided in Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec.
645.21(a)(2) would open the door for children of affluent families to
receive services over more needy students.
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 one-third
calculation. Therefore, a UB project is not required to serve students
who have high risk of academic failure and may choose to serve only
low-income and potential first-generation college students.
Changes: None.
What assurances must an applicant include in an application?
Coordination Among Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations
(Sec. Sec. 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec.
643.11(b) for the Talent Search program--(Coordination Among Outreach
Programs Serving Similar Populations), we have revised Sec.
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 Sec. 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) (Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii))
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the
selection criteria in Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(i) (Academic performance, as
measured by grade point average (GPA)) and Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(ii)
(Academic performance, as measured by standardized test scores). The
commenters argued that the points assigned for the GPA objective should
be reduced. The commenters stated that it is difficult to increase GPAs
of high-risk 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 Sec.
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) (Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv))
Comment: In Sec. 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 Sec. 645.11(a)(5)(iii), which includes entry into
general educational development (GED) programs as a required service.
In regard to Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iv) (Completion of rigorous
secondary school program of study), several
[[Page 65742]]
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 Sec.
645.31(b)(1)(iii) to be consistent with the outcome criterion in the
statute and the PE criterion in Sec. 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 Sec. 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
discontinuation of ACG does not impact the requirement related to a
rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in Sec. 645.6.
Changes: We have amended Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iii) to refer to
secondary school retention and graduation.
What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Objectives
(Postsecondary completion) (Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(vi))
Comments: In regard to the criterion in Sec. 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 follow-up
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 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, Sec. 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 (Sec.
645.31(d)(2))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec.
643.21(d)(2) (Applicant and community support) for the TS program, we
have revised Sec. 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 Sec. 643.21(d)(2).
[[Page 65743]]
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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 (Sec. 645.32(e)(1))
Comment: In regard to proposed Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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, 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, ``Additional Efforts Could Help Education With its
Education Goals,'' May 2003, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the postsecondary completion criterion in proposed
Sec. 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 Sec.
645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi). First, we have clarified that when we
[[Page 65744]]
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 Sec. 643.22 (TS)
and Sec. 644.22 (EOC), we have deleted the words ``the percentage of''
where it appeared in proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi).
Changes: The Secretary has amended Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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)
Postsecondary Enrollment (Sec. 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)
Postsecondary Completion (Sec. 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) (Sec. 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
Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(ii). One commenter argued that VUB is an open-entry,
open-exit 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 Sec. 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 non-traditional timeline.
Discussion: For the reasons set forth in the preceding section, we
have made a number of clarifying changes to Sec. 645.32(e)(2) to
mirror the changes we made in Sec. 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 Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(ii) (Academic
improvement on standardized tests) will be assessed only for those
participants who completed the VUB program during the project year.
Changes: The Secretary has amended Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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? (Sec. 645.40)
Comment: Several commenters suggested that Sec. 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
[[Page 65745]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 645.40(n) and (o) to add
the cost of an equipment service agreement as an allowable cost. We
also have amended Sec. 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.
What are Upward Bound stipends? (Sec. 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? (Sec. 645.43)
Number of Participants (Sec. 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 Sec. 645.43(a) 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.
Project Director (Final Sec. 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 Sec.
643.32(c)(3), final Sec. 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised proposed Sec.
645.43(a)(3) (final Sec. 645.43(b)(3)).
Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 645.43(a)(3) (final Sec.
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
Sec. 645.43(c)(5))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed under Coordination Among
Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations (Sec. Sec. 645.21(a)(4),
(b)(4), and (c)(3)), we have added language to Sec. 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 Sec. 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? (Sec. 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
[[Page 65746]]
references to low-income and first-generation 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
Sec. 646.1(c) as this reference could dilute the focus of the program.
Discussion: The language in Sec. 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
(Sec. 646.4(a))
Comment: Six commenters requested minor changes to the SSS list of
required services in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 646.4(a)(5) that refers to participants enrolled in four-year
institutions of higher education. This language will 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 646.4(b))
Comment: Many commenters requested that we revise Sec. 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 Sec. 646.4(b) to reflect that intent more
clearly.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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.
What definitions apply? First Generation College Student (Sec.
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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65747]]
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.
What assurances and other information must an applicant include in an
application? SSS coordination with other projects (Sec. 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 pre-college 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.11 to include a new paragraph
(c) that requires an applicant to 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.
What assurances and other information must an applicant include in an
application? Providing Financial Assistance to Participants (Sec.
646.11(b))
Comment: A number of commenters requested that the Secretary change
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.11,
rather than as an allowable cost under Sec. 646.30(i).
Changes: We have amended Sec. 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 (Sec. Sec. 646.21(b)(3)(ii) and 646.22(e)(5))
Comment: A number of commenters requested that the Department
revise the evaluation criterion in Sec. 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
[[Page 65748]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.22(e)(3)), a grantee is
only required to report on participants served during the project year.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.22(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5).
What are allowable costs? (Sec. 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 Sec. 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
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
agreements as an allowable cost in Sec. 646.30(f).
Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.30(f) to include service
agreements for equipment.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we add a new paragraph (k) to
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.30(i), for staff or participants.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that the Department clarify the
use of funds allowed under Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65749]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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? (Sec. 646.32)
Number of Participants (new Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.32(c)(5)).
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec.
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 Sec. 646.32(c)(5).
Accordingly, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 646.32(c); final Sec. 646.32(d))
Comment: None.
Discussion: For the reasons discussed in the preamble section on
Project Director under the TS program (proposed Sec. 643.32(c)(3),
final Sec. 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised proposed Sec. 646.32(c)
(final Sec. 646.32(d)).
Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 646.32(c) (final Sec.
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? (Sec. 647.4)
Comment: Several commenters suggested a variety of changes to Sec.
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 Sec. 647.4(a) to a permissible
activity under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65750]]
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 Sec. 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? (Sec. 647.7)
Definition of Low-income
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the definition of
the term low-income individuals in Sec. 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 low-
income 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 low-income
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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 grantee-institution, 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 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 Sec. 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? (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
647.21, we agree that this change is appropriate to ensure
[[Page 65751]]
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 Sec. 647.21(b)(1) to add the words ``or
scholarly activity'' after the word ``research''.
How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience? (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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, 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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,
Sec. 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 Sec. 647.22(e)(2) to change the reference
from ``research and scholarly activities'' to ``research or scholarly
activities''. We have also amended Sec. 647.22(e)(2) and (e)(3) by
adding ``served during the project year'' after the word
``participants.''
What are allowable costs? (Sec. 647.30)
Comments: Two commenters suggested adding the phrase ``service
agreement'' after the word ``lease'' in Sec. 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 Sec. 647.30(d) and
have revised the regulations accordingly.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 647.30(d) to include to include
service agreements for equipment.
What other requirements must a grantee meet? (Sec. 647.32)
Number of Participants (new Sec. 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
[[Page 65752]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 647.32(c)(5))
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 647.11(d)). Accordingly, Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
Project Director (proposed Sec. 647.32(d); final Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 694.4)
Comment: One commenter asked how GEAR UP services would be provided
to cohort students who move to non-participating 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec.
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 (Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9)
Comment: One commenter suggested that proposed Sec. Sec. 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
[[Page 65753]]
rulemaking none of the non-Federal negotiators expressed a contrary
view, or urged that the language of our proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8 and
694.9 be modified to reflect the availability of waiver relief for
State applicants or grantees.
Changes: None.
What priorities does the Secretary establish for a GEAR UP grant?
(Sec. 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.
Services to students who were served under a previous GEAR UP grant
(Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 694.25 is to clarify when students who are still in
secondary schools who were served under a prior 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.
Executive Order 12866
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an ``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.
HEP and CAMP Programs
The Secretary has concluded that there is no need to discuss the
changes to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis because the changes to regulations for these programs were
minor. The most significant changes to these regulations address who
can be considered an immediate family member of a migrant individual in
order to be eligible for program services. The Department determined
that providing clarity to the term ``immediate family member'' would
help ensure there is a uniform standard of eligibility for these
programs.
Federal Trio Programs
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These 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.
[[Page 65754]]
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
Burden Calculations increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Staff............... (450 additional $546,750
applications * 27 hours
* $30 per hour) +
Overhead at 50% of
salary.
Clerical Staff................... (450 additional 56,700
applications * 7 hours
* $12 per hour) +
Overhead at 50% of
salary.
Use of Computer Equipment........ 450 additional 94,500
applications * ($200
for computer time + $10
for printing).
Operation Cost................... 450 additional 45,000
applications * $100
cost of finding and
maintaining application
materials.
--------------------------------------
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.''
[[Page 65755]]
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 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
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
Burden Calculations increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field reviewers.................. Proportional increase in $151,364
field reviewers as a
result of increase in
applications * $1,100
($1,000 honorarium,
$100 for expenses).
Processing applications.......... Proportional increase in 9,426
staff or staff hours as
a result of increase in
applications.
Contractor logistical support for Proportional increase in 343,807
workshops, achieving prior contract costs as a
unfunded applications, result of increase in
application processing, field applications.
reading and slate preparation.
Staff time for conducting Proportional increase in 141,382
supervised review. staff or staff hours as
a result of increase in
applications.
--------------------------------------
Total........................ ........................ 645,978
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 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
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
[[Page 65756]]
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 two-tiered 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 Sec. 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, ``Additional Efforts Could Help Education With its
Education Goals,'' May 2003, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 promote adoption of cost-
effective practices.
In accordance with Sec. 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.
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
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
[[Page 65757]]
has exhausted all revenues for replacing these matching funds.
Sections Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Section 694.19: Priority
Final Sec. 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.
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 Sec.
694.8(c) simply repeats this statutory provision.)
The final regulations governing waiver requests by applicants
(Sec. 694.8) and by grantees (Sec. 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 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, Sec.
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 non-Federal
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
Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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
[[Page 65758]]
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
non-Federal 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 in-kind 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 Sec. 694.14(g) makes the requirement in prior Sec.
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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 http://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 Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers................ $1,233
From Whom to Whom......................... 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
[[Page 65759]]
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.
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
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; Sec. Sec. 643.21,
643.22, 643.24 and 643.32 of the Talent Search (TS) regulations;
Sec. Sec. 644.21, 644.22, 644.24, and 644.32 of the Educational
Opportunity Centers (EOC) regulations; Sec. Sec. 645.31; 645.32,
645.35, and 645.43 of the Upward Bound (UB) regulations; Sec. Sec.
646.11, 646.21, 646.22, 646.24, 646.32, and 646.33 of the Student
Support Services (SSS) regulations; Sec. Sec. 647.21, 647.22 and
647.24 of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program
(McNair); and Sec. Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65760]]
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 Sec. Sec.
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: Sec. 643.21(a) (Need for the
project); 643.21(b) (Objectives); 643.21(c) (Plan of operation); and
643.21(d) (Applicant and community support).
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.
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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 65761]]
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: Sec. Sec.
645.31(b) (Objectives) and 645.31(d)(2) (Applicant and community
support). The revised selection criteria replace the criteria in
current Sec. Sec. 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 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 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 Sec. 646.21(b) (Objectives). In addition, we have revised
Sec. 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
[[Page 65762]]
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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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
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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 65763]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 644.22); therefore,
the Department does not expect the changes in Sec. 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.
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 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 65764]]
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 Sec. 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.
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 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.
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. 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 Sec. 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 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
[[Page 65765]]
approval and public comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection OMB
Regulation section Information section control number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 642.21 and 642.25 The final 1840-NEW1 (Training
(Training). regulations amend This is a new
the selection collection. The
criteria the final regulations
Secretary uses to will affect
evaluate an applicant burden in
application for a two ways. First,
Training grant. The the elimination of
final regulations the Need selection
add a new section criterion reduces
that establishes the amount of
processes and information an
procedures for a applicant must
review of include in its
unsuccessful application,
applications. 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.
Sections 643.21 and 643.24 The final 1840-NEW2 (TS) This
(TS). regulations amend will be a new
the selection collection. The
criteria the Department has
Secretary uses to already solicited
evaluate an public comments in
application for a a separate 30-day
TS grant. The final Federal Register
regulations also notice that was
add a new section published August 5,
that establishes 2010 on the new
processes and application process
procedures for a that will be used
review of for the FY 2011
unsuccessful competition for new
applications. 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.
Sections 644.21 and 644.24 The final 1840-NEW3 (EOC) This
(EOC). regulations amend will be a new
the selection collection. A
criteria the separate 30-day
Secretary uses to Federal Register
evaluate an notice will be
application for an published to
EOC grant. The solicit comments on
final regulations this form prior to
add a new section the next
that establishes competition for new
processes and grants scheduled
procedures for a for winter 2011.
review of
unsuccessful
applications.
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.
Sections 645.31 and 645.35 The final 1840-NEW4 (UB) This
(UB). regulations amend will be a new
the selection collection. A
criteria the separate 30-day
Secretary uses to Federal Register
evaluate an notice will be
application for a published to
UB grant. The final solicit comments on
regulations also this form prior to
add a new section the next
that establishes competition for new
processes and grants scheduled
procedures for a for fall 2011.
review of
unsuccessful
applications.
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.
Sections 646.11; 646.21 and The final 1840-NEW5 (SSS) This
646.24 (SSS). regulations amend will be a new
the selection collection. A
criteria the separate 30-day
Secretary uses to Federal Register
evaluate an notice will be
application for a published to
SSS grant and amend solicit comments on
the assurance and this form prior to
other information the next
an applicant must competition for new
include in its grants scheduled
application. The for fall 2014.
final regulations
also add a new
section that
establishes
processes and
procedures for a
review of
unsuccessful
applications.
[[Page 65766]]
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.
Sections 647.21 and 647.24 The final 1840-NEW6 (McNair)
(Mc Nair). regulations amend This will be a new
the selection collection. A
criteria the separate 30-day
Secretary uses to Federal Register
evaluate an notice will be
application for a published to
McNair grant. The solicit comments on
regulations also this form prior to
add a new section the next
that establishes competition for new
processes and grants scheduled
procedures for a for winter 2012.
review of The Department does
unsuccessful not expect that
applications. 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.
Section 642.22 (Training)... The final 1894-0003 (Training)
regulations amend The Department will
the PE criteria the continue to use the
Secretary uses to Department's
award PE points. generic performance
Under the final report for the
regulations, we Training program.
award PE points for The final changes
each criterion by reflected in this
determining whether provision are
the grantee met or editorial in
exceeded applicable nature. There will
project objectives. be no increase in
This determination estimated burden
will be based on hours.
the information the
grantee submits in
its annual
performance report.
Sections 643.22 (TS) and The final 1840-NEW7 (TS) This
643.32. regulations amend will be a new
the PE criteria the collection. A
Secretary uses to separate 60-day
award PE points. Federal Register
Under the final notice will be
regulations we published to
award PE points for solicit comments on
each criterion by this form following
determining whether the next
the grantee met or competition for new
exceeded applicable TS grants. The
project objectives. revised APR is
This determination needed for fall
will be based on 2012 data
the information the collection. The
grantee submits in final regulations
its annual will increase
performance report. 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.
The final Additionally, the
regulations also final regulatory
amend the amendments to
recordkeeping recordkeeping
requirements for TS 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.
Sections 644.22 and 644.32 The final 1840-NEW8 (EOC) This
(EOC). regulations amend will be a new
the PE criteria the collection. A
Secretary uses to separate 60-day
award PE points. Federal Register
Under the final notice will be
regulations we published to
award PE points for solicit comments on
each criterion by this form following
determining whether the next
the grantee met or competition for new
exceeded applicable EOC grants.The
project objectives. revised APR is
This determination needed for fall
will be based on 2012 data
the information the collection.
grantee submits in
its annual
performance report.
The final Because the new
regulations also statutory PE
amend the criteria are
recordkeeping similar to the
requirements for current regulatory
EOC. PE criteria, the
Department does not
expect the changes
to affect the
burden on EOC
grantees.
[[Page 65767]]
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.
Sections 645.32 and 645.43 The final 1840-NEW9 (UB) This
(UB). regulations amend will be a new
the PE criteria the collection. A
Secretary uses to separate 60-day
award PE points. Federal Register
Under the final notice will be
regulations we published to
award PE points for solicit comments on
each criterion by this form following
determining whether the next
the grantee met or competition for new
exceeded applicable UB grants.The
project objectives. revised APR is
This determination needed for fall
will be based on 2013 data
the information the collection.
grantee submits in
its annual
performance report.
The final The final regulatory
regulations also amendments to the
amend the PE criteria, which
recordkeeping address statutory
requirements for UB. 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.
Sections 646.22, 646.32 and The final 1840-NEW10 (SSS)
646.33 (SSS). regulations amend This will be a new
the PE criteria the collection. A
Secretary uses to separate 60-day
award PE points. Federal Register
Under the final notice will be
regulations we published to
award PE points for solicit comments on
each criterion by this form following
determining whether the next
the grantee met or competition for new
exceeded applicable SSS grants. The
project objectives. revised APR is
This determination needed for fall
will be based on 2011 data
the information the collection. The
grantee submits in final regulations
its annual will increase
performance report. grantee data
collection and
reporting
requirements in
three ways.
The final First, the
regulations amend regulatory
the recordkeeping amendments to the
requirements for PE criteria, which
SSS and also add a address statutory
new section on requirements for
matching tracking the
requirements for academic progress
SSS. 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.
Sections 647.22 and 647.32 The final 1840-NEW11 (McNair)
(Mc Nair). regulations amend This will be a new
the PE criteria the collection. A
Secretary uses to separate 60-day
award PE points. Federal Register
Under the final notice will be
regulations we published to
award PE points for solicit comments on
each criterion by this form following
determining whether the next
the grantee met or competition for new
exceeded applicable McNair grants. The
project objectives. revised APR is
This determination needed for fall
will be based on 2013 data
the information the collection. The
grantee submits in regulatory
its annual amendments to the
performance report. 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.
[[Page 65768]]
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.
694.7, 694.8, and 694.9 GEAR The final 1840-NEW12 This will
UP. regulations will be a new
provide that an collection. A
applicant for GEAR separate 30-day
UP funding must Federal Register
state in its notice will be
application the published to
percentage of the solicit comments on
cost of the GEAR UP this form prior to
project that the the next
application will competition for new
provide from non- grants scheduled
Federal funds. for spring 2011.
The final In total, there will
regulations also be an estimated
will provide that burden increase of
the Secretary may 12.5 hours per
waive a portion of applicant for an
the matching estimated 500
requirement in applicants. There
response to a will be an
written request for estimated burden
a waiver of the increase of 6,250
match. This written hours.
request can be
included in the
application or
submitted
separately.
The final 1840-NEW13 This will
regulations will be a new
also provide the collection. A
conditions that separate 60-day
must be met for the Federal Register
Secretary to notice will be
approve a request published to
to waive a portion solicit comments on
of the matching this form following
requirement. 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 60-day
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.
694.16...................... The final 1840-NEW13 This will
regulations will be a new
require grantees collection. A
whose initial GEAR separate 60-day
UP grant awards Federal Register
were made on or notice will be
after August 14, published to
2008 and grantees solicit comments on
whose initial GEAR this form following
UP grant awards the next
were made prior to competition for new
August 14, 2008 but GEAR UP grants. In
who, pursuant to total, there will
Sec. be an estimated
694.12(b)(2), elect burden increase of
to use the Sec. 87.6 hours per
694.14 requirements grantee for an
(rather than the estimated 100
Sec. 694.13 grantees. There
requirements) to will be an
furnish information estimated burden
on the amount of increase of 8,760
any Federal and non- hours.
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.
1840-NEW14 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
GEAR grants. There
will be an
estimated burden
increase of 6,925
hours.
[[Page 65769]]
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 non-
Federal 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.
694.19...................... The final 1840-NEW12 This will
regulations provide be a new
that the Secretary collection. A
awards competitive separate 30-day
preference priority Federal Register
points to an notice will be
eligible applicant published to
for a State grant solicit comments on
that has carried this form prior to
out a successful the next
State GEAR UP grant competition for new
prior to August 14, grants scheduled
2008 and has a for spring 2011. In
prior, demonstrated total, there will
commitment to early be an estimated
intervention, burden increase of
leading to college 5 hours per
access through applicant for an
collaboration and estimated 43
replication of applicants. There
successful will be an
strategies. 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.
694.20...................... The final 1840-NEW12 This will
regulations permit be a new
GEAR UP applicants collection. A
to request in their separate 30-day
applications a Federal Register
seventh year of notice will be
funding so that the published to
State or solicit comments on
Partnership may this form prior to
continue to provide the next
services to competition for new
students through grants scheduled
their first year of for spring 2011. In
attendance at an total, there will
institution of be an estimated
higher education. burden increase of
300 hours for each
applicant for an
estimated 500
applicants. There
will be an
estimated burden
increase of 150,000
hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Assessment of Educational Impact
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:
http://www.ed.gov/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: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers HEP/CAMP: 84.141A,
84.149A; TRIO: 84.042A, 84.044A, 84.047A, 84.047M, 84.047V, 84.066A,
84.103A, 84.217A; GEAR UP: 84.334A, 84.334S.)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647,
and 694
Colleges and universities, Disadvantaged students, Educational
programs, Discretionary grants, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Training.
Dated: September 23, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
0
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:
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 206.3 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the word ``parent'' and adding, in its
place, the words ``immediate family member''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 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).
* * * * *
[[Page 65770]]
0
3. Section 206.4 is amended by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(7) and
(a)(8), respectively.
0
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(6).
0
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(11).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 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).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 206.5 is amended by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as paragraphs
(c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively.
0
B. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
0
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(7), removing the citation
``(c)(7)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``(c)(8)''.
0
D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(8).
0
E. In paragraph (d)--
0
1. Removing the citation ``34 CFR 201.3'' and adding, in its place, the
citation ``34 CFR 200.81''; and
0
2. Removing the words ``Chapter 1'' and adding, in their place, the
words ``Title I''.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 206.5 What definitions apply to these programs?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Immediate family member means one or more of the following:
(i) A spouse.
(ii) A parent, step-parent, adoptive parent, foster parent, or
anyone with guardianship.
(iii) Any person who--
(A) Claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax
return for either of the previous two years, or
(B) Resides in the same household as the individual, supports that
individual financially, and is a relative of that individual.
* * * * *
(8) Seasonal farmworker means a person whose primary employment was
in farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant
year-round activity) for a period of at least 75 days within the past
24 months.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 206.10 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), adding the words ``(including
preparation for college entrance examinations)'' after the word
``program''.
0
B. In paragraph (b)(1)(v), removing the words ``Weekly stipends'' and
adding, in their place, the word ``Stipends''.
0
C. In paragraph (b)(1)(viii), adding the words ``(such as
transportation and child care)'' after the word ``services''.
0
D. In paragraph (b)(1), adding a new paragraph (ix).
0
E. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) introductory text, adding the words ``to
improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary
education'' after the word ``services''.
0
F. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), by--
0
1. Removing the word ``and''; and
0
2. Adding the words ``economic education, or personal finance'' before
the word ``counseling''.
0
G. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), removing the word ``student'' and adding,
in its place, the word ``students''.
0
H. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi) as paragraph (b)(2)(vii).
0
I. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi).
0
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:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 206.11 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``and'' after the
punctuation``;''.
0
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''.
0
C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 206.11 What types of CAMP services must be provided?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For students attending two-year institutions of higher
education, encouraging the students to transfer to four-year
institutions of higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the
rate of transfer of those students.
* * * * *
Sec. 206.20 [Amended]
0
7. Section 206.20(b)(2) is amended by removing the amount ``$150,000''
and adding, in its place, the amount ``$180,000''.
0
8. Section 206.31 is added to subpart D of part 206 to read as follows:
Sec. 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.
[[Page 65771]]
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(e))
PART 642--TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS
0
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]
0
10. Section 642.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
11. Section 642.2 is amended by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 642.2 Who are eligible applicants?
* * * * *
0
12. Section 642.3 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``funded'' after the word
``projects''.
0
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:
Sec. 642.3 Who are eligible participants?
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 642.4 and 642.5 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.5 and
642.6]
0
13. Sections 642.4 and 642.5 are redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.5 and
642.6.
0
14. A new Sec. 642.4 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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))
0
15. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.5 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. Revising paragraph (a).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 642.5 What regulations apply?
* * * * *
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
0
16. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.6 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
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
0
C. Adding an authority citation at the end of the section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 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
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:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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?
Sec. 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)
Sec. 642.11 What activities does the Secretary assist?
(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.
[[Page 65772]]
(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)
Sec. 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]
0
19. Part 642 is amended by redesignating subparts D and E as subparts C
and D, respectively.
Subpart C of Part 642 [Amended]
Sec. Sec. 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 642.34 [Redesignated
as Sec. Sec. 642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24]
0
20. Newly redesignated subpart C of part 642 is amended by
redesignating Sec. Sec. 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 642.34 as
Sec. Sec. 642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24, respectively.
0
21. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.20 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), removing the citation
``Sec. 642.31'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``Sec.
642.21''.
0
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the number ``100'' and adding, in its
place, the number ``75''.
0
D. Revising paragraph (b).
0
E. Adding new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 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
applicant's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery, as
provided in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 642.23.
* * * * *
0
22. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.21 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C).
0
C. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C).
0
D. Removing paragraph (f).
0
E. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical after the last paragraph
in the section.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 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)
* * * * *
0
23. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 642.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in Sec. 642.20(b), the
Secretary--
(1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring
Training program grant;
(2) To determine the number of PE points to be awarded, uses the
approved project objectives for the applicant's expiring Training
program grant and the information the applicant submitted in its annual
performance report (APR); and
(3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports,
and project evaluation reports indicate the APR data used to calculate
PE are incorrect.
(b)(1) The Secretary may add from 1 to 15 points to the point score
obtained on the basis of the selection criteria in Sec. 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)
0
24. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.23 is amended by revising the section
heading to read as follows:
[[Page 65773]]
Sec. 642.23 How does the Secretary ensure geographic distribution of
awards?
* * * * *
0
25. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.24 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 642.24 What are the Secretary's priorities for funding?
(a) The Secretary, after consultation with regional and State
professional associations of persons having special knowledge with
respect to the training of Special Programs personnel, may select one
or more of the following subjects as training priorities:
(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.
(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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17)
0
26. Section 642.25 is added to subpart C of part 642 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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 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
[[Page 65774]]
awarded after the second review is completed.
(2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank
order as described in Sec. 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 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)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
0
27. A new Sec. 642.26 is added to subpart C of part 642 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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]
Sec. Sec. 642.40 and 642.41 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.30 and
642.31]
0
28. Newly redesignated subpart D of part 642 is amended by
redesignating Sec. Sec. 642.40 and 642.41 as Sec. Sec. 642.30 and
642.31, respectively.
0
29. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.30 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. In paragraph (d), removing the words ``if approved in writing by the
Secretary''.
The revision reads as follow:
Sec. 642.30 What are allowable costs?
* * * * *
0
30. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.31 is amended by revising the section
heading to read as follows:
Sec. 642.31 What are unallowable costs?
* * * * *
PART 643--TALENT SEARCH
0
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.
0
32. Section 643.1 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, and facilitate the
application for,'' after the word ``of''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 643.2 is amended by:
[[Page 65775]]
0
A. In the introductory text, adding the word ``entities'' after the
word ``following''.
0
B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-based
organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth'' after the
word ``organization''.
0
C. Removing paragraph (d).
0
D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
0
E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
0
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:
Sec. 643.2 Who is eligible for a grant?
* * * * *
(c) A secondary school.
* * * * *
0
34. Section 643.3 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
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''.
* * * * *
0
35. Section 643.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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;
(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 Sec. 643.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12)
0
36. Section 643.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
37. Section 643.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 643.6 What regulations apply?
* * * * *
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
0
38. Section 643.7(b) is amended by:
0
A. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.
0
B. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.
0
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:
Sec. 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
short-term 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).
[[Page 65776]]
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.
* * * * *
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?
0
39. Subpart B of part 643 is amended by revising the subpart heading to
read as set forth above.
Sec. 643.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 643.11]
0
39a. Redesignate Sec. 643.10 as Sec. 643.11.
0
40. A new Sec. 643.10 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
41. Newly redesignated Sec. 643.11 is amended by:
0
A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in
its place, the word ``must''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (b).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 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 minimize the
duplication of services and promote collaborations so that more
students can be served.
* * * * *
0
42. Section 643.20 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the word
``maximum'' the first time it appears.
0
C. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
0
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
0
E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``through (3)'' and adding, in
their place, the words ``and (a)(2)''.
0
F. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
43. Section 643.21 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
0
B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
0
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:
Sec. 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
[[Page 65777]]
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.
(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
Sec. 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 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.
(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 target schools and institutions of
higher education.
* * * * *
0
44. Section 643.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 643.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in Sec.
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
[[Page 65778]]
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)
Sec. 643.23 [Amended]
0
45. Section 643.23 is amended by:
0
A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words
``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
0
B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$180,000'' and adding, in
its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
0
46. A new Sec. 643.24 is added to subpart C of part 643 to read as
follows:
Sec. 643.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error for applications not
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the
application if--
(i) The applicant has met all application submission requirements
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the
other published application materials for the competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an
application includes--
(i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the
competition;
(ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
(A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by
an ineligible applicant;
(B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the
published page limit;
(C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding
greater than the published maximum award; or
(D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing
critical sections of the application; and
(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 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 65779]]
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.
(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)
0
47. Section 643.30 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word
``project'' before the word ``staff''.
0
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information
relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.
0
D. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the word ``and''.
0
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''.
0
F. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
0
G. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation programs
for participants'' after the word ``materials''.
0
H. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
I. Revising paragraph (f).
0
J. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 643.30 What are allowable costs?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) Transportation to institutions of higher education, secondary
schools not attended by the participants, or other locations at which
the participant receives instruction that is part of a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
* * * * *
(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
Sec. 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.
0
48. Section 643.31 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the phrase
``Tuition, stipends,'' and by adding, in its place, the word
``Stipends''.
0
49. Section 643.32 is amended by:
[[Page 65780]]
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
B. In paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
0
C. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the word ``and''.
0
D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in
its place, the words ``; and''.
0
E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
0
F. Revising paragraph (d).
0
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:
Sec. 643.32 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) * * *
(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
0
50. The authority citation for part 644 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-16, unless otherwise
noted.
0
51. Section 644.1 is amended by:
0
A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``to provide''.
0
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 ``;''.
0
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''.
0
D. Adding a new paragraph (c).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
52. Section 644.2 is amended by:
0
A. In the introductory text of the section, adding the word
``entities'' after the word ``following''.
0
B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-based
organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth'' after the
word ``organization''.
0
C. Removing paragraph (d).
0
D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
0
E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
0
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:
Sec. 644.2 Who is eligible for a grant?
* * * * *
(c) A secondary school.
* * * * *
0
53. Section 644.4 is amended by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) as
paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l), respectively.
0
B. Adding a new paragraph (e).
0
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (g), removing the word ``Personal''
and adding, in its place, the words ``Individualized personal, career,
and academic''.
0
D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (k).
The addition and revision read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
54. Section 644.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
55. Section 644.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 644.6 What regulations apply?
* * * * *
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
0
56. Section 644.7(b) is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.
0
C. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 65781]]
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
short-term 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 (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?
0
57. The heading for subpart B of part 644 is revised to read as set
forth above.
Sec. 644.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 644.11]
0
58. In subpart B of part 644, Sec. 644.10 is redesignated as Sec.
644.11.
0
59. A new Sec. 644.10 is added to subpart B of part 644 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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)
0
60. Newly redesignated Sec. 644.11 is amended by:
0
A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in
its place, the word ``must''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (b).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
61. Section 644.20 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the word
``maximum'' the first time it appears.
0
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
0
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
0
E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3)'' and adding, in their place, the words ``paragraph (a)''.
0
F. Revising paragraph (d).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
62. Section 644.21 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
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:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
63. Section 644.22 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 65782]]
Sec. 644.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in Sec.
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.
(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)
0
64. Section 644.23 is amended by:
0
A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words
``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 644.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) $200,000; or
* * * * *
0
65. Section 644.24 is added to subpart C of part 644 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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
(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
[[Page 65783]]
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 Sec. 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 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.
(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)
0
66. Section 644.30 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word
``project'' before the word ``staff''.
0
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information
relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.
0
D. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
0
E. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation programs
for participants'' after the word ``materials''.
0
F. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
G. Revising paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
67. Section 644.32 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
B. In paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
0
C. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the word ``and''.
0
D. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in
its place, the words ``; and''.
[[Page 65784]]
0
E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
0
F. Revising paragraph (d).
0
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:
Sec. 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
0
68. The authority citation for part 645 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13, unless otherwise
noted.
0
69. Section 645.2 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Institutions'' and adding, in
its place, the words ``An institution''.
0
B. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 645.2 Who is eligible for a grant?
* * * * *
(b) A public or private agency or organization, including a
community-based 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.
* * * * *
0
70. Section 645.3 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``or'' after the punctuation
``;'';
0
B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in
its place, the word ``; or'';
0
C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).
0
D. In paragraph (d), removing the words ``but has not entered the
twelfth grade''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 645.3 Who is eligible to participate in an Upward Bound project?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) An individual who has a high risk for academic failure.
* * * * *
0
71. Section 645.4 is amended by:
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. Removing paragraph (a).
0
C. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c), respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 645.4 What are the grantee requirements for documenting the low-
income and first-generation status of participants?
* * * * *
0
72. Section 645.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 645.5 What regulations apply?
* * * * *
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
0
73. Section 645.6(b) is amended by:
0
A. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.
0
B. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.
0
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 school
program of study'', and ``Veteran who has a high risk for academic
failure''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 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
short-term 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
[[Page 65785]]
(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 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 Sec. 645.6(b).
* * * * *
0
74. Section 645.11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 645.11 What services do all Upward Bound projects provide?
(a) Any project assisted under this part must provide--
(1) Academic tutoring to enable students to complete secondary or
postsecondary courses, which may include instruction in reading,
writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects;
(2) Advice and assistance in secondary and postsecondary course
selection;
(3) Assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and
completing college admission applications;
(4)(i) Information on the full range of Federal student financial
aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan
forgiveness) and resources for locating public and private
scholarships; and
(ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid;
(5) Guidance on and assistance in--
(i) Secondary school reentry;
(ii) Alternative education programs for secondary school dropouts
that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school diploma;
(iii) Entry into general educational development (GED) programs; or
(iv) Entry into postsecondary education; and
(6) Education or counseling services designed to improve the
financial 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)
Sec. Sec. 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.
645.13, 645.14, and 645.15]
0
75. Sections 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 of subpart B of part 645 are
redesignated as Sec. Sec. 645.13, 645.14, and 645.15 of subpart B of
part 645, respectively.
0
76. A new Sec. 645.12 is added to subpart B of part 645 to read as
follows:
Sec. 645.12 What services may regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound
Math-Science 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 Sec. 645.11 that are
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient,
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary
[[Page 65786]]
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 Sec. 645.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)
0
77. Newly redesignated Sec. 645.15 is amended by--
0
A. Revising the section heading.
0
B. In the introductory text, removing the words ``Sec. 645.11(a) and
may be provided under Sec. 645.11(b)'' and adding, in their place, the
citation ``Sec. 645.11''.
0
C. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``and''.
0
D. In paragraph (c), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in its
place, the word ``; and''.
0
E. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
78. Section 645.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
79. Section 645.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 645.21 What assurances must an applicant include in an
application?
(a) An applicant for a Regular Upward Bound award must assure the
Secretary that--
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college
students;
(2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals,
potential first-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
low-income 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
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college
students;
(2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals,
potential first-generation 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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)
0
80. Section 645.30 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the word
``maximum'' the first time it appears.
0
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
0
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
81. Section 645.31 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 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);
[[Page 65787]]
(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.
* * * * *
0
82. Section 645.32 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 645.32 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in Sec.
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 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 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)
Sec. 645.33 [Amended]
0
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''.
0
84. Section 645.34 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
[[Page 65788]]
0
85. A new Sec. 645.35 is added to subpart D of part 645 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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 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 Sec. 645.30 based on the available funds for the
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the
applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as 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
[[Page 65789]]
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)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
0
86. Section 645.40 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (n).
0
C. Redesignating paragraph (o) as paragraph (p).
0
D. Adding new paragraph (o).
0
E. Adding new paragraph (q).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 645.40 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
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
87. Section 645.42 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 645.42 What are Upward Bound stipends?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The stipend may not exceed $60 per month for the summer school
recess for a period not to exceed three months, except that youth
participating in a work-study position may be paid $300 per month
during the summer school recess.
* * * * *
0
88. Section 645.43 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (a).
0
B. Revising paragraph (b).
0
C. In paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
0
D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in
its place, the words ``; and''.
0
E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
0
F. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (c).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 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)
* * * * *
[[Page 65790]]
PART 646--STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES
0
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.
0
90. Section 646.1 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``college'' before the word
``retention''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (c).
0
C. Adding new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
91. Section 646.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 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 Sec. 646.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
0
92. Section 646.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
93. Section 646.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 646.6 What regulations apply?
* * * * *
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
0
94. Section 646.7 is amended by:
0
A. Removing paragraph (a).
0
B. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively.
0
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:
Sec. 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
short-term 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
[[Page 65791]]
(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.
* * * * *
0
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?
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?
(a) An eligible applicant may submit more than one application as
long as each application describes a project that serves a different
campus or a designated different population.
(b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published
application materials for the competition, the different populations
for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
Sec. 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)
0
96. Section 646.20 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
0
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
0
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
97. Section 646.21 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
B. Revising the OMB control number at the end of the section.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 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)
* * * * *
[[Page 65792]]
0
98. Section 646.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in Sec.
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 academic year or transfer from a two-
year institution to a four-year institution during the academic year.
(3) (4 points) Good academic standing. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective regarding the 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)
Sec. 646.23 [Amended]
0
99. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended by removing the amount ``$170,000''
and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
0
100. A new Sec. 646.24 is added to subpart C of part 646 to read as
follows:
Sec. 646.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error for applications not
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the
application if--
(i) The applicant has met all of the application submission
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an
application includes--
(i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures
included in the 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
[[Page 65793]]
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 Sec. 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 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 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)
0
101. Section 646.30 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (e)
0
C. Revising paragraph (f).
0
D. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 65794]]
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.
* * * * *
Sec. 646.31 [Amended]
0
102. Section 646.31(b) is amended by adding the words ``, except for
Grant aid under Sec. 646.30(i)'' after the word ``support''.
Sec. 646.32 [Amended]
0
103. Section 646.32 is amended by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d), and (e) respectively.
0
B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
0
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2), removing the words ``Higher
Education''.
0
D. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), removing paragraph (b)(3).
0
E. In newly redesignated paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the
word ``shall'' and adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
0
F. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(3), removing the word ``and''.
0
G. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4), removing the punctuation
``.'' and adding, in its place, the words ``; and''.
0
H. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
0
I. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d).
0
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:
Sec. 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 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.
* * * * *
0
104. Section 646.33 is added to subpart D of part 646 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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)
PART 647--RONALD E. MCNAIR POSTBACCALAUREATE ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM
0
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.
0
106. Section 647.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 647.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15)
0
107. Section 647.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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)
0
108. Section 647.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 647.6 What regulations apply?
* * * * *
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
0
109. Section 647.7(b) is amended by:
0
A. Removing the definition of ``Summer internship''.
[[Page 65795]]
0
B. In the definition of ``Graduate center'', revising the introductory
text.
0
C. Revising the definition of ``Groups underrepresented in graduate
education''.
0
D. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.
0
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:
Sec. 647.7 What definitions apply?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Different campus means a site of an institution of higher education
that--
(1) Is geographically apart from the main campus of the
institution;
(2) Is permanent in nature; and
(3) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree,
certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible
entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the
McNair TRIO program and that--
(1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the
entity has applied for a grant to serve; or
(2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that
the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct
needs for specialized services.
Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, 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
short-term 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 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?
0
110. Subpart B of part 647 is amended by revising the subpart heading
to read as set forth above.
Sec. 647.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 647.11]
0
110a. Redesignate Sec. 647.10 as Sec. 647.11.
0
111. Section 647.10 is added to subpart B of part 647 to read as
follows:
Sec. 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))
0
112. Newly redesignated Sec. 647.11 is amended by adding paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 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 grantee-institution, 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))
0
113. Section 647.20 is amended by:
0
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''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
0
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi).
0
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 647.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
114. Section 647.21 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
B. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 647.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
* * * * *
[[Page 65796]]
(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)
* * * * *
0
115. Section 647.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 647.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an applicant described in Sec. 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 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)
Sec. 647.23 [Amended]
0
116. Section 647.23 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b), introductory text, removing the words ``beginning
in fiscal year 1995''.
0
B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$190,000'' and adding, in
its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
0
117. Section 647.24 is added to subpart C of part 647 to read as
follows:
Sec. 647.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?
(a) Technical or administrative error for applications not
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the
application if--
(i) The applicant has met all of the application submission
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications and the other published application materials for the
competition; and
(ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
(2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an
application includes--
(i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the
competition;
(ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
(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
[[Page 65797]]
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 Sec. 647.20 based on the available funds for the
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the
applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as 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 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)
0
118. Section 647.30 amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b), removing the amount ``$2,400'' and, adding, in its
place, the amount ``$2,800''.
0
B. Revising paragraph (d).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 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.
0
119. Section 647.32 is amended by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as (b), (c), (d),
and (e), respectively.
0
B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
0
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
0
D. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following newly-
redesignated paragraph (e).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
[[Page 65798]]
Sec. 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)
0
120. The authority citation for Part 694 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28.
0
121. Section 694.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 694.1 What is the maximum amount that the Secretary may award
each fiscal year to a Partnership or a State under this program?
(a) Partnership grants. The Secretary may establish the maximum
amount that may be awarded each fiscal year for a GEAR UP Partnership
grant in a notice published in the Federal Register. The maximum amount
for which a Partnership may apply may not exceed the lesser of the
maximum amount established by the Secretary, if applicable, or the
amount calculated by multiplying--
* * * * *
0
122. Section 694.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 694.4 Which students must a State or Partnership serve when
there are changes in the cohort?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Must continue to provide GEAR UP services to at least those
students in the cohort who attend one or more participating schools
that together enroll a substantial majority of the students in the
cohort.
* * * * *
0
123. Section 694.7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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)
0
124. Part 694 is amended by redesignating Sec. Sec. 694.8, 694.9,
694.10, 694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 694.8............................................ Sec. 694.10
Sec. 694.9............................................ Sec. 694.11
Sec. 694.10........................................... Sec. 694.13
Sec. 694.11........................................... Sec. 694.15
Sec. 694.12........................................... Sec. 694.17
Sec. 694.13........................................... Sec. 694.18
Sec. 694.15........................................... Sec. 694.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
125. New Sec. 694.8 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 694.8 Under what conditions may the Secretary approve a request
from a Partnership applying for a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion of
the matching requirement?
(a) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request for
a waiver of up to 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two
years if the applicant demonstrates in its application a significant
economic hardship that stems from a specific, exceptional, or
uncontrollable event, such as a natural disaster, that has a
devastating effect on the members of the Partnership and the community
in which the project would operate.
(b)(1) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request
to waive up to 50 percent of the matching requirement for up to two
years if the applicant demonstrates in its application a pre-existing
and an on-going 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
[[Page 65799]]
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 reduced-price lunch
under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)
0
126. New Sec. 694.9 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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 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 Sec. 694.8, the grantee may request an additional
waiver of the matching requirement under this section no earlier than
60 days before the expiration of the grantee's existing waiver.
(d) The Secretary may grant an additional waiver request for up to
50 percent of the matching requirement for a period of up to two years
beyond the expiration of any previous waiver.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)
0
127. New Sec. 694.12 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec.
694.13 or Sec. 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 Sec. 694.13 or Sec. 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
Sec. 694.13 unless it elects to provide the scholarships in accordance
with the requirements of Sec. 694.14 pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
(2) Election to use Sec. 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
Sec. 694.14 (rather than the requirements of Sec. 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
Sec. 694.14; and
(ii) Such election does not decrease the amount of the scholarship
promised to any individual student under the grant.
(c) Section 404E scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR
UP grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008. A State or
Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using funds
from GEAR UP grant awards that were made on or after August 14, 2008,
must provide such scholarship awards in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 694.14.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25)
0
128. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.13 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 694.13 What are the requirements concerning section 404E
scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were
made prior to August 14, 2008?
The following requirements apply to section 404E scholarship awards
for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to
August 14, 2008 unless the grantee elects to provide such scholarship
awards in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 694.14 pursuant to
Sec. 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--
[[Page 65800]]
(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 Sec. 694.21 or Sec.
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)
0
129. Section 694.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 694.14 What are the requirements concerning section 404E
scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were
made on or after August 14, 2008?
The following requirements apply to section 404E scholarship awards
provided by grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made on or
after August 14, 2008 and any section 404E scholarship awards for
grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were issued prior to August
14, 2008, but who, pursuant to Sec. 694.12(b)(2), elected to use the
Sec. 694.14 requirements (rather than the Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
694.16(a), States must use funds held in reserve to make scholarships
to eligible students.
(3) Scholarships must be made to all students who are eligible
under the definition in paragraph (b) of this section. A grantee may
not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have the effect
of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student.
(d) A State using a priority approach may award scholarships under
paragraph (a) of this section to eligible students identified by
priority at any time during the grant award period rather than
reserving scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a
project or after the grant award period.
(e) States providing scholarships must provide information on the
eligibility requirements for the scholarships to all participating
students upon the students' entry into the GEAR UP program.
(f) A State must provide scholarship funds as described in this
section to all eligible students who attend an institution of higher
education in the State, and may provide these scholarship funds to
eligible students who attend institutions of higher education outside
the State.
(g) A State or a Partnership that chooses to participate in the
scholarship component in accordance with section 404E of the HEA may
award continuation scholarships in successive award years to each
student who received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or
accepted for enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an
institution of higher education.
(h) A GEAR UP scholarship, provided under section 404E of the HEA,
may not be considered in the determination of a student's eligibility
for other grant assistance provided under title IV of the HEA, except
that in no case may the total amount of student financial assistance
awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA exceed the student's
total cost of attendance.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25)
0
130. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 non-Federal
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)
0
131. Section 694.16 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 65801]]
Sec. 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 Sec. 694.12(b)(2), elect to use the
Sec. 694.14 requirements (rather than the Sec. 694.13 requirements):
(a) Scholarship funds held in reserve by States under Sec.
694.14(c) or by Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that
are not used by eligible students as defined in Sec. 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))
0
132. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.18 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 applicable, that a student may be eligible to receive.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-26)
0
133. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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))
0
134. New Sec. 694.20 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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
(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))
0
135. New Sec. 694.21 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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))
0
136. New Sec. 694.22 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 65802]]
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 Sec. 694.3 through the first year of attendance at
an institution of higher education.
(m) Fostering and improving parent and family involvement in
elementary and secondary education by promoting the advantages of a
college education, and emphasizing academic admission requirements and
the need to take college preparation courses, through parent engagement
and leadership activities.
(n) Disseminating information that promotes the importance of
higher education, explains college preparation and admission
requirements, and raises awareness of the resources and services
provided by the eligible entities to eligible students, their families,
and communities.
(o) For a GEAR UP Partnership grant, in the event that matching
funds described in the approved application are no longer available,
engaging other potential partners in a collaborative manner to provide
matching resources and to participate in other activities authorized in
Sec. Sec. 694.21, 694.22, and 694.23.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24(b))
0
137. New Sec. 694.23 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 694.23 What additional activities are allowable for State GEAR
UP projects?
In addition to the required and permissible activities identified
in Sec. Sec. 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
(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)
0
138. New Sec. 694.24 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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;
[[Page 65803]]
(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)
0
139. New Sec. 694.25 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 694.25 Are GEAR UP grantees required to provide services to
students who were served under a previous GEAR UP grant?
If a Partnership or State is awarded a GEAR UP grant on or after
August 14, 2008 (i.e., initial grant), the grant ends before all
students who received GEAR UP services under the grant have completed
the twelfth grade, and the grantee receives a new award in a subsequent
GEAR UP competition (i.e., new grant), the grantee must--
(a) Continue to provide services required by or authorized under
Sec. Sec. 694.21, 694.22, and 694.23 to all students who received GEAR
UP services under the initial grant and remain enrolled in secondary
schools until they complete the twelfth grade; and
(b) Provide the services specified in paragraph (a) of this section
by using Federal GEAR UP funds awarded for the new grant or funds from
the non-Federal matching contribution required under the new grant.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)(3)(B) and 1070a-22(d)(1)(C))
[FR Doc. 2010-24324 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P